1990-03-15

Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for External Relations, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 1988-89 annual report for CIDA.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I said shortly after my appointment as Solicitor General that I would be examining as a priority
possible modifications to RCMP regulations governing the wearing of the Force's distinctive, or red tunic, uniform.
I again said in the Commons last Friday that I was reviewing this complex issue and that I would be making an early decision when I had verified the facts.

Madam Speaker, today I wish to inform the House that I have completed my study of this issue and am now responding to the recommendation of the RCMP Commissioner to amend the RCMP regulations governing the wearing of the red tunic uniform.
First, the amended regulations under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act will state that female members will now wear the same red tunic uniform as male members of the force. The design of this uniform will remain the same.
A second amendment permits the Commissioner to exempt individual RCMP members from wearing items of the force's official uniform on the basis of the member's religious beliefs.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre H. Cadieux: The modifications to the regulations to accommodate religious beliefs squares with Canadian human rights legislation and reflects this government's strong commitment to a multicultural society.

But the changes will also encourage Canadians from visible minorities to seek a career in our national police force so that it reflects more clearly Canada's varied ethnic and cultural composition.

Debate about RCMP uniforms has been comprehensive, intense and lengthy. Many strongly held and strongly expressed views had to be considered before a decision was possible. A decision has now been taken. I believe that the decision is not only correct in law but that it is also the right decision to make.

March 15, 1990
Routine Proceedings
I encourage all Canadians to support the RCMP, not only in these changes but in the leadership it is showing in making policing as a career open to all Canadians.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal caucus and the Liberal party, I want to congratulate the Solicitor General for taking a decision that most believe was long overdue, a decision that deals with the RCMP dress code regulations, not just in connection with the Sikh turban but deals also with the uniform worn by female members of the force. In fact, it deals radically with the uniform worn by female members of the force.
I cannot proceed further without noting that it took eight months for the previous Solicitor General to make no decision. It took this Solicitor General two weeks to make a decision. I do not know why this Solicitor General is so speedy, but we do congratulate him for making this decision at this time.
Although it is not the most important issue surrounding that decision, I cannot help but point out that as a result of the procrastination of the Solicitor General, and not of the RCMP because they put in their views last June, there have been many things said and done that we in the House would rather not have heard said and done over the last few months.
I should state that there was really a leadership vacuum and instead of leadership we had a debate which hopefully in the long run will be seen as healthy, although in the short run there was certainly some downside. I want to suggest that there may even be a continuing leadership vacuum in other areas here in this Parliament on the part of the government in dealing with bilingualism, minority language rights, and efforts to ensure progress in the objectives of the Meech Lake Accord.
In any event, without overstating that, I want to point out that we have not changed the stetson as part of the uniform. We have only exempted the wearing of the stetson for religious reasons. That particular exemption is completely consistent with our Charter and I believe with the views of Canadians.
We should not confuse that exemption with multicul-turalism. Yes, there is a connection, but I do not think this is the same thing. I apologize to any Dutch Canadians for stereotyping them, but this is not the same as allowing Dutch Canadians to wear wooden shoes as part of the uniform in the RCMP. This is a much different situation; this is a religious exemption.
In conclusion, my party is very pleased to support the decision of the Solicitor General and we look forward to all the benefits that will accrue as a result of that decision.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, this decision, for which we congratulate the minister, has our complete, firm and unqualified support. It is a correct decision and we are very pleased that the minister has made it and announced as quickly as he has.
I know there are many Canadians who are concerned about this and I want to say to them that I hope they will give this change a chance. It is very important for this country that this step be taken.
It should be understood that the change announced by the minister, as he has referred to it, was required by law. Commissioner Inkster, when he appeared before the justice committee last year, explained the rationale for his recommendation. He said that when he was first asked about this in 1984, he stated that it was not a requirement or that it was not even permitted under the RCMP rules. But when he looked at the law, and particularly the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights, he came to the conclusion that there was no choice, this was a requirement of our law and it must be understood by Canadians to be so.
It is also a tribute to the Sikh community in Canada and to the potential for Sikh Canadians to play a very strong role in our police force and in our armed services. The Sikhs have a long tradition of public service in this area and it is in recognition of this as well that this decision has our support.
Thirdly, this is a very important statement in respect of the government's views and of Parliament's views against racism in this country. I want to pay tribute to the statement made last week by the Prime Minister. I do not often get a chance to do that, but his statement on this issue was a very good statement and one which I
March 15, 1990

know reflected the feeling of the overwhelming number of members of Parliament and of the overwhelming number of Canadians, and that should be understood.
Those who appeared in certain aspects of last night program on The Journal do not reflect the views of Canadians and I applaud the decision that the minister has taken. It is important that he has made this as his first statement of policy in this House. It is a progressive step. He has a big agenda ahead of him and I hope that this will be the first of many progressive statements that he will be making in his new role as Solicitor General of Canada.



AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN STATUTES TO ENABLE RESTRAINT OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES

Hon. John McDermid (for the Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce a bill entitled an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the hon. minister have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
The hon. member for Louis-Hebert, on a point of order.


Mrs.   Duplessis@: Madam Speaker, I would like it to be read into the record that if I had been present, I would have voted for the government.
Anderson
Attewell
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Boyer
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Champagne (Champlain)
Cole
Cooper

March 15, 1990
Routine Proceedings


John Horton McDermid: that the bill be read the first time and printed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? On a point of order, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Mr. Milliken:: Madam Speaker, the bill before us is one to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures. In other words, without having seen the bill, it sounds as though it is one to reduce the government expenditures, yet attached to the bill is a royal recommendation.


Mr. Gauthier:: As long, Madam Speaker, as we do not get into an extended period of members wanting it to be shown on the record that they just walked in. I know members who were not here at the first vote; if they would be given the chance to record their vote, I would agree to that.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do not have unanimous consent. All those in favour of the motion will please rise.
(Division No. 202)
I want to give notice today that once I have seen the bill and been able to see how it restrains expenditures, I will object to the attachment of this royal recommendation to the bill as an improper use of the royal recommendation.
I think, frankly, the government House Leader has not studied the bill, unless it happens to be one of these Tory tactics of saving money by spending like the GST where we have spent $300 million to collect the tax.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the members.
Before the taking of the vote.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I think there would be unanimous consent to apply the vote taken on the just completed vote to this one.
++YEAS
Members
Anderson
Attewell
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Boyer
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Champagne (Champlain)
Cole
Cooper
Corbett
Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling
de Cotret
Domm
Edwards
Fretz
Guilbault
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Hogue
Horner
Hudon
Jelinek
Joncas
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Larrivee
Lopez
MacKay
Marin
Mazankowski
Merrithew
Moore
O'Kurley
Ricard
Robitaille
Saint-Julien
Sparrow
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tamer (Halton-Peel)
Van de Walle Venne Vien White
Andre
Bertrand
Bjomson
Bourgault
Brightwell
Cadieux
Chadwick
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cook
Corbeil
Cote
Danis
DeBlois
Desjardins
Duplessis
Felt ham
Gibeau
Gustafson
Hawkes
Hockin
Holtmann
Homing
Hughes
Johnson
Kempling
Koury
Loiselle
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Malone
Mayer
McDermid
Monteith
Nicholson
Pronovost
Richardson
Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth) Tardif
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Worthy-90
++NAYS
Allmand Arseneault Bevilacqua Blackburn (Brant)
Members
Anawak
Bellemare
Black
Butland
March 15, 1990

Catterall
Finestone
Flis
Foster
Gardiner
Guamieri
Hovdebo
Jordan
Kristiansen
Laporte
MacLaren
Mills
Nault
Parent
Peterson
Skelly (North Island-Powell River) Taylor
Young (Beaches -Woodbine)-43
de Jong
Fisher
Fontana
Funk
Gauthier
Heap
Hunter
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Milliken
Murphy
Pagtakhan
Parker
Phinney
Stupich
Whittaker


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Harvard:: Madam Speaker, I was involved in an important meeting in my parliamentary office. I just want to tell the House that if I had been here for the two previous votes, I would have voted with my party.
*
*



STANDING COMMITTEE ON FORESTRY AND FISHERIES


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent in the House for the following motion:

That the subcommittee on fisheries of the Standing Committee on
Forestry and Fisheries, and the necessary staff be authorized to
travel to Boston to attend an international seafood show on March
20 to 24, 1990.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Routine Proceedings PETITIONS



ROUGE RIVER VALLEY

Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House of Commons today a petition under Standing Order 36.
This concerns an environmental issue in the Rouge Valley, 10,000 acres of very precious wilderness area. The petitioners are calling on the Parliament to work with the government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as a Canadian heritage land or provincial park.
This is a very important issue because of the imminent announcement-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.
It is very difficult for the Chair to hear what is going on. I am glad to see the hon. member is now leaving the House, because he was totally blocking the aisle so that the Chair could not even see the member who had the floor.
Had the hon. member concluded her remarks?


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, this is a particularly important issue, because the provincial government owns about 80 per cent of this land. The national Minister of the Environment has visited the area. The Speaker of the House of Commons has visited this particular area, and it is very important that this petition is heard by the members of the House of Commons because of the importance of the timing of this issue.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to table 10 petitions today from people who want to tell this Parliament how they feel about the Conservative government's proposal to impose upon Canadians an additional tax on everything they buy, every service they obtain.
This 7 per cent tax proposal is objectionable to many Canadians. These particular petitioners would like to make it known to the House of Commons that they strongly oppose the goods and services tax which is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians that will hit them not only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unem-

March 15, 1990
Routine Proceedings
ployment. In these people's opinion, they would like to see this proposal rejected by the Parliament of Canada.



REUNIFICATION OF GERMANY

Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.1 think you will find that all parties in the House of Commons agree with this petition.
The undersigned are residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
Whereas, the unification of Germany is a concern not only of the two existing German states, France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States, but also a concern of neighbouring states, Poland in particular; and,
Whereas, history has shown that agreements affecting a given country concluded without its participation lead to instability, and are a source of potential danger; and,
Whereas Canada is looked upon by many countries as the champion of their rights, we are confident that the House desires not only to preserve Canada's good repute among nations, but also to enhance it by supporting the inalienable rights of each country to be an active participant in any gathering resolving matters affecting its interests.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to (a) recognize the present borders between Poland and the German Democratic Republic as the boundary between Poland and any future unified German state as final and inviolable; and, (b) support the demand of the Polish government to be an active participant in any gathering in deliberation where any matters affecting Poland's interest's will be discussed and resolved. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.



TAX BENEFITS FOR NORTHERN AND ISOLATED AREAS

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to table a petition from Chibougamau, Quebec, concerning the
recommendations of the Tax Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Chibougamau is without question an isolated area, and that is why your petitioners consider the Brunelle recommendation to be discriminatory, unfair and inefficient as it concerns the Northern tax benefit system. It does not encourage settlement in the North and offers no incentive to develop northern resources.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

['I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended today by nine minutes, beginning at 1 p.m.']
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition under Standing Order 36 approved as to form. It is petition from 510 of my constituents with respect to the proposed goods and services tax. It states that "the proposed law would be inflationary, regressive and would reduce the standard of living of Canadians generally."
It is my honour to present that petition.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by many Canadians opposed to the goods and services tax. They regard this tax as inequitable, unjust, unfair, mean, and completely contrary to their wishes. They call upon Parliament to reject this tax.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition to this honourable House.
Once again, the petition is against the goods and services tax and, again, added to the thousands of names from throughout my riding and the rest of Canada which I have presented to the House. This particular petition is from various places in British Columbia, including Kiti-mat and Kelowna.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for the goods and services tax, reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, and ensure, if and when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, that this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax-grab.
March 15, 1990

They ask that the government cease with the proposal which will shift the tax burden onto ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 208, 215, and 216.


Mr. Hughes: 1.	In each of the past five fiscal years, has PROCAN raised money from (a) licence fees (b) royalty fees and, if so (i) what amount (ii) is there a projected amount for the current year and, if so, what amount (iii) what amount of the sums collected goes to administration (iv) in what way are the other funds expended or to be expended in each of the above six fiscal years, including such details as the number of employees and location of employment?
2.	In the past two fiscal years (a) what number of sources are there paying licence and royalty fees (b) what percentage of the total fees collected are collected from volunteer or charitable organizations?
3.	What amount is raised by the assessment of the basic minimum licence fee?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: 1. i)
PROCAN's raison d'etre is to collect royalties and licence fees on behalf of copyright owners, for public performance of musical works.
Licence fees and royalty fees collected in fiscal years 1984-88 (December 31) were as follows:
1988: $27.5 M 1987: $25.2 M 1986: $24.1 M 1985: $20.5 M 1984: $19.7 M
These include fees, charges and royalties collected in respect or domestic broadcasting and other public performances, and income from foreign royalties and rights. This information is directly extracted from PROCAN's financial statements, that the organization is required to file annually with CCAC. Such information for the year ended on December 31, 1989 is not yet available.
Routine Proceedings
ii)	No projection for the fiscal year 1990 is available.
iii)	During the fiscal years 1984-88, administrative and general expenses have represented between 19.4% and 22.2% of the total income (which consists almost exclusively of amounts collected plus interest). The percentages for each year are the following:
1988:-19.4% ($5.3 M)
1987:-21.7% ($5.5 M)
1986:-20.5% ($4.9 M)
1985:-22.2% ($4.6 M)
1984:-21.8% ($4.2 M)
iv)	No breakdown of PROCAN's administration and general expenses reported above is available. PROCAN has approximately 90 employees located in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax, Edmonton.
2. a) The Department does not have specific information about the "number of sources" nor does it have any information for example on the number of individuals and organizations that remit fees to PROCAN. However, the tariffs in compensation for the right to perform in Canada dramatico-musical or musical works, in respect of which PROCAN is authorized to grant performing licences, must be approved annually by the Copyright Board and are published in the Canada Gazette. In 1989, there were 20 tariffs applicable to various user categories such as television and radio stations, cabarets, clubs, etc.
About 10 per cent of PROCAN's income is from foreign sources.
b)	PROCAN does not collect any fees from charitable organizations as this is not permitted under s. 27(3) of the Copyright Act, which reads as follows:
"No church, college, or school and no religious, charitable or fraternal organization shall be held liable to pay any compensation to the owner of any musical work or to any person claiming through that author by reason of the public performance of any musical work in furtherance of a religious, educational or charitable object".
3. There is no basic minimum fee. There are 20 different tariffs each providing for different minimum amounts.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): Did the government purchase two vessels for the Canadian Forces Maritime Command from Tidewater Inc. or its subsidiary Tidex and, if so (a) what was the total acquisition cost (b) did the vessels contain any limpet-sprayed asbestos and, if so (i) was it completely removed (ii) did the government pay for the removal and, if so, at what cost (c) did the electrical systems of the vessels require any conversion and, if so, did the government pay the cost (d) were the vessels renamed and, if so, with what names (e) have the vessels had any breakdowns or malfunctions during their operation by Canadian Forces Maritime

March 15, 1990
Supply
Command and, if so (i) of what nature (ii) have they been corrected (iii) what amount did the repairs cost (iv) who paid for them?


Hon. William Hunter McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: The Government purchased two vessels for the Canadian Forces Maritime Command from Tidewater Inc.
a)	$2.75M.
b)	No.
c)	No.
d)	The vessels were renamed: HMCS MORESBY and HMCS ANTICOSTI.
e)	Yes.
i)	HMCS MORESBY'S auxiliary diesel engine burned out due to lack of lubrification oil.
ii)	Yes.
iii)	The repairs cost $268,819.88.
iv)	DND.


Mr. Mifflin: 1.	For the calendar year 1989, was capital funding allocated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for small craft and harbour infrastructure in each of the seven federal ridings in the province of Newfoundland, and, if so, what amount?
2.	Is such funding planned for the calendar year 1990, and, if so, what amounts?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1. The Department operates on a fiscal year basis (April to March 31) and data is available on this basis only. Attached are the projected capital expenditures by constituency in Newfoundland for the fiscal year 1989/90.
2. The Small Craft Harbours Capital Works Program for 1990/91 has not been finalized to date. It is anticipated that it will be several months before a final decision can be made on budget allocation and project selection, because assessment of winter damage has not been completed.


[Stage Direction]
NEWFOUNDLAND PROVINCE ($000's)
89 / 90 Projections
Minor Projects throughout Newfoundland	1,875.3
Bonavista-THnity-Conception	4,316.0
Burin - St. George's	2,512.0
Gander - Grand Falls	110.4
Humber - St. Barbe-Baie-Verte	1,460.5
Labrador	445.0
St. John's East	1,826.4
St. John's West	3,890.6
TOTAL	16,436.2
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended today by nine minutes, beginning at 1 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River) moved:: That this House condemn the government for its failure to protect, support and promote the regional economies of Canada, in order to eliminate regional disparities in the Atlantic provinces, Northern Ontario and Western and Northern Canada.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, there have been consultations among the Whips of the three parties. I think there is a predisposition that the vote which is asked for under Government Orders today on the Supply day proceedings be deferred to the close of government business on Monday next. If you were to ask that
March 15, 1990

question, I think you would find unanimous consent in the Chamber for that deferral.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I confirm there have been consultations between all parties. We are agreeable to the vote on today's opposition motion, presented by the Liberal caucus, being deferred until Monday. I would like to ask the government, and perhaps the third party's whip, whether they would agree, considering it is now twelve noon, to let the House sit during lunch time, so that more members will have a chance to take part in the important debate that is taking place today. I give you my word we will not engage in parliamentary tactics that would undermine the harmonious operations of this House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, as long as the third party in the Chamber, the New Democrats, are willing to proceed on the same understanding, we would like to see the debate on this very important issue take place over as many hours as possible. I think members are entitled to a lunch hour. If there are to be no dilatory motions or anything of that kind during the lunch hour, I can see no difficulty in sitting through the lunch hour and allowing more members an opportunity to speak on this very important topic.


Ms. Langan:: Madam Speaker, we would agree to that with the understanding that members would have 20-minute speeches to be divided as agreed among the speakers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I concur in that, too, Madam, Speaker, except that I think it would be appropriate that members who are splitting their time tell the Speaker before they start their speeches in the interest of good understanding and good debate.


Joy Langan: We would, of course, Madam Speaker, agree to that wholeheartedly.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, just in summary, we are deferring the vote until conclusion of government business on Monday, we are sitting through the lunch hour without dilatory motions or parliamentary tactics during that lunch period and members can split their 20 minutes into 10-minute segments provided they notify the Chair.
Supply
I think we are in accord on all of those principles. We are happy to go along with those suggestions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair agrees that there is a lot of co-operation and the Chair will try to figure out a way to get lunch.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, today, although it is not a great pleasure, I have the opportunity to explain to Canadians what is happening in the regions. I do not think I have to stand here today and explain to people from northern Ontario, the Atlantic region or western Canada what is happening in their regions. My intent today is to talk to the people who do not live in the regions, the larger populations of Canada that live in the large urban centres. I want to explain to them what is taking place in regions like northern Ontario and the Atlantic provinces.
My reasons for doing that are simple. Because we are a small population base in the regions in comparison to the urban centres, we are not paid as much attention to as we would like. The reasons for that are very obvious. Mostly it boils down to politics. When you look at the numbers of seats that are involved in rural Canada versus urban Canada, you can understand why, when election time rolls around, when promises are made, urban Canada tends to get the larger piece of the pie.
There is a bit of a problem with that theme and that is that it is not only unfair but it also causes a difficulty as it relates to what we have seen in the last few months and years in relation to national unity. More and more Canadians are coming forward and saying to us: "We will be damned if we are going to sit here and put up with this any longer. We are going to start to speak out. Our members of Parliament do not seem to be doing anything for us, so we will do it for them".
That is why, Madam Speaker, you have seen certain things take place in the last few months that all Canadians can feel ashamed of, but we can also understand why they are happening.
Let us take a look at some of the things that have happened in the last few years. This is by no means the complete list. I will give just a short list to show Canadians the tremendous difficulties we experience in rural Canada, in northern Ontario, northern Quebec, western Canada and the Atlantic provinces. Because of our lack of infrastructure and lack of development we

March 15, 1990
Supply
need and expect that extra bit of help from the government.
In the last while we have seen cuts to VIA Rail and unemployment insurance, we have seen the imposition of the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber which has greatly affected the forestry industry, we have seen the elimination of the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program for our mining industry, cuts in transfer payments which affect our health services and education in the regions, and the threats of cancellation by a particular task force of the northern residents deduction. They have basically recommended a complete elimination of this tax incentive. This deduction improves our ability to encourage skilled labour to move from the southern portions of Ontario to the north to work in areas where there are shortages of skilled labour.
Further, there is the dismantling of regional development programs like FEDNOR and the Western Diversification Fund. When I say dismantling, I mean changes. The programs are still in place. Members across the way talk about FEDNOR or Western Diversification or ACOA or all these great things that relate to the government in power today. But these particular programs have proven, in the short term, not to work.
For example, let me tell you about what FEDNOR has done. I am not opposed to FEDNOR giving grants to businesses, but FEDNOR or regional development programs should be set up for one particular reason, that is to diversify the economy of the regions of Canada that have difficulty competing.
A perfect example of that is FEDNOR. The lion's share of the grants it has given have gone to the tourist industry, which is a very important industry in northern Ontario. One example of the way it distributes money is to give grants to tourist outfitters to add another cabin to their tourist camp. That is not the important mandate of FEDNOR. The mandate of FEDNOR was to help different businesses get involved in the northern economy so we would diversify our economy, not to give handouts so that politicians and northerners would say: "We're happy now. They're appeased. They're all looked after. We are getting what we believe is our share."
Speaking of our share, the amount of dollars that come out of northern Ontario into the pockets of the federal government is enormous. Billions of dollars a year in royalties have come out of the forestry industry and the mining industry. When you look at that in comparison to what we have in development grants and programs, or even infrastructure, it would be an embarrassment for me, as a northerner and as a member of Parliament who represents that area, to say that I think the Government of Canada is doing a good job to improve long-term viability, expansion and the dream of northerners to play an important role in this country.
I will also mention in passing the effects of the goods and services tax that is going to be implemented by this government if it has its way.
Tourism is one of the biggest industries in northern Ontario and the other regions of Canada. Glorified ads are being placed in the United States saying "Come to the regions, come take a look at how beautiful it is in northern Canada." On the other hand, we make it so expensive for those poor tourists that they do not want to come. We have basically priced ourselves out of the market. What a joke that is, Madam Speaker. We in the north have the highest transportation costs because of the price of our gas. The price of gas in the United States and Canada used to be almost equal, but since this government has come into power it has got to the point where even our citizens go across the border to purchase gas because the price is out of sight here.
We have priced ourselves out of the market. For this government to say that it understands tourism is really, for lack of a better word, somebody's cruel way of passing on a joke.
We, as parliamentarians, have to start to look at what effects the programs we are putting in place will have on the regions of Canada as a whole.
I would like to speak on one subject that is dear to me and to all regions of Canada that understand what transportation really means. Our history books taught us that Canada was united by the rail system. This government has taken a perfectly capable and viable means of transportation for the regions outside of the urban areas and dismantled it completely. A perfect example of that is what was known as The Canadian. It used to run

through northern Ontario. I tried to explain to the Minister of Transport that that particular run was the third most efficient run in the whole system, and it was cut.
I asked the minister a simple question. If we consider priorities, and this was one of the most efficient runs we had, why was it cut? I suggest it was for political reasons. Because of the small population base through northern Ontario there are only two ridings, besides the two in Thunder Bay, that run all through northern Ontario, which is one-fifth of Ontario. It is much more politically wise to cut that than to cut something in downtown Montreal or downtown Toronto. The fact is that votes add up to election, and I think it is a shame for a government to run a country based on what is most politically expedient.
If the regions of Canada are to survive and to grow, we have to do something about our infrastructure. I have spoken about VIA Rail but I want to talk about transportation in general. The government takes billions of dollars out of our economies through the royalties that we give to all of Canada for development. We have heard that in New Brunswick there is a difficulty with the road system. Well, if you have ever been to northern Ontario you will know we have the worst road system in Canada. In some cases we do not have a road at all. Two-thirds of my riding has no road. A phenomenal amount of development could take place. If we were interested in creating unity, creating economic development, creating a future for Canada, the opportunity lies in those great regions of northern Canada, northern Ontario.
Yes, it costs money in the short term, but so did the railroads. We lived through that and we watched our country grow. Step two of that agenda is to move to the north. Two-thirds of our country is not even developed yet and we continue to cut and cut instead of looking with a vision of Canada to build that road to the Northwest Territories from northern Ontario in order to start to develop the mining communities and native communities up there that are isolated and have 80 per cent to 90 per cent unemployment and suicide rates seven times the national average because they cannot envision any future.
That is what we are talking about here. We are not talking about dollars and cents. We are talking about vision. The members who represent these regions are
Supply
getting a little fed up. The Reform Party is a perfect example of that. They are getting fed up in western Canada. They have created another party because the party opposite which said for years and years that it was going to give western Canada a voice in government has become a joke. They have had to create another party and look elsewhere.
As a member of the Liberal party I am not pleased with that either, but I still think there is something wrong. People from the regions realize that we are getting short-changed.
It is time to start talking about fairness and equality. I would like to read something from the Constitution that is important to all Canadians. It says: "We, as Canadians, are in charge of promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of all Canadians and furthering economic development to reduce disparities and opportunities across our country."
I do not think anyone has read that statement in the Constitution lately, especially those members who are supposed to be in charge of representing the regions outside of the urban centres of Canada. I know it is difficult. The minister opposite is probably sitting there thinking that he has really fought hard in cabinet to try to make them understand what goes on in Atlantic Canada.
It is time, if we are true to our electorate and true to our hearts, that we do a little more than scream and yell, that we put some action into play. If it means we have to do something drastic like resign our position or sit somewhere else, then maybe we have to do that. It is high time that the regions of Canada and the potential in them begin to have more attention paid to them.
Let us take a look at the unemployment insurance changes. Nobody is particularly against changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. However, when the changes affect regional disparities, then we have removed our mandate. We have taken away the part of the Constitution we have just discussed.
One of the biggest problems we face in this country is lay-offs in northern and Atlantic Canada, in these single industry towns with cycles of high and low unemployment because of a dependence on resource based industries. This situation results from cyclical, seasonal employment. Where do you go? The joke of it all is that they say they are going to train the living heck out of us. That is nice. It is great to be trained for something that you know you cannot get a job in because there is no

March 15, 1990
Supply
industry in northern Ontario, the Maritimes and western Canada that relates to that particular training.
If you want to change the system and tell people in Toronto that they can go out and get another job, I could probably understand that. They do have an opportunity, when a plant closes, to walk across the street and at least have a fighting chance. When we lose a job because a mine shuts down or because a mill is gearing down because the price of pulp is no longer the same, as we are seeing in northern Ontario now, where do they go? I am not advocating that they move to Toronto or anywhere else because their families are there. That is where we live and that is where we want to stay. Some of the programs that were put in place by the previous government were there for a reason. They were not a handout as some of the people opposite would say, they were not a disincentive to work.
I would like to see those people across the way who said that in the last few days in the discussion over UI, go to their constituents and say: "You are a bunch of lazy bums and you do not want to work". He or she will not be in their seat very long, I can guarantee that. We want to work just like everybody else. The problem is that we have a lack of jobs, a lack of diversification of our economy. That is what regional development was supposed to provide.
Enter regional development programs. Before I was elected in 19881 thought it was great that FEDNOR had been created, that the government finally realized that northern Ontario was a region with a problem, that it needed some economic help in order to diversify.
I will not talk in great length about the regional development programs in Atlantic Canada because I know the speakers following me on this side will speak in more detail and with more authority than I on that subject.
A subject that I know a lot about is FEDNOR. The chairman of FEDNOR happens to be a good friend. He is a man in whom I have a lot of faith. He must feel awfully down in the dumps because of what is happening with this particular program.
In the last budget the government decided to play with words. It decided to say that grants were now going to be repayable. Have you ever heard such a ridiculous statement? Repayable grants? If it is a grant, it is a grant. If it is a loan, then it is repayable. Those are the types of words that the members opposite are allowing bureaucrats to use to make it sound like there have been no changes to the regional development programs.
Let's get real. We can read. We may have a lack of diversification, but we do know how to read and we believe the government has given up on us again. It is going to cut those programs to a point where they will have no effect at all. I would have liked FEDNOR to be a tool for bringing secondary industry into northern Ontario, industry that has nothing to do with the resource base we have.
Tourism will be there. Forestry, if we are lucky enough to continue to plant trees, will still be there. Mining will still be there. We need diversification through secondary industry. That is what these regional development programs were supposed to be for, not to give Tory friends $50,000 to add another cabin to their tourist camps. That is ridiculous.
Time never seems to be long enough when I get involved in something that means so much to me. I want to tell you why there has been a lot of disunity and intolerance, especially in places very close to home. These particular communities are just fed up. They have had it up to here. They have elected members of Parliament and that does not seem to work. They have kicked out members of Parliament on the opposite side because they did not do their job and it still does not work. So now they have started to take other measures that are unacceptable.
If members opposite want this country to stay together and be united, they have to start treating all regions of this country equally, they cannot just look at the bottom line of how many votes they can get in the next election.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I certainly understand, being a new member in the House only having been elected in 1988, that he has concerns. However, I must remind him that prior to 1984 his party was in power for about 20 years and I cannot remember

when, between 1982 and 1984, it ever once recognized northern Ontario in the manner in which this government has.
The member commented on FEDNOR and the tourism side of it. The hon. member comes from the area of Kenora-Rainy River which is involved heavily in tourism. The member's area received $1.8 million last year and $2.9 million previous to that from the FEDNOR program, but yet he criticizes it. I see where an individual with a machinery company in Thunder Bay states that FEDNOR was of great assistance in supporting him to diversify his operations.
I think this government has recognized the needs and the requirements of northern Ontario. Can he tell this House, in a sincere way, what the policies of the Liberal Party are with regard to diversification in the employment side of Community Futures and the diversification in FEDNOR? During 20 years in government the Liberal party never recognized northern Ontario. Have they all of a sudden seen the light and realized that there is a northern Ontario?


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the member opposite has had enough nerve to stand up and ask me a question today, after the speech he gave the other night, to which I listened with great interest. Unfortunately, his speech was made under the strictures of closure and I had no opportunity to ask him a question.
I am really pleased that he defended the unemployment insurance cuts to his region when he knows that every person who loses unemployment insurance benefits in northern Ontario will lose an average of 13 weeks. He told me and Canadians in northern Ontario that that is good, that that is an improvement.
He talked about tourism. Let us talk about how exceptional this government is at twisting words around as it relates to understanding what is going on. Here is an article entitled "Tourism suspends support of the GST". This does not come from me, this comes from the tourism industry. This member should know, if he has been listening and watching what is happening, that we in northern Ontario have a big tourist industry.
This article says that another 7 per cent added to the cost of our tourism services will encourage many more
Supply
Canadians to travel in the U.S. and will discourage foreign visitors. I do not think the government fully appreciates the impact of the GST on the tourist industry and its 60,000 mostly small businesses. Tourism is a trade in visitors and, in fact, is Canada's second leading export industry. We are already running at a $3 billion deficit and this will only make it worse.
The article goes on to say that the association is currently developing a new strategic plan to be more responsive to needs and to provide a stronger voice on Parliament Hill.
There is a perfect example of what is taking place, as it relates to the government opposite. The government does not even know what it is doing to the tourism industry in Canada. The article goes on to say that one has to wonder how business travel is going to help the tourist outfitter in northern Ontario or the attraction operator in Edmonton or Cape Breton. What about the resort sector?
I say scrap the GST, because otherwise northern Ontario will be hurt. That member is the last Tory in northern Ontario. We have noticed that there are no Tories left in northern Ontario. Mr. Trudeau is getting to be a more pleasant man than he ever was before because of what has happened with this government.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleague for a passionate, caring speech, not only about his constituency but all the disadvantaged regions of this country.
I would like to ask him a very specific question. We have now seen that the government across the floor has a design, and the design is to retreat from national governance. It is the greatest retreat from national governance that we have seen in this century.
Professor Harold T. Wilson has recently published a book called Retreat from Governance. He makes the point, after listing all the Conservative cuts-cuts to VIA Rail, unemployment insurance and the programs in the regions-that Canada is doing this at precisely a time when it has become increasingly necessary for a central public authority to govern affirmatively in the interests of international competitiveness as well as national sovereignty.

March 15, 1990
Supply
My question to my colleague is: Does he feel that this approach of Professor Wilson's is valid, and how does it apply to his region?


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, my belief is that what this man has said is a true fact. This government has just changed the meaning of the term laissez-faire, a term that we used in our history books, to a different type of term which basically means the same thing, that is, getting out of governing and leave the running of the country completely to private enterprise. That will not do much good in northern Ontario because we do not have a lot of companies and a lot of different businesses that can do something to try to get the dollars, the research and development needed or the diversification of the economy in place.
I think the members opposite who do not live in urban Canada but in rural Canada know what I am talking about. If we continue on the route that we are headed, Quebec will not be the only one saying that it is ready to separate. There will be other provinces and parts of provinces starting to say the same thing. If we are not going to be treated equally in this country, if we are not going to be treated as if we belong, and if we are not made to feel like we belong, sooner or later that movement will start not just in Quebec but in the maritimes, in northern Ontario and in western Canada.
What keeps this country together is the fact that past governments believed in national programs, in the equality of all regions. I say to the members opposite that I know there is a lot more work to do, but to ask what did the Liberal government do 20 years ago is not good enough. I say to the members opposite that I was not here 20 years ago. I say to them that they are in their second term now and nothing has happened. I think it is time to change the government and give me a shot at it because I was not here 20 years ago. I am sure I can do a better job than they can because they have not done anything; nothing, except dismantle everything.


Mr. Keyes:: They doubled the deficit.


Robert Daniel Nault: They have doubled the deficit, yes. Now they are going to put in place the goods and services tax which again hurts the regions the most.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They cut VIA Rail.


Robert Daniel Nault: They cut VIA Rail, a pet project of ours. I say this has to stop somewhere. This is something that I hear all the time when I am back in my riding. There is already less tolerance in this country, less feeling of being a Canadian. Now it is the dog eat dog attitude of the Conservative government.
If you are doing all right, that is fine, but do not come and bother me and do not expect to collect unemployment. My God, don't do that because that is not acceptable any more. You go out and move somewhere and get a job. Half of Newfoundland is somewhere else now. Do you want the other half to go somewhere else?


Dennis Joseph Mills: There is not an ounce of creativity over there.


Robert Daniel Nault: I think what is needed, as my colleague has so aptly put it, is a little creativity and a bit of guts. With that I think we could put this country back together again.
I hope that people will realize that those in the regions that have a small population base are just as important to Canada. That is why previous governments put in place these national policies and national programs. If you are going to start to dismantle them, then we will have to look elsewhere for someone to look after us. We are sure that this particular country called Canada is not worth saving if we cannot treat each other with a little decency and equality.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I listened with a lot of attention to my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River. I concur with my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood who said that he gave a very impassioned speech. However, I should like to remind him that a lot of the policies this government has brought in has been as a direct result of a couple of poison pills we inherited from his party-a flawed constitution and a crippling deficit.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Name one poison pill.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I just named two fundamental ones-a flawed constitution that left one-third of the country out of the mainstream and a crippling deficit that has caused us to take extraordinary measures to try to cure.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Which you've doubled.
March 15, 1990


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: We have doubled the deficit simply because we could not, without taking gradual and careful economic measures, cope with this crippling deficit.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Like the expenditure of billions of dollars during the election campaign.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: My colleague opposite should just remember that if he were here as long as some of us he would have watched some of the policies evolve. I remember his present House leader, now the Leader of the Opposition, standing up dripping with sincerity at a time in the 1980s when interest rates were going right through the roof-they were in the 20 per cent range- and saying: "I tell you, if the interest rates don't come down as a result of our policies, I will resign". That is on the record.
I remember the then member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, Allan J. MacEachen, saying in 1979: "Vote for Allan J. and the price of gasoline will come down and stay down". As everyone now knows, this was followed by the greatest leap in the price of gasoline that ever happened. This is one of the reasons why we are faced with high energy costs.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Do you want us to start listening to election promises?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: We have learned all about election promises from the party opposite, the party that has left this country with terrible, terrible scars which will take probably another generation to heal. What Juan Peron did for Argentina, Pierre Trudeau did for Canada, and history will record this.
I would have thought that my colleague opposite would have come out with a more constructive and a more, shall we say, thoughtful resolution asking us perhaps to reconsider our regional development policies, modify them, even put more resources into them, or perhaps work more closely with certain other agencies. Instead we get a blanket condemnation. Unfortunately that is the style that has been typical of the gentlemen opposite. They have short attention spans. They think that the Canadian people have equally short attention spans and short memories.
My colleague opposite with sincerity talks about a central economic policy for regional development. We had that. We had DREE which was created by Prime Minister Trudeau. Jean Marchand, a veiy distinguished
Supply
former member of this House, was put in charge. It did not work.
Then we had DRIE, which particularly in Atlantic Canada became known as the department of ridiculous industrial expectations. It was dry all right because it took about 14 different processes to get anything done.
Then we had other policies which showed everyone that a centralist policy in a country like ours will not work. The tier system that was brought in under DRIE favoured industries to move into southern Ontario, places like Windsor, not into northern Ontario where they were needed.
What has this government done? What we have done is we have brought in regional development agencies, regionally managed and regionally sensitive, so that people across this country who have different economic priorities and different ideas for development can realize them.


Robert Daniel Nault: You cut VIA.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: He talks about VIA. You know, it costs hundreds of dollars per passenger to run VIA. If this is the way that the gentlemen opposite want to spend taxpayers' money, that is fine. We think that regional development funds can best be spent on policies that will create work.
Down in Cape Breton we had a white elephant that was costing tens of millions of dollars to make heavy water which nobody could use. There was a lot of fuss when we terminated this particular agency, but at the same time it was not needed and it was a needless drain on the resources of this country.
In Atlantic Canada the Liberal opposition members- and I will speak about Atlantic Canada if I may-refused even to support the existence of this government's vehicle to promote and to foster regional economic development. They voted against it in the House and then they criticized the agency for not doing enough. Some members opposite even criticized ACOA for spending too much money too quickly. That is a switch. Lately we have been hearing some very strange utterances.
I see my friend from Essex-Windsor in the House. When he was campaigning for the leadership of his party-and I want to congratulate him for he did very well up to the third ballot I believe-he was in Atlantic Canada campaigning and I believe that he was advocating that we dismantle ACOA and replace it with some

March 15, 1990
Supply
sort of regional banking system. I do not know what he meant by that. I did not think that the New Democrats liked banks. I will listen to him speak later.
We have the former member for St. Maurice who is now the front runner in the Liberal leadership race talking about going back to the future. He wants to bring DRIE back. When I heard this I went back and looked at an interview he did on The Journal with Barbara Frum in 1984.1 remembered his rather peculiar ideas on finance and economic development. I am going to read this into the record. I invite members to look it up, as Casey Stengel would say. He was asked: "What about the deficit?" And this was his answer: "If you don't have a deficit to recycle savings, what happens to the money? The money is flowing out of the country. I just want to tell you that the deficit is a very complex instrument in economic development".
This is a gentleman who links economic development to deficits and says that if you do not have a deficit you have no place to put your money, no place to save. This is on the record.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I invite members opposite to look it up and study it.
I wish to give another example of the somewhat negative response that we have been getting on this side of the House when we are trying to do something for a sector of the economy in Atlantic Canada which is having difficulty. I refer to the fishing sector.
We brought forward $130 million as an interim measure, which we announced in December, to deal with this very serious situation. What we got was a diatribe of condemnation from a party which, from 1980 to 1984, only spent an average of $185 million in total for economic development through DRIE. Yet it pours scorn on $130 million as an interim measure for one sector.
There is an awful lot of insincerity and a lot of rhetoric instead of some constructive suggestions and some thoughtful moves that perhaps could be put forward by
our colleagues opposite which I certainly would appreciate and listen to and, if appropriate, act upon.
When the Prime Minister correctly noted that the economy of Atlantic Canada was performing better than expected, and that the over-all economy had improved considerably-and this is an undeniable fact-despite the serious problems in the fishery sector, again the Liberals ridiculed this particular statement. This type of reaction only contributes to the perpetuation of the negative image about the economy of our region. It really does not deserve this; it deserves better. Statements like this one have the potential to impact negatively on investors who are about to expand their present enterprises or come there with new initiatives to start. I would urge members opposite not to be so vitriolic in condemning the efforts of this government to help their particular regions through these regional agencies. It does not do anyone any good. It impacts on the public image of the region, and it is counterproductive.
Thankfully investors have not been listening to this kind of diatribe and this kind of negative publicity. As a matter of fact my colleague opposite, the member for Kenora-Rainy River, spoke about national unity. It was interesting to me to see a Gallup poll featured-and I think my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Can-so may have seen it-in the Halifax Herald. It was a front page stoiy last week stating that the Gallup poll taken in Atlantic Canada sampling Atlantic Canadian's feelings about the economy, the future and so on was the most positive in any area of Canada, which left the pundits rather puzzled.


Mr. Arseneault:: Because there are more Liberals in Atlantic Canada.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: If there are more Liberals in Atlantic Canada, perhaps they have greater reason to be thankful for what this government has done and they feel better as a result of the new policies that are being brought in. That probably does account for it. Now I have the answer, and I am very grateful for that.


Guy H. Arseneault: There is hope for the future. They know we are going to form the government.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: They are going to form the government some time after the year 2000, perhaps.
March 15, 1990

New Brunswick headed this country last year in the number of new businesses created. I am sure that my colleagues opposite and on this side of the House will applaud those statistics.
Nova Scotia business surveys indicate that a third of the businesses interviewed said that they intend to increase their capital investment in hiring this year. More than half of them were optimistic about economic prospects in the future.
Furthermore, unlike what members opposite would like us to believe, as I mentioned to my colleagues opposite, this recent Gallup poll reveals that Atlantic Canadians are the most optimistic of all Canadians about economic prospects for their region. Obviously there is a high degree of approval for what ACOA has been doing.
I could list a great many of the positive things that ACOA has been doing. I do not intend in so doing to say that ACOA is perfect, that it is a panacea for what we need in Atlantic Canada.
Recently in Prince Edward Island I noted in the announcements of two large potato plants the optimism and the enthusiasm that is permeating the economy there. I also attended the recent official opening of the P.E.I. Food Technology Centre which will place Prince Edward Island at the forefront of food science and technology in the country. I saw a lot of happy people on this occasion who realize that this government, working with their government, is doing a great deal through ACOA, through regional development, to give Prince Edward Island a leading place in technology.
Like most Atlantic Canadians I am also optimistic about the future. However the size and strength of the private sector in that part of the country are smaller, as my colleague opposite has pointed out. That means that the national government in the name of national equality must provide some special support to areas like ours. There are regions in this country that need special attention. Putting a monolithic economic development policy in place with all the attendant encumbrances and bureaucratic delays has been tried by the Liberals. It just did not work. The results are there.
It was a recognition of precisely this sort of fact which led our government to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency with a mandate to assist small and medium sized businesses. Since its creation less than
Supply
three years ago this agency has approved over 8,500 projects. It is approving them at a rate 10 times more efficiently and quickly than DRIE did, this central agency that was run out of Ottawa by the bureaucrats.
Over $600 million has flowed into Atlantic Canada through the action side of ACOA and leveraged nearly $2 billion worth of investment from the private sector. Projects assisted by ACOA have created nearly 20,000 jobs and maintained another 20,000. Some 800 new businesses have been started, and half of these have been by first time entrepreneurs.
ACOA has made a decent and reasonable impact on the problems of Atlantic Canada. It is not perfect, but it is doing an awful lot better than its predecessor did, which was the brain child of my colleagues opposite. It is not a panacea for this region, but what would the opposition parties do? Many of them would dismantle ACOA. What are they going to do with it? It is like the GST. They are against it, but what are they going to put in its place? Is it back to the future, back to old DRIE and DREE, or will we have a new one called DRIFT? That is what Atlantic Canada was doing under the Liberals; it was drifting and drifting badly.
I wanted to put some of these numbers on the record because I am getting weary of the small minds and big mouths of political opponents with nothing but bad things to say about what is going on in Atlantic Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth than this resolution that our government does not care about the regions of this country. Nothing could be further from the truth.
When we came to office federal spending in regional development was averaging only $185 million a year in Atlantic Canada through DRIE. Our government has increased that to a current average of $400 million and more per year.


Dennis Joseph Mills: How about special recovery programs?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That was SCRAP, a Liberal program, and it was scrapped all right. It became a great big boondoggle. Let me tell you about one of the Liberal initiatives that I remember very well, and my colleague from Halifax will remember it even better.
It was called MAGI, Metropolitan Area Growth Investments. It was touted as a great example of Liberal ingenuity-seed money.

March 15, 1990
Supply


An hon. member:: It was ingenuous.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It was ingenuous because the then Premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Gerald Augustine Regan, could not agree with his colleague who was then the Minister of DRIE, the late Don Jamieson, about who should become the chairman of this great new Liberal agency. There was a defeated Liberal cabinet minister named Scott McNutt who I believe is still alive. This held up the use of this agency for years.
Finally, Madam Speaker, do you know what the Liberals did with the millions of dollars that was put in there to help develop the economy? They bought a German cruise ship, the Mercator, which became one of the biggest scandals in Nova Scotia. That was economic development as practised by the Liberals in Nova Scotia. Naturally the ship sank just as their government sank. It will be a long time before we see regional economic development Liberal policies in Nova Scotia again.
ACOA while not perfect is doing exactly what it was designed to do: to promote entrepreneurship and co-operation with provincial governments and other institutions, to foster regional economic development, to work closely with other federal departments to ensure that their policies and programs assist our own efforts and, finally, to advocate the regions best interest here in Ottawa and elsewhere in the country on activities such as federal procurement.
For example, ACOA was recently instrumental in getting the Sea Sell promotional campaign sailing again for tourism. It successfully lobbied in favour of Cape Breton's Micronav project which landed a huge contract to manufacture microwave landing systems for Canadian airports.
We are also presently actively involved in finding solutions to difficult economic conditions in regions such as the Summerside area, northern New Brunswick and the numerous towns and villages affected by fish plant closures in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
A few weeks ago I announced the new elements of ACOA's action program and changes to the levels of assistance provided. These modifications were based on consultations with business organizations last fall and in response to recommendations from numerous sources,
including the ACOA advisory board and officials at all levels of government and business communities.
Under a new supplier development element, ACOA will pay up to 75 per cent of eligible costs associated with bid preparation and 50 per cent of eligible costs of other related activities. In the area of marketing development, which is so important in Atlantic Canada, ACOA will provide up to 50 per cent of the cost of such items as design, new package development and promotional material. Assistance will also be available for up to three years toward the salary of qualified marketing personnel to implement a marketing plan.
To enable ACOA to invest in larger projects, the agency can now make direct contributions to projects up to $10 million in eligible costs. The previous ceiling was $200,000 in eligible costs. We had to do this, as my friends opposite know, in response to our share of deficit reduction last year.
These contributions and other modifications are aimed at easing the burden of project financing for businesses and for other innovative enterprises. ACOA has assisted, I believe, practically every university in Atlantic Canada. I have a list here. It would probably take me 20 minutes to put them all on the record. My friends from Atlantic Canada know that is true. Whether it is St. Francis Xavier, Memorial, Acadia, or University of Moncton, all these universities have benefited from funds for research and development and other causes that ACOA made available.
I want to respond to my colleague opposite in a spirit of charity and understanding. Like me, he comes from an area where there are tough times. He knows that there are certain industries that need help and certain industries that are doing very well, but as Abraham Lincoln said: "You don't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong". Those industries that are doing well in our regions are providing a lot of spin-off jobs and an inspiration to others to emulate.
I believe the Prime Minister summed up the situation, at least in so far as it applies to Atlantic Canada, in Halifax last week when he said that ACOA is an integral part of our blueprint to increase economic prosperity in the country and to enhance Canada's international economic competitiveness.
With the extraordinary economic opportunities the free trade agreement now offers to Atlantic entrepreneurs, ACOA will continue to play a strategic role. I believe that ACOA, along with FEDNOR and western
March 15, 1990

development will provide a very special and much needed role in the country. It is an improvement over an old centrally dominated economic development policy.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to what my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia had to say. As usual he is emulating the example of his colleagues on that side of the House by blaming the troubles they face in government on the Liberals that preceded them. They still have not taken responsibility for the difficulties the country is experiencing after six years of their government, particularly in Atlantic Canada. While Atlantic Canadians may be optimistic about the future, they are not terrible optimistic about the present, particularly with the decisions this government is providing them.
I should like to ask the minister about the changes he recently announced under ACOA, the agency that is supposedly delivering the federal government's program for regional development in Atlantic Canada. As we know, it got a flying start in 1987, just before the election, with the Prime Minister announcing a $1 billion program over five years. We were told it would create all kinds of jobs in Atlantic Canada. The government spent the money very quickly, up until the election. After the election there was suddenly a new parameter which was the deficit and ACOA had to be reprofiled.
Since the election the rules were tightened very fast. Recently, the minister again changed the rules. I should like to ask him whether there is going to be any new money to allow businesses to take advantage of the more flexible rules for business assistance in ACOA. Or, is the reason for increasing the project limits and making the other changes in the rules really because with the changes made in 1989 the rules were so tight that businesses could not take advantage of them? Therefore, this opening up of the rules that we heard about following the budget was merely an opportunity to spend. It would be terribly embarrassing for the government if the rules were so tight that Atlantic Canadians could not spend the money available to them.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I am glad to respond to that very constructive question. I want to tell my colleague opposite, as he probably knows being a keen student of regional development, that about 80 per cent of the assistance or grants, if you will, for small business
Supply
entrepreneurs in Atlantic Canada were for amounts under $100,000. There were some very large projects that took up, however, quite a large percentage of the total amount of moneys available.
We reassessed this situation and decided that we were able to bring up the levels of the assistance for some larger projects to about $10 million. However, the original $20 million level was always there for projects of exceptional merit, innovation and so on.
What I want my colleague to understand-and this gives me a chance to put it on the record-is that when ACOA was created and when the action program was announced, there was an important element often forgotten in the aftermath, that is, that we still proceed to sign co-operation agreements, which is a sobriquet for ERDA agreements, with the provinces. We have signed over 20 of them. I believe a larger amount of money has flowed out, although it is approximately the same in macro terms, under these kinds of economic assistance options for the provinces than there has under the action side.
We have a double approach here. As he knows, over $100 million has flowed into the tourism sector in Atlantic Canada, but this is without prejudice to signing co-operation agreements with the provinces for tourism projects, if they so wish.
I want to assure him that we do not need any new money at this time. The original amount of money that was allocated is ample for our needs under present circumstances. There is over $600 million committed on the action side and more than that on the co-operation side. Over the next few years the money is flowing out as projected.
I realize that some people have suggested that there was too much money allocated too quickly, but how else were we going to get this money into the economy where it could start having an effect on Atlantic Canada? It has had an effect. I think the member will concede that it has had an effect. There are many, many more thousands of people working in Atlantic Canada today than there were in 1984. This is true all across the country.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, first, I should like to congratulate my colleague from the Liberal Party, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, for introducing this resolution. I whole-heartedly

March 15, 1990
Supply
agree with it. I heard his speech and I think he was very sincere in what he said.
Nevertheless, we in northern Ontario have been waiting 25 or 30 years for direct assistance from both Tory and Liberal governments. We believe that DRIE, MAGI, ACOA and FEDNOR are just acronyms and euphemisms for doing nothing. That is what the people from northern Ontario feel about both governments that have been in power. It is a forgotten area, along with eastern Canada and sections of western Canada.
We talk about the Community Futures Program, grandiose announcements, and its millions of dollars. After investigation, there are so many hoops to go through with community futures that most applicants- and 10 per cent of them are approved eventually-get so frustrated with the various hoops of getting approval in northern Ontario, getting approval in Toronto, and getting approval in Ottawa, and then, with a snap of a finger, the application may be turned down. As a result, people become frustrated. I am glad to say that we got the people together in Ottawa and asked if the government understands what is going on. We have had to restructure the whole program.
The minister is a good man, and I think he cares. But he is lost as to what is happening out there. The minister has to get out there into these areas to see the reality of the situation. It is best to cite a current example as to what is going on.
We all remember the FBDB scare with the funding of strip clubs across the country in the amount of $17 million going to 38 strip clubs. The reaction of the government to that is that it has to be extremely careful. It has reacted on the radical side of things. There was one application to FEDNOR and FBDB to have moneys for reconstruction and renovation of a hotel or motel in my constituency. Last year the hotel had one program which might have been called, perhaps, not appropriate. Both funding agencies state that their programs are being reviewed and anything sexually explicit or exploitive will no longer be considered. It is another way of saying that they are cutting off funds. I have been asked to write letters stating that this particular application will not endanger the moral fabric of my community. It is
absolutely laughable. I am wondering if the agency should be concerned about impure thoughts.
I want to ask the minister if there is one positive thing he feels his government is going to do for northern Ontario that does not have all these strings attached and all these hoops that we have to go through? Is there one positive initiative about which he can say: "Here you are, here are some funds, deal with it"?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I gather what my colleague opposite is asking for is a heavier emphasis on grants, outright contributions. We are doing this to some extent in Atlantic Canada in recognition of the fact that in some cases it is appropriate to do so. It may be appropriate to look at this policy in northern Ontario, but that is something that my colleague responsible for that agency can consider. The member can make those representations to him.
The member makes the point which I tried to make, however, that there is that kind of flexibility. If, in fact, that is a good thing to do, then it is possible to do it. Should the Western Diversification Agency decide that it wishes to take a different approach in developing their economy, it can do that too.
I know that there is a temptation-and those of us from disadvantaged regions are often subject to it-to give as much money as one can to every possible enterprise that seems to have merit. Again I hate to resort to cliches, but any government that is big enough to give you all you want, eventually is big enough to take all you have. There has to be a happy medium.
The most positive thing we have done in regional development policy is to bring in that element of flexibility so that members opposite, like my hon. friend, can make their voices heard and the possibility is there to give effect to what they wish to do.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, I have to first thank the minister for his kind words of what is becoming a dim memory for me, the leadership campaign of last year. It is a memory which undoubtedly will grow rosier as it grows dimmer.
The minister talked about white elephants. I think that the approach of the government to regional development is based, not on white elephants, but pink elephants. There is an expectation and belief that somewhere over the rainbow there is going to come this
March 15, 1990

great solution and explosion of benefits for poorer parts of our country.
It is a pink elephant approach which has been there in, for instance, the discussions about the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement was going to tremendously benefit the regions of the country. Try telling that now to western fishermen who have seen the consequences of that deal for their access to the fish.
It is there even in the context of the GST, believe it or not. There are ministers who said before the finance committee, of which I am a member, that the GST is going to even things out so tremendously across the country, that this will benefit the Sault Ste. Marie's and the parts of Atlantic Canada and western Canada that are feeling the inequalities at this stage.
I do not think that any of these pink elephants are any more real than they were in the dreams that we might have had as kids. Instead, we have to look at the realities. The realities are, first, a tremendous lack of consistency in government policy on regional development; second, a serious set of cutbacks in support for regional development right across the country; and third, a series of economic attacks which are taking place-some of which the government is not responsible for and some of which they are-across the country which are making the regional development crisis in Canada much more serious.
Let me talk about a few of these things before trying to suggest some of the solutions that we as a party would put forward. In talking about lack of consistency, the minister himself in his answer to my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie has demonstrated the lack of consistency that we have to regional development across the country.
In the case of Atlantic Canada, for instance, there are grants, as the minister knows. In the case of western Canada, under the Western Diversification Fund, there are no grants. In the case of FEDNOR, it is not entirely clear what the situation is. It continues to be extremely ambiguous.
The consequence is that any company attempting to make choices on the basis of regional development incentives as to where it will invest is faced with a patchwork quilt across the country where one part of
Supply
Canada which is regionally hurting has a different set of benefits than another part of Canada which is hurting just as badly. That is a lack of consistency which I do not think can be justified. The minister makes a good case for the flexibility of separate agencies, and it is a case with which I agree, but those separate agencies have to be in some sense consistent in the application of the criteria which they apply. There can be flexibility to take account of local circumstances but, if the flexibility is so great that this patchwork quilt exists, then the disadvantages for certain poorer parts of Canada are simply not fair.
I suggested secondly that, in fact, we are talking about some significant cutbacks which have hit regional development in the country. In looking at the most recent budget and the estimates for the coming year, we can see at least one element of consistency in the government's approach to regional development: the consistent cutbacks which have taken place from agency to agency.
Look, for instance, at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. I have their estimates in front of me. There is a net decrease of $39.3 million of a total budget of just over $300 million. So, in fact, we are looking at a decrease in that case of over 10 per cent. It is the second straight decrease which has occurred in the allocations to this particular agency, despite the problems that are so evident to everybody in Atlantic Canada today.
There are all sorts of bookkeeping shifts which are taking place, such as shifts of some sets of grants from ACOA to other departments, which make it difficult to determine whether we are talking about a 10 per cent decrease, or a 15 per cent decrease or a 5 per cent decrease, but there is no question that we are talking about cutbacks-


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Not this year.


Steven W. Langdon: -and that is not fair to people in Atlantic Canada and it is not fair to our country. Our country needs the sense that we are working together.
Look at the estimates of the Western Economic Diversification Program. We again see in the case of those estimates a net decrease of $1.4 million. We also see that the stretching out of the timetable for allocation

March 15, 1990
Supply
of the $1.2 billion that was originally given to western diversification is itself being stretched out from five years originally to seven years now. We are talking about far less per year in the context of western diversification. Of course, the actual expenditures which are taking place are significantly less yet.
In looking at the various ERDAs, the Economic and Regional Development Agreements, massive cuts are occurring with respect to them. There is a whole set of ERDAs which is expiring across the country. There are two in Nova Scotia. Again, there has been no commitment to renewing these. There is one in New Brunswick for industrial development with no commitment to renewal. There are three in the case of Newfoundland and no commitment to renewal. There is one in the case of RE.I. and no commitment to renewal. There are two in the case of Ontario, one for mineral development which is important in northern Ontario and again no commitment to renewal. In the case of Quebec, there is a total of 10 of these ERDAs for hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. They are expiring this year and again there is no commitment to renewal. Similarly with Manitoba and Alberta. In the case of British Columbia, again, there is a total of eight ERDAs, some of them massive. One is for $300 million for instance for forest resource development which is absolutely crucial not just to British Columbia but crucial to conservation in the country. It is absolutely crucial to dealing with things like the greenhouse effect around the world and there is no commitment to renewal of this $300 million ERDA.
In Ontario and Quebec, we see that again there is a total decrease in regional development assistance of just over $10 million in those areas. So, as I said, there is consistency, but consistency in terms of cutbacks.
As we look across the country, it is not just the activities of these agencies and the fact that there are cutbacks which is causing the crisis in regional development. It is a fact that in the Atlantic fishery we are seeing massive destruction of opportunities for people and communities right across Atlantic Canada. In the western fisheries, we are seeing a set of developments which will severely damage, if not destroy, the processing industry right up the western B.C. coast. In northern Ontario, we see tax changes with respect to mineral development and the potential for fast write-offs which will hit mineral development in every constituency in northern Ontario.
In the western farm crisis, even Conservatives admit that real incomes in the province of Saskatchewan this year are going to be cut to a negative level in the farm sector. We are not talking about penny ante reductions and squeezes. We are talking about devastation. We are talking about crises that could wipe out western agriculture.
In the constituency of Prince Albert-Churchill River, which my colleague represents, for instance, farmers are desperate to look at the whole question of planting for this farm season. There is absolutely no commitment from this government to assist with those planting costs.
It is absolutely shameful that those kinds of inequities and inequalities should exist and that the government has not moved on them by this stage. It is as if in my community the entire auto industry were to shut down or, in your community, Mr. Speaker, the entire steel industry were to shut down. We are talking about absolutely massive devastation to which the government is not responding.
That is at the heart of what should be serious regional development action on the part of this government. Instead, what do we see? We see UI changes which are hurting the regions, not helping. We see VIA Rail cutbacks which the minister now defends when, if my memory does not serve me wrongly, he in fact was one of the leading proponents of saving VIA and electing a Conservative government in 1984 that would see to it that there would never be a cutback in Atlantic Canada for VIA ever again. This has taken place right across the country.
We see air deregulation which again is hitting regions. We have seen parts of northern Ontario in the past few weeks which have had their air service severely cut back. That is thanks to deregulation. It is true there are many more flights between Ottawa and Toronto and between Toronto and Montreal. But where there are not more flights is in the regions of this country.


Steve Butland: The fares are up.


Steven W. Langdon: In fact, the fares are up. The expenses people have to pay to travel are up.
So we have to take a different approach. We have to take an approach which does not try to blame the Liberals for the failures of the past, as the minister has done, and somehow imply that therefore they are re-

sponsible as well for the failures of the present. It is almost six years after the election of this government.
I am sure when the minister campaigned in 1984 he would never have said: "Give us six years and I am afraid we won't be able to have put things right". I am certain he would never have said: "Elect us, and I am sorry we won't be able to do anything for you because of Pierre Trudeau". I am sure he told people: "We have ideas. We have solutions". They have not come forward.
Our regional development and equities in the country are greater than they were in 1984. I say it with sadness as somebody from Ontario, because even in my region of southwestern Ontario I see that the regional development problems we face are starting to get worse. That is thanks to the actions of the government.
What do we have to change? We have to change the interest rate policy in this country. We cannot have interest rates running at 13.5 per cent, when right across the border from us in the United States, as the Minister of Finance himself admitted last week, the interest rates are almost five percentage points less.
At the very least, we have to see to it that in poorer regions of this country we bring interest rates down to a competitive level so that small businesses can make a go of their ideas and initiatives. We can do that. That is why I suggested, as the minister noted, setting up regional development banks in the different poorer parts of this country. They would have as their goal offering low interest loans and working with entrepreneurs and small business people to see to it that those small business people themselves could take an initiative, create jobs, and establish opportunities for their areas. Establishing those kinds of regional development banks should lead us to a joint initiative on the part of government and business within the regions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired, but if he can wrap it up in about 30 seconds, then we can go to questions and comments.


Steven W. Langdon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will wrap it up very quickly.
Supply
As well as these regional development banks, we need community development funds that will provide support for communities themselves to take action and support that is much great than the Community Futures Program. That program is very small and very difficult to access. We have to stop giving our grants and our support in poorer parts of this country to foreign-controlled businesses that are attracted just by the gravy and then leave. We should see that at least half of all of the support we give goes to local small businesses. If we did this, I think we would provide hope to our regions and, by providing hope to our regions, we would give tremendous hope to the country, which is just as important.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague opposite for taking a very wide-ranging approach to this particular debate. I am sure it comes as no surprise to him that I do not agree with most of what he said, but I would like to ask him a brief question and maybe make a couple of comments.
Among the positive elements that he sees in regional development is the headquartering of the agency in the region that it is designed to help so that decisions can be made locally, by local people, with input from local businesses. I would like him respond to that.
Very briefly, I would like to say to him that, (a), regional development assistance, as far as Atlantic Canada is concerned, is not cut this year. It may appear to be the case because of some bookkeeping, as he describes it, where funds are transferred from one department to another, but I assure him that it is not. And, (b), he made reference to macro-economic affairs such as employment and interest rates. He knows, if he is fair, and I know he is, that considerably more than 1.5 million jobs are in existence now than were in existence when we came into office.
He spoke about assistance to large companies. I know that he is very fortunate to represent a constituency where General Motors, Ford, and some very large American multinationals have decided that they should set up their headquarters in Canada. I am sure that he recognizes, if he is fair, the importance of foreign investment and foreign participation in Canada's economy by large foreign corporations. After all, they provide

March 15, 1990
Supply
jobs. If they are good corporate citizens, it is difficult for them to take their factories home with them.
He made reference to economic development agreements not having any commitment for renewal in Atlantic Canada. That is simply not true. I want to assure him that we have signed economic development agreements of various types with every Atlantic province. I have two full pages here that I can show him, detailing them. In forestry, every Atlantic province, for example, has a sectoral forestry agreement. My colleague, the Minister of Forestry-and this government is the first government to recognize the importance of forestry by making it a full ministry-is working very closely to make sure that these elements that my colleague talks about for longterm development, silviculture, forest management and a better approach to preserving this resource, is taken.
I just want to say that really what we have here, I guess, is an agreement to disagree. My colleague represents a party of democratic socialism which believes in ever-increasing government involvement in management. We agree that there is a place for government involvement, but we prefer to let Canadians operate on their own initiative and to supply help to those who need it, and to get out of areas where it is no longer required.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is quite correct that there is a basic disagreement. The basic disagreement though is over the question of equality. We, in this party, coming from the kind of philosophic beliefs that move us, believe very strongly in equality, not in complete equality for everybody but in equality of opportunity and in equality of essential condition which should exist within our country. That is why, for us, regional development is such a fundamental, basic, touchstone issue because we see the inequality that exists among regions as so subversive of what this country could be, of how grand and magnificent a community we could build in this country.
I hope the minister from his region which historically has been so unequally dealt with by the rest of the country, will ultimately see the light and recognize that that commitment to equality is crucial and he will start to take some movements toward that.
On the specific points that the minister made, I agree with him quite strongly that decentralization of our regional development efforts is important and local headquarters are important to do that. That is why my suggestion of regional development banks would see those located within the regions that they are meant to serve. It would see those banks being much more activist, making much more effort to make things happen and to make things change rather than just sitting back and waiting for grant applications.
With respect to whether or not there are cuts to ACOA, we can talk about this in committee; I am sure we will. The crucial issue is that there has not been, as there should have been, given the problems of Atlantic Canada, a massive increase in support through ACOA.
In terms of macro-economic effects, I simply make the point that the job expansion record in recent months is quite poor and as interest rates persist at their high level, we are going to see those job-creation rates squeezed just as we have seen the jobless figures in this country go up.
With respect to foreign investment, of course the minister is correct. Foreign investment has played an important role in the development of this country, certainly in the development of my constituency. The point about my constituency is that the great bulk of that foreign investment came in without the financial support of the taxpayers of Canada. That is what I think we have to stop. Our support should be going to Canadians.
Finally, I too have two pages with respect to economic and regional development agreements. I am sure the minister's pages refer to those which are continuing this year. Mine refer, and that is the crucial issue, to those which run out this year.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: We are going to renew them.


Steven W. Langdon: It is those to which the government must make a commitment. If the minister is prepared to stand up and make a commitment that the money in those regional development agreements will be completely replaced, I certainly would be pleased to hear it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)):: The Hon. Minister of Public Works for no more than two minutes, Sir, in this question and answer period.
March 15, 1990


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point to my colleague opposite that the number of regional development agreements we have signed are commensurate with the desires of the provinces. As I indicated to my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, we have ample funds to go to the provinces and discuss renewal on their terms for all the new agreements the provinces wish renewed. We have those resources. In some cases, as the member knows, with the consent of the provinces, we have signed agreements involving more money than the ones they replaced. In others, with the consent of the provinces, they have involved less money. These co-operation agreements are designed not like the old ERDAs for the most part to be five-year agreements, but the new ones can be implemented for two or three or four years. They can be topped up or changed. Again, there is more flexibility there. I want to assure the hon. member that there is no lack of resources from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to meet the legitimate aims of the provinces that wish to develop certain sectoral agreements.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)):: I am sorry, the period for questions and comments has expired. Perhaps the hon. member for Essex-Windsor could come back with another question after we hear our next speaker. Continuing debate. The Hon. Member for South West Nova.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe that the rules do require that in the case of a comment or question, there is at least a chance to respond to that comment or question. I certainly intend to do so very briefly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)):: We will give the hon. member for Essex-Windsor 30 seconds more.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That's flexibility.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are all so flexible today.
While the minister may be able to make these commitments for Atlantic Canada-and I will hold him to them in committee and elsewhere-we cannot get similar commitments from him for some of the massive agreements now running out, such as the $300 million forestry agreement in British Columbia, to which despite prod-
Supply
ding from various colleagues, the Minister of Forestry has not yet been prepared to make any commitment.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister is going to stay to listen. I listened to him at least on television.
I want to reread the motion today because I think it needs rereading. It is an Official Opposition motion presented by our side. It states:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to protect,
support and promote the regional economies of Canada, in order to
eliminate regional disparities in the Atlantic provinces, Northern
Ontario and Western and Northern Canada.
I think the direction this government has given to Canadians is bringing on and will continue to bring on regional disparities. I think we have seen this in the free trade agreement where across Canada the primary industries will be the ones to suffer. We see it in agriculture with hog retaliation in the United States. We see it in the fisheries where we must give some west coast fish to the U.S. to process and we see it in forestry across Canada.
As we have to give up our primary industries, it will mean that they will become service industries for the United States under the free trade agreement. Look at the fisheries on the west coast. I can see it on the east coast because the government is taking the fisheries- and later I will deal with the fisheries as an alienating problem-more towards confusion on the east coast. You will probably see Americans take up the licences to fish our fish and eventually land the fish in the United States, as can be done on the west coast.
I also want to say that the free trade agreement should have had a clause that protected our primary resources, our primary industries, which were the economic basis of rural Canada. This is one area in which I feel our regional economies are going to suffer and are already suffering.
The other aspect is the goods and services tax presently before the House. In eastern Canada, I see it affecting our tourism industry. Every person who comes to visit, even though he or she can have a rebate, will be deterred by a 7 per cent tax in addition to the tax already in place. It will affect, I think initially, and probably for a long time, our tourism industry. Certainly, we are hearing that from the tourism operators on the east coast.

March 15, 1990
Supply
It will also affect lower income people, and by that, I am not assuming those people who will not get rebates. I am assuming that on the east coast there are people with incomes below the average of Canada. Because of the GST there will be less to spend in our local economies than there would be if there were no GST.
I can give several areas where I feel the government should have come up with alternatives. The goods and services tax is certainly one area where there will be an inflationary aspect and will particularly hurt the east coast as well as rural Canada. I just do not limit it to the east coast because I think it will have the same effect in rural Quebec as it will have in any rural area in Canada.
We heard from small businesses that it is a disincentive and heaven only knows that we cannot lose any more small businesses in the east.
We heard from the Atlantic Transportation Commission when they appeared before the transportation committee that the 7 per cent rate is a deterrent to people looking to buy goods from the east coast. It is also a negative in the sense that when people on the east coast have to order goods made in Ontario, they will look somewhere else to get the goods without the 7 per cent tax. Even though it can be rebated, it is this burden that is imposed on businesses.
At the same time that we are seeing two major government policies affecting rural Canada-and this motion today is directed to the rural economies of Canada and when I say two major policies, I mean the free trade agreement as it affects our primary resources, and the goods and services tax as it will affect our tourism industry, small business, the transportation of goods from the east coast, and the inflationary impact of the GST on lower income earners.
At the same time that we have these two major policies, we have a government that is hitting at the infrastructure. I heard the Minister of Public Works say that there was no crisis in the economy on the east coast. Thank goodness, if that is the way the government interprets it, that there is no crisis on the east coast. But there is a crisis. I can tell you that from the point of view
of the fishing community, and representing a constituency directly dependent on the fishery. If the government wants to say there is no crisis on the east coast, I can only say that the way the government has cut at the infrastructure, there soon will be a crisis. What infrastructure am I talking about? I am talking about the Established Programs Financing. The government has a well known history of cutting it back in the Atlantic region as well as in other provinces.
I should clarify that Established Programs Financing is the program funded federally with the provinces for health services and secondary education. But since 1986, when the government proposed the reduction by two percentage points of the Established Programs Financing, and again in the 1989 budget, with a cut that was a further percentage point, the cost of these two measures alone to the Atlantic region for the financial year 1986-87 to 1994-95, will be $779.4 million.
In 1990, in this budget, the government did not just go along with the established cuts that it had put in, it further froze the Established Programs Financing at the 1989 level for two years which will cost the Atlantic a further $655 million for the financial years 1990-91 to the 1994-95 years. That is over $1.4 billion that the Atlantic provinces will not have from the Established Programs Financing that they will have to find somewhere else. Why? I did not see any ministers of state get cut. I did not see any of their budgets reduced. I did not even see the Prime Minister reduce his cabinet. I would have accepted some of these if he had shown some restraint within the cabinet itself to spend money that we can ill-afford. We do not need those ministers of state. Surely the ministers there could be doing a more thorough job of their own department.
In fact, it is so bad that when you write to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, you get a letter back saying "I am sorry you wrote to the wrong person, it goes to this minister". Then sometimes you even get a letter back saying it has gone back to that minister because the Minister of Employment and Immigration sent it to the wrong minister. I have become so confused as to who you deal with because there are so many ministers of state in the Employment and Immigration Department.
March 15, 1990

I think at last count there was a minister of state for youth unemployment, a minister of state for immigration-I am not sure, I lose track, but I know that there are at least three ministers doing the job that I think she should be doing. She is not going to have as many problems because of the cut-backs under the Unemployment Insurance Program. There are a lot of people who should be cut in that department.
I want to deal with that as a cost to the infrastructure on the east coast. Going back to the Established Programs Financing, there are areas affecting everybody on the east coast concerning health care and university education. At the same time, this government, as I said, has cut again at another infrastructure and that is the Unemployment Insurance Program.
The Unemployment Insurance Program in rural Canada has provided a supplementary income. There isn't anyone who would not agree with me on that. It has provided seasonal employment with the additional help to stay for the jobs when they are available. In some rural areas it is not much because seasonal jobs are almost full-time jobs. In other areas it has allowed people to have that extra income.
This government is privatizing the unemployment insurance fund. That means it will only be funded by the employee who contributes and the employer who contributes as well. That is fine if you want it to be privatized, but I question how this government will replace the additional income that was there for Canadians across Canada. I do think that most Canadians would agree that we want people in rural areas of Canada, whether they be in Newfoundland, British Columbia, in our north, even in some of the rural areas of southern Ontario or the golden triangle between Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa doing without.
I cannot believe that the government can bring in legislation like this and not provide people with something as they try to find longer lasting jobs and more income from what is available. The government is removing this income. There is no income there.
The minister says she is going to use the funds in the UI fund that will pay for itself for retraining. Well you cannot do that. If you wanted to retrain everybody, the fund could not do it because the amount of money
Supply
required would be too great. Second, there are no jobs in the retraining programs for those people in rural areas. We are supposed to pass a bill incorporating changes to the Unemployment Insurance program that will cost Atlantic Canadians $309 million, according to the Canadian Labour Congress. I heard the debate this week and I heard some people say: "Yes, the Liberals made cuts or made changes to the Unemployment Insurance. Yes, I was here when they made those changes, but they never did what this government is doing. If they reduced some aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Commission they at least put in job-creation money that would give people the dignity to have a job and find the necessaiy additional weeks, and it worked. If the community has to find the jobs, they will find them if you allow them some job-creation money to keep the people there for when the jobs return to the point that they can sustain them. This government is not doing that. It says it is going to retrain you. Retrain you where? In southern Ontario? From rural Nova Scotia? From rural Newfoundland? That is not what I consider a direction that is going to help regional economies.
On unemployment insurance just in the fisheries fund, in 1988, the government had to put in $251 million to cover the shortfall because fishermen have not been able to contribute the total amount because there is no employer for the most part to contribute the total amount to the fisheries unemployment scheme. That is going. Who is going to replace that? Who is going to say to the fishermen that they will help in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Program? There is no consideration. There is no hope. Maybe it is all part of this government's attitude to the east coast fishery that will let the chips fall where they may. The big will survive, the foreigners will stay, the Americans can fish, but we are not going to intervene in the process to allow those thousands of people living in inshore communities to survive in those communities. There are no directed programs by this government for that.
The other area we have seen for what I consider infrastructure, has been cuts to defence. I have appreciated the facilities of defence being on the east coast. They were established there because there were wars going on and supplies were going across the Atlantic.

March 15, 1990
Supply
You build an infrastructure around these defence bases. I am sure that many Canadians have great memories of having lived on the Atlantic coast. Maybe some of them would never have had that opportunity had it not be for the defence establishments. I will say that the cuts to the six established communities with bases will affect 500 civilian positions, $90 million in salaries in the economy and all the infrastructure that went with those six bases.
I have not heard what will replace it, even on an interim basis. I challenge the government. You cannot keep taking from economies and expect them to survive. Maybe you want them to go to the middle part of Canada. But Canada is Canadians helping Canadians. There are other areas in the tax system that I would rather have seen affected; the capital cost allowance, the capital gains that better off Canadians still have. There are many areas that this government has not even touched because it shows it is leaning towards upper income Canadians, the big companies and the United States under the free trade agreement at the expense of what I consider rural Canada and the primary industries.
When the minister was here, he in his speech talked only of ACOA. I do not want to argue with him on the cuts for ACOA. I would think while we are cutting infrastructure that he would perhaps take another look at what his ACOA is funding because there is no point in funding tourism if there is no tourism next year. Why not fund infrastructures that municipalities have been asking for? Why not go after areas where it helps more people than individual people under ACOA? It is only a thought, but I have seen programs that ACOA or DRIE has funded or MAGI. I think it developed Elalifax. It gave a rejuvenation to downtown Halifax at that time. There may have been some things wrong with it, but anyone who goes to Halifax would say that it started the development of Halifax and an interest in the downtown waterfront.
At the same time that I talked about ACOA, the minister wanted to aim at different people and he aimed at one of the leadership contenders. The leadership contender he aimed at has formed a new policy which the minister might like to read on regional development that gives a new attitude. If there are tight restrictions let us look at the money as examples of regional needs. He cited better transportation and communication systems, education and training programs, energy supplies, health care and public administration services. He also said-I
do not want name him but I will-the leadership contender he was talking about was Mr. Chretien. He also said at the time that he would work closely with provincial governments in slow growth regions to increase better public investments in necessary infrastructure.
In all my experience in Parliament as a back-bencher over there and as an opposition member here, I have never seen a government more directed to destroying the infrastructure and economies of the regions. This motion today is timely. We should be debating this in committees and we should be talking about the direction that this government is taking Canada, whether it is with the free trade agreement, the GST or the cuts to VIA. There is no replacement. We do not see that our roads are going to be any better. We do not see Air Canada servicing more people. In fact, Air Canada is going to cut back in Saint John and Sydney. It is going to cut back in other areas of Canada.
The government thinks things have to to be run like a business. There is nothing in here that we want to touch. We are going to sell it all. Forget Canadians. Look at the post office. I sat in committee today with the minister responsible for the Canada Post. He said to one of my colleagues that you do not want uneconomic things. I would have liked to have asked him to define uneconomic things. Are we talking about the rural post offices that are closing? Are we talking about the fact that Canadians, when they hear of their post office closing, would like to know how much it costs for that single post office? We don't know. We cannot even know what it costs to lease the post office in a community versus the cost of putting it into a business. And yet we are supposed to say this is all a standard of service that this government is giving Canadians.
The problem is this is all the infrastructure across rural Canada. I do not think-and I think I share this with my colleagues here-that the parts can be weakened without weakening the whole. As I see this government directing policies towards the big centres and towards centres away from the rural areas, you will find more and more that we are slowly losing Canada and it is becoming an area of regional disparities. This motion today shows that. I hope that the government and the ministers who are responsible will start looking at programs directed towards the regions. We need infrastructure. If you take from our area we need to have at least access to that
March 15, 1990

money for a while to find new infrastructures to keep the people there.
In tough times we need infrastructures such as water and sewer. We need roads. If the government is taking trains away or looking at other areas of cutting back, I say I do not see that.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[Stage Direction]


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, today is international consumer rights day, organized by the international organization of consumer associations. Throughout the world, consumers are taking part in activities to stress their impact on the market place in our society.
The international organization is a non-governmental, non- profit organization that today links the activities of 173 consumer groups in 63 countries and initiates action on consumer problems that are international in scope, such as medical products, pesticides, tobacco and baby food.
The right to consumer education was selected as the organization's theme this year.
In this country, Mr. Speaker, consumers are protected by general legislation and especially by a market that is responsive to consumer needs and acknowledges the fact that consumers, business and governments must work together.


INTERNATIONAL CENTRE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, those with long memories will recall that way back in September, 1988, the Prime Minister announced at the United Nations the establishment in Winnipeg of an international centre on sustainable development. Since then,
his government does not appear to be in a hurry to implement the Prime Minister's promise.
In a column in the Winnipeg Free Press, Val Werier quotes one Manitoba official as saying: "The political map of eastern Europe is being rearranged faster than it takes the government to act on the centre."
Why the snail's pace? Is the Prime Minister still serious about his commitment to establish the centre? Actually, is he serious about implementing sustainable development at all? His government's lack of action so far forces Canadians to think that he is green by way of words, but not by way of actions.


ONTARIO YOUTH PARLIAMENT
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, this week at Woodstock, the Ontario Youth Parliament concluded its successful twenty-second annual meeting. The youth parliament is a successor to the Ontario Older Boy's Parliament which began in 1912.
Over a quarter century has passed since I was first elected to Ontario Older Boy's Parliament, and this weekend at Woodstock I noticed important differences that reflect the progressive evolution of our society.
Females are now equal participants in the process, whereas once they were excluded. Indeed, the premier this year is Christine Kennedy. The parliament is now interfaith, whereas once it was for Protestants only. Issues of health care services and the environment were among those debated, also reflecting contemporary concerns.
Finally, four youth representatives from the U.S.S.R. were present, yet another sign of the changing times, and hopeful signs, as Canadian youth learn the ways of parliamentary debate and procedure and prepare themselves for future leadership in a more democratic Canada.


ARCTIC WINTER GAMES
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, the twentieth Arctic Winter Games are under way this week in Yellowknife. The four circumpolar nations, Canada, the United States, Greenland and the Soviet Union are represented. Canadian athletes from northern Alberta, the Yukon and, of course, the Northwest

March 15, 1990
Territories, are participating. Northern Quebec, unfortunately, was unable to come. We hope that they will be there the next time.
These games are unique for their circumpolar and aboriginal spirit. Traditional Dene and Inuit games such as the snow-snake and the high kick are prominent. Performing groups from the different nations provide fascinating entertainment.
Congratulations are due to the organizers, the many volunteers, and the athletes. The presence of the delegation from the Soviet Union is a real high point of this year's games.
The games are truly a celebration of northern culture, characterized by friendly competition and dedicated to just having fun. These games are a model for all international competitions and for harmonious relations among nations.
Canadians should rejoice that the north has opened, in friendly spirits, the means to have good international relations with the other three circumpolar nations.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, the decision by the Public Service Staff Relations Board determining that the government violated its collective agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada is good news for Canadian civil servants and the Canadian public.
It is good news for civil servants because the jobs of permanent employees will now be more secure, not threatened by the whims of this government. It is good news for the Canadian public because the truth is out. It proves what New Democrats have been saying all along, that the government has contracted out public service jobs, privatized them.
Public Service Alliance President Daryl Bean said it well: "This is a landmark decision for all public sector workers who have lost their jobs and had their careers disrupted as a result of contracting out by the federal government".
The Conservative agenda of increased contracting out and privatization has effectively been dealt a major blow by this decision. Let us hope that this is a lesson learned by all levels of government.
*	* He


VIA RAIL
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard on the news that VIA Rail intends to sell by tender its surplus rail cars in the international market.
The Rocky Mountain Rail Society has requested of the minister that these cars be made available to them. This volunteer society has already rebuilt a large steam engine and has arranged the running rights for a tourist run within central Alberta.
I implore the minister to instruct VIA Rail to reconsider this action and to keep these rail cars Canadian.

1990 BRIER


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, Canada's roaring game, the 1990 Brier Men's Curling Championship, produced an unusually exciting climax to a long winter season last Sunday when the seasoned Ontario rink won the event on the very last rock over a determined young team from New Brunswick.
Congratulations certainly go to skip Ed (the Wrench) Werenich and his Ontario team for winning their second national championship, and sincere best wishes to them for further success in pursuit of world honours.
There is also understandable pride on my part for the Jim Sullivan rink from Fredericton's Capital Winter Club, with an average age of just 21 years, which indeed did provide a spectacular performance by winning two critical play-off games to reach the final and then losing only by a whisker. These curlers, all students of the University of New Brunswick, distinguished themselves in the best of Canadian competition and received a well deserved hero's welcome upon their return home.
As with all forms of excellence in national endeavours, athletic achievements-in this case curling- help to develop the spirit and the character of our country, and even more so help to preserve its unity. To all those who
March 15, 1990

have participated in the 1990 Brier should go our recognition and appreciation for such an important contribution to Canada's way of life.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on March 12, the Liberal Party set up a telephone line for Canadians to express their views about the GST. Since then, more than 50,000 Canadians have spoken out against this new tax.

We hope that many more Canadians will call before Sunday night to voice their opposition to this unfair tax by calling 1-900-720-6051 or 1-900-720-6052.

-in English or in French, 1-900-720-6051 or 1-900-720-6052.


TIEM CANADA
Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, this government prides itself in its business acumen. This government makes much of its ability to manage and manage it has.
The government has managed to blow $17 million over three years on TIEM Canada through innovations programs and a program to assist small business. The government, after its original interest-free loan of $12 million, was to pay TIEM Canada $14,000 for every entrepreneur TIEM had as a client and $14,000 for every job TIEM created. TIEM Canada claimed 1,000 jobs were created. Its entrepreneur clients said "Not so". Some said that they were told to lie.
Last spring the government woke up and amended its contract with the now non-existent ITEM Canada. Auditors believe TIEM Canada owes the government $12 million.
That $12 million would have gone a long way in this year's budget. It would have almost covered the $1.6
million cuts to women's programs, $8 million cuts to native programs, $8.6 million cuts to veteran's board and lodging.
The government claims to be investigating, but I wonder how many other management disasters this government has hidden away and where they have hidden them, and if there will be a formal audit of TIEM Canada.


THE FRENCH FACT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, March 14, 1990, the Quebec Minister of Education, Postsecondary Education and Science, Mr. Claude Ryan, said: "If these manifestations of hostility to the French fact were to continue and increase, if they were to be seen as a true reflection of the attitudes of the majority of English-speaking Canadians, we would certainly have to take a very serious look at our place in this country".


LINGUISTIC DUALITY
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the issue of linguistic duality and the Canadian government's emphasis on this fact, as demonstrated by the Secretary of State in his letter of February 7 to Mr. David Peterson. The present government has repeatedly demonstrated its firm and unequivocal commitment to this important dimension of our national reality.
Whether it was passing the new Official Languages Act, proposing the Meech Lake Accord in its present form, or signing agreements with the ten provinces and the two territories on minority language education and second official language teaching, the Conservative Government has demonstrated, in no uncertain terms, its commitment to the rights of official language minorities, wherever they happen to be in this country. A great deal has been done in this respect in recent years. Our government's commitment testifies to and confirms our appreciation of this country's linguistic duality.

March 15, 1990


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, the anti-GST phone-in petition sponsored by the Liberal party is receiving a tremendous response from Canadians across this country. Over 50,000 calls have been received thus far. In fact, the demand has been so intense that we have had to add another line to register the calls and we have extended the phone-in campaign to 11 p.m. EST on Sunday night.
The people of Canada are certainly taking advantage of this opportunity to reach out and touch an out of touch government and ring their bell so that they will know that the GST is totally unacceptable.
Canadians dialing 1-900-720-6051 or 1-900-720-6052 know that the Liberals care about the views of the people.


FISHERIES
Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans knows that the fishing industry has no confidence in that department's policies. If he wants to restore some lost confidence, I recommend the following actions.
Commit the department to a complete reassessment of traditional stocks in the Scotia-Fundy region. As it now stands, the department's data does not correspond with what the fishermen are seeing in the waters, since they cannot catch it.
Second, he should institute the mesh size recommendations made by the inshore for all sectors of the fishery: inshore, offshore and foreigners. That would allow the escapement of juvenile fish and it would be an automatic conservation method.
He should further reassert the department's traditional role in market development, substantially increasing the government's marketing budget from the $1.9 million spent in 1989. He would then have some funds to go into the under-utilized species as incentives for the offshore trawlers and for all those empty fish plants, rather than letting the foreigners catch it.
As well, as a matter of good faith, he should review the practice of allowing the Cape North to fish the traditional stock of pollock in our waters. That contract is up in January and he should give notice to the owners that it should not be within our inshore.
I believe these actions would certainly improve the confidence the inshore would have in the minister.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: When the First Ministers Conference on aboriginal matters fell apart in 1987 the Prime Minister said: "There shall be a price to be paid for our failure. Unfortunately, those called upon to pay the larger share of that price shall be those least equipped to pay it, namely the aboriginal peoples".
Those words have a bitter ring to them today since it is the Prime Minister's own government that is extracting that price. This morning the Assembly of First Nations released an analysis of the recent budget they labelled: "The Budget in Grief".
It shows that per capita expenditures for Indian people in this country have actually dropped 11 per cent over the last five years. It shows that the incomes of Indian people are a pitiful 54 per cent of those of other Canadians. Yet, at the same time the Prime Minister's own government has treated Indian governments as if they were like the wealthy provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario and capped their budgets.
Maybe the Prime Minister needs to be reminded of the rest of his 1987 statement when he said: "The aboriginal people have paid an unfair price for an unfair share of time".


CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase one of the founders of this nation: "A Canadian I was bom and as a Canadian I wish to die". I am also a Nova Scotian and an Atlantic Canadian.
There are forces at work in this country today that naively think that although fostering inter-regional, inter-linguistic and inter-cultural misunderstanding, they will not fracture or otherwise harm Canada, not to
March 15, 1990

mention themselves. They cynically feel that where they failed others should not be permitted to succeed, notwithstanding the national interest.
A Canada without Quebec more imperils Atlantic Canada than a Newfoundland without the codfish.
Without Quebec in Canada, what becomes of the maritimes? Clearly, Quebec can make it no its own economically. Can we? Outside of Confederation, how will Newfoundland export its power to the United States? Will the maritimes become the East Pakistan of North America?
Let us say yes to Canada, a Canada with Ontario, with the west, with the north, with Atlantic Canada, and with Quebec.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In her absence, perhaps I can direct the question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
On October 18, 1989, in announcing her 1990 immigration plan, the minister said:
Family reunification remains the cornerstone of the current immigration program..Immigrants make a valuable contribution to Canada, -enrich our society and our economy and-they help us maintain our tradition of tolerance which is envied by all.
Today, we are dismayed to learn that the government has backed down on this commitment. Only last month in a directive the government sent to all immigration posts abroad, it said:
Global targets have been set to produce 173,000 landings from abroad. Posts must/must adhere to within 5/5 per cent of their targets.
Surely this amounts to a new quota system, and I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why this reversal of our longstanding policy against quotas? Why are we no longer concerned with family reunification and encouraging immigrants to this country with needed skills?
Oral Questions


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, our policy favours all the components of our program and of our immigration level. As you know, we had to make up for lost time due to the backlog resulting from previous policies. We are respecting our timetable and especially the major components of this immigration level which show that Canada is a welcoming country. The Family Reunification Program has been greatly improved in recent years. We definitely intend to continue to reunite families and improve this program as part of our immigration.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister is attempting to say that the government has not introduced a new quota system. How can she say this when the directive, sent only last month to all our overseas immigration posts, says:
Management should be exercised at the front end by managing the number of cases scheduled for interview or otherwise put into active processing.
What this means is that the minister's department will be turning away potential immigrants with needed skills and people who want to be reunited with their families before they can even get into the front door of our immigration posts.
Why has the government abandoned our longstanding policy against quotas for this new type of quota system, as made clear by the government's own directive to its immigration posts?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, it is completely wrong to suggest to this House that we decided to reduce immigration quotas and I especially want to say that our policy is open and known. We respect the quotas and certainly have no hidden quotas.


Mr. Marchi:: That is false!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the issue is not has she reduced what even the minister calls "quotas", but has a directive been given

March 15, 1990
Oral Questions
that numbers above what we consider to be new quotas cannot be allowed in through her department?
For example, this same document states:
Globally, increased immigrant output at the expense of other priorities can no/no longer be seen as an appropriate response to excessive demand..it would result in a significant over filling of the annual level thus rendering the levels exercise, and its consultation process, a less meaningful endeavour."

Mr. Speaker, if this document does not describe a new quota mechanism, why does the directive also say that for Canada, this means that the number of eligible immigrants far exceeds the number the government plans to admit?
So I ask the minister why she does not simply provide the additional resources to process all the eligible immigrants efficiently and equally. Why not, Madam Minister?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, the processing of the backlog will continue and it is in the interest of all claimants that it should do so.

We are trying to provide our claimants with the services to which they are entitled and all the applications for sponsorship, family reunification and the various components of our immigration level will be treated with the services, compassion and humanitarianism that characterize us as a government and as a country.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the same minister and it concerns the other backlog in her department, namely, the refugee backlog.
It has now been 10 days since the Federal Court ruled that the minister's refugee backlog clearing system is illegal for the 125,000 refugee claimants and to date there has been no response from the minister or the government.
In light of the ruling, whereby claimants have been waiting for three, four and five years, the system is costing hundreds of millions of dollars, can the minister
inform the House what action the government will take in view of this ruling so that this large, onerous cloud of indecision and uncertainty may finally, once and for all, be lifted?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, the judgement referred to in no way affects the legality of the system. We have implemented a process to clear up the backlog and we will see it through. We are tiying as much as possible to speed up the process by always keeping in mind humanitarian considerations, which guide and, I would even say, characterize our department. So I repeat, the judgement does not call the legality of the system into question. On the contrary, what we are trying to do with these new measures is to guarantee our protection to those who ask for it.
[English [


Sergio Marchi: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister has read the decision. Today, if she is categorically saying that the legality of the system is not being called into question, then clearly not only has the government not given us a solution, they have not even read the decision from the Federal Court.
My supplementary question is to the same minister. She is aware that a number of claimants have been denied status or have been deported under the system that has been ruled on as illegal by the court.
In light of the court's ruling, what does the minister plan to do about those who have been denied or deported? Will they get a second opportunity and a second fair hearing, something that they were denied the first time around?


Monique Vézina: My
colleague in Immigration is reviewing the judgement and we will make the decisions required to speed up the process of clearing the backlog. It is in the interest of all Canadians that we in the government and the department take rational, well-considered measures, which is what we are working on.
March 15, 1990


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister.
I would like to make a reasonable suggestion to the Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon. For some time, his government has been calling for alternatives to the GST, and our party and riding have given an alternative to the government in terms of tax fairness for individuals and corporations.
This morning we heard a very well spoken alternative from Neil Brooks, a professor from Osgoode Law School in Toronto, to the GST. In his alternative, Mr. Brooks proposed something that is less inflationary, has less impact on interest rates, better in terms of job creation, an alternative that is far less costly.
When the Deputy Prime Minister considers the tremendous opposition to the GST, when he considers the fact that there is a revolt brewing on the back-benches of the government party, I wonder whether or not the government would consider suspending the process of the GST. Would he put the GST on the back burner for a few months and consider an alternative to the GST, in light of the fact that the population of this country does not want this new tax?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell our hon. friend in very clear terms that there is no question that this government will go back on the GST, because the GST, as we have proposed it, is the fairest of the value added taxes and the most equitable system of all VAT country taxes. Forty-eight countries have a GST and ours is the most equitable.
The reasons why so many Canadians fail to understand it is that the opposition, instead of being responsible and co-operating in the improvement of the finances of this country, is doing everything it can to describe it in terms that are most unfair.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the unfairness of the GST and the opposition to the GST, the minister knows very well that over the next 10 years, according to the Minister of
Oral Questions
National Revenue, the administration of the tax will cost the Canadian taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. The compliance costs in terms of business will be billions and billions of dollars. In fact, over the next decade if you put the two of them together it will cost administration and compliance costs of over $15 billion.
Is that figure alone not enough to convince the government to withdraw the GST, to listen to the Canadian people, to hear what they are saying, be a bit democratic, withdraw the GST, or at least suspend it and look at alternatives.


Gilles Loiselle: would like to remind the hon. member that, at committee stage, his own party supported the introduction of a value-added tax. It so happens that as part of my responsibilities I travel around this country and I meet people. When we tell them what this reform is all about, they support it.
We will continue our job of explaining and introducing this new tax.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware that our party has proposed an alternative to the GST. He is aware of it.
Mr. Speaker, in Mr. Brooks' proposal this morning, an average family that earns $35,000 to $40,000 a year would be $300 ahead compared to the GST, according to Mr. Brooks' figures. Does the minister now agree that the government's proposal is worse than Mr. Brooks'? And if he agrees, will he finally listen to the Canadian people and withdraw the GST?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I tell our friend again that there is no question of withdrawing this tax proposal. We have presented it to the House and will see it through because it is a modem reform. When we explain it to Canadians and tell them about its advantages, particularly for families of modest means, they will understand.
Once the opposition stops doing everything to misrepresent this proposal, things will improve and gradually- From the phone calls we receive, we sense that people accept it. They do not like taxes, neither do I, but they accept this reform more and more.

March 15, 1990
Oral Questions


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Candians have reason to rejoice. The Supreme Court of Canada has handed down an historic judgment, which confirms that language minorities have the right to manage and control education in the minority language and the institutions that dispense that education.
Mr. Speaker, minority groups now have a decision by the Supreme Court that confirms they have rights. However, these rights will be more or less respected depending always on the generosity of the provinces.
Considering the reluctance of certain provinces, including Alberta, to recognize the rights of the francophone language minority, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the federal government intends to do to ensure that these provinces are generous, open and obliging towards their language minorities. What will the government do?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the government promised to raise the question of minority language rights in general at the first constitutional conference after the ratification of the Meech Lake Accord.
This commitment was repeated several times, in the Speech from the Throne, for instance, which identified language rights and strengthening the Charter as the government's constitutional priorities, once Meech Lake was ratified.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her answer. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed today that minority language parents should be granted management and control over minority language instructions and facilities.
Many provinces have still to accept minority language groups and their right to educate their children in their language. As spokesperson for the Government of Canada, will the minister tell us whether the Government of Canada will convene a federal-provincial conference to which all premiers will be invited to discuss this question which is very important to Canadian unity?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as I answered the hon. member, the government is committed to dealing with this issue on a constitutional basis. I would also point out that I would expect that the governments of the provinces of Canada will abide by the law as it has been articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I have not had a chance to examine the decision in its details, as it was just released today at noon, but the Government of Canada is ready to collaborate with the provinces and territories so that they can give effect to the decision of Supreme Court of Canada in the most appropriate way.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, recently, the Minister of National Revenue stated that businesses that will have to collect the GST should start registering next month with his department.
Could the Minister of National Revenue explain why businesses in Canada have to register to collect the goods and services tax, although the bill has yet to receive the approval of the Parliament of Canada?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, the Auditor General on numerous occasions, including in his last report, stated that the GST must receive the priority and resources required to ensure the successful delivery of this major government initiative prior to the implementation of such legislation.
We would be irresponsible if we were not moving forward and giving Canadians the opportunity to register early because there are numerous benefits. Registration will be done on a voluntary basis up until Royal Assent is given some time later in the year, hopefully.
In the meantime, those companies which we are urging to register will be able personally to begin to claim for federal sales tax credits and will get information on how to collect the GST, keep records, file returns, obtain refunds of federal sales tax including the inventory of resale of December 31, 1990, what options are available
March 15, 1990

to get GST procedures, and all the other positive elements that we are beginning to put in place now for the benefit of each and every business in Canada, particularly the small business community.
As I have said in the past, if we did not do that, if we did not prepare, we would be irresponsible. We are preparing.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the small business community to which the minister refers has been very outspoken in its opposition to the goods and services tax. The minister has been talking about the efficiency of the program he is putting in place. That program includes the hiring of 4,000 to 7,000 tax collectors and so-called tax police.
Since the Minister of National Revenue is debating the amount it is going to cost taxpayers to implement the GST, can he tell us how much it is going to cost small businesses which are going to be forced to collect the goods and services tax? How much is it going to cost them?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of elements in that question that have to be corrected.
The hon. member is wrong in the number of employees that are required to be hired to implement and administer the GST. The hon. member is wrong when he says that the small businesses we talked to are opposed to this. We know that John Bulloch wants a national sales tax. He is opposed to this system, but the majority of small businesses we are talking to are not opposed to it.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Give me a break.


Mr. Fontana:: Your nose is growing. Pick up the phone line; you'll find out.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. minister could complete his answer.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, they get a little antsy when they start hearing the truth and the facts.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. minister does not answer the question, they will never hear the truth.


Otto John Jelinek: To answer my hon. friend specifically, the compliance costs to small business are going to be minimal. That is why we are offering the advance of up to $1,000 to small businesses to be able to adjust to the new, better, fairer and simpler tax.


CONSUMERS GAS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister about the takeover of Consumers Gas by British Gas. The British Office of Gas Supply, a government watchdog agency in the U.K., has accused British Gas of encouraging energy waste in Britain with pricing policies which offer discounts to high volume purchasers.
Will the minister see to it that this environmentally damaging approach to pricing, which has been identified by this British watch-dog agency as an environmentally dangerous approach, is brought to the attention of both Investment Canada and other agencies that have to make decisions with respect to this sale so that they will make decisions to keep Consumers Gas in Canadian hands?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that Investment Canada does not make decisions. It makes recommendations.
Its recommendations are based in takeovers of this sort on proving that there is net benefit to Canada from any such takeover. If that case is not made and the minister does not accept it, the takeover would not go through.
The hon. member should know, too, that the Ontario Energy Board plays a key role in this decision, as do the energy authorities in the province of Quebec.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that is why I suggested the variety of different agencies with which this government, if it takes environmental considerations seriously, should be communicat-

March 15, 1990
Oral Questions
ing to see to it that Consumers Gas is not simply sold out to a company with this kind of poor record.

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is as follows: More than 20,000 consumers filed complaints with British Gas last year. Will the government consider these problems when it makes its decision on the sale of Consumers Gas?


Thomas Hockin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this will be part of the calculation of net benefit to the people of Canada.
Large discounts occur now with Consumers Gas in Canada. They are not necessarily right just because they are Canadian. The British applicants will have to prove that their application is of net benefit to Canada, including environmental considerations.


MOLI ENERGY
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the minister responsible for western diversification.
The high tech company Moli Energy Limited went into receivership on February 26 of this year. The company leaves considerable debts behind, including $33 million to the B.C. government and approximately $6 million to the federal government.
Last week it was announced that a consortium of three Japanese companies have taken over the assets and operations of the firm while the B.C. government is licensing the technology to them. There have been suggestions in British Columbia that other Canadian companies did not have the opportunity to bid for the assets of the company.
First, will the technology that has been developed at the University of British Columbia stay in Canada? Second, were Canadian firms allowed to bid on the assets of this company?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, Moli Energy, as the hon.
member will know, is a 10-year old company which has been experiencing some financial difficulties for about six months. During that period of time it has been unable to find Canadian funding to keep itself in operation. The answer to the hon. member's first question is that there was opportunity for Canadian investors to become involved in Moli. Second, the technology as I understand it will remain in Canada. It is a very good technology. As important, there are over 100 jobs involved which will remain in Canada.
While the financial difficulties are not something that we like, the end result is the fact that the technology will stay in Canada and that there will be over 100 jobs maintained as a result of the restructuring that has just been announced.


TIEM CANADA
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In 1986 the department of regional expansion and the department of employment funded a private company known as TIEM Canada in the amount of approximately $18 million, which company was supposed to help small business in a formative period. However, it was soon discovered that this company did not deliver on its promises, did not meet its targets, was incompetent, was inefficient, and was not able to account for the government funds provided to it.
What criteria were used to select this company for funding, and what evaluation was done of its business plan before funds were provided to the company?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, there was an evaluation done, but what is important here is that very serious allegations have been raised recently concerning TIEM Canada's operations and they are currently being examined.
Until it has been determined whether legal investigation is required in this case, further comment would be inappropriate.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the government has known about this situation for more than a year now and has done nothing about it.
March 15, 1990

Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to establish an independent inquny to look into this matter and to provide the Canadian public with all the facts about this sad affair?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, it is quite inaccurate to say that the government has done nothing about it.
In May 1989 this organization, TIEM Canada, closed its doors but it did not go into either bankruptcy or receivership. The Department of Industry, Science and Technology and CEIC have monitored the winding up of TIEM and have assisted TIEM clients to get alternative support.
This the government has been doing, plus the investigation I mentioned in my first answer.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The government makes two assumptions: first, that the value of the MST will be removed from manufactured goods and passed on to the consumer and, second, that Canadians when faced with a rise in the cost of living will not demand higher wages.
Experience has shown that prices will not fall even when old taxes are removed. At a recent national renovators' conference only 44 per cent said that suppliers would pass on some savings.
Given these examples and substantiated studies, why will the government not admit to Canadians that there are no guarantees to protect consumers and that the inflationary assumptions predicted by the government are not even remotely realistic?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, we are very confident that our evaluations are right.
I agree with the hon. member-and we have said so from the outset-that during the transition period we would all, both on the business side and on the labour force side, have to be careful to manage the transition. If everybody were to try to make the best out of it for himself it would create pressures.
Oral Questions
Nevertheless, with the disposition we have in this GST reform to protect fully the buying capacity of lower income people and the vast majority of our citizens, we are confident that there is no need for these pressures to arise if we behave in a responsible manner.


Beryl Gaffney: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I find that answer absolutely incredible.
Last week in Montreal it was shown that the Canadian consumer when faced with a rise in the cost of living will demand higher wages. Some 4,200 members of Canadian Auto Workers employed by Pratt and Whitney Incorporated settled for a three-year contract that provides for an unlimited cost of living allowance designed to protect them from the effects of the GST on consumer prices.
Will the minister admit that his prediction of a bump of 1.25 per cent in the inflation rate when the GST goes into effect does not even include the inflationary effect of wage settlement pressures?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member keeps forgetting that the prices of many items will go down considerably. Food prices, for example, will go down.
This is part of the problem: they tell us that Canadians do not support the GST but they go around describing it in a way that would make it unacceptable.
The truth of the matter is that our GST reform is precisely designed to tackle this issue to make sure that the lower income people are fully protected and better off after.
Indeed, with people behaving in a responsible manner, I am fully confident that our provisions will prove themselves to be right.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Yesterday the Minister for International Trade told the House that any export permits issued to B.C. herring processors would have been due to our shortage of freezer capacity.

March 15, 1990
Oral Questions
Local DFO officials were telling processors in the days immediately prior to March 10 that export permits would not be issued. They knew we had adequate freezer capacity.
Will the minister explain to the House what role his department played in the discussions, whether or not he was consulted by the Department of External Affairs and, if so, what recommendations were made by his ministry?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, indeed we were consulted by the Department of External Affairs on this issue. We were made aware that there was a need to allow for the export of roe herring to the United States because of the freezing capacity.
This is the condition. The condition of all export licences granted is that the fish be brought back to Canada for processing and we have the undertaking of the processors, the exporters, in that regard.
I do not see where the member sees a problem with this.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, those assurances from the processing companies with 80 cents will get you a cup of coffee in the cafeteria. Right now employees of the B.C. Packers plant in Victoria are receiving their lay-off notices, and that freezer plant could have handled a lot of the pounds that are being shipped.
Regulations were issued late on Friday evening; 107 permits were issued early Saturday morning to ship 3,400 tonnes, 7.5 million pounds or 11 per cent of our total expected catch for 1990.
The trucks are rolling. The fish are leaving. The jobs are reappearing in Washington State.
The previous Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the former Minister for International Trade assured us that no jobs historically held in the B.C. fish processing industry would be lost. What assurances will the present minister give to the B.C. shore workers that he will make sure B.C. fish processing jobs will be secured for Canadians?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the position is quite clear. In order
to handle the herring it has to go through an individual quick freezing method, and there is a limited capacity in B.C. to freeze herring.
There is a TAC of about 30,000 tonnes of herring which may be caught very quickly. There is a limited number of export permits being issued on the condition that the herring will be shipped to the U.S. for freezing only and returned to Canada for processing. Each time an export under a valid permit is made it has to be reported to External Affairs. When the fish is returned to Canada the reimportation must be reported to External Affairs and verified with documentation. This is to ensure that roe herring caught will not lie on a dock and rot because the freezing capacity is not there.
Finally, the B.C. Packers plant that is being closed is being closed because of high costs, a shorter trolling season and the shifting of the fishery to the north. That is the reason for the closure, not the specious and false reasons just given by the hon. gentleman opposite.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Yesterday the government revealed its proposal for Article XI negotiations at the GATT in the multilateral trade negotiations this year. It is a rather vague document, although we are glad to see the government finally reveal its position with regard to Article XI and the support it will provide to dairy farmers of Canada.
Is the minister willing to make a commitment here this afternoon that the government will not allow imports larger than those recommended by dairy farmers of Canada and the almost 40,000 families who depend on those import controls to have a viable industry?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, on occasion after occasion we have given our commitments to the farmers of Canada who were interested in this issue and to other interested people that we are going to be fighting, as we did with the presentation we made yesterday, for a clear and effective Article XI(2)(l)(c), and that is just what we are doing.
We are glad to see the support that we are getting from dairy farmers. Richard Doyle of the Dairy Farmers of Canada said: 'It is the first detailed proposal on
March 15, 1990

Article XI by any country, that they came out with this is a big step".
If the Dairy Fanners of Canada think it is a big step, why does the hon. gentleman not accept the fact that it is a big step.
Canadian Federation of Agriculture President, Don Knoerr, said that our proposal is close to the position worked out at its annual meeting and that it offers a good balance between domestic and export interest groups.
The dairy fanners of Quebec are taking the same position, so I think we can say there is just about unanimous approval.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, you will note that the Minister for International Trade did not respond to my question.
Richard Doyle and the 40,000 dairy farmers he represents have recommended to the government that the volumes of imports be limited on a value basis to 5 per cent or on a volume basis to 3 per cent of the Canadian dairy industry.
Is the minister willing to make that the bottom line, or is the government going to sell out the farmers of Canada? That is all I want to know.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has just lately come to an intense interest in this issue. He did not want Canada to put a proposal forward on Article XI at all until there was a GATT panel decision that he did not like.
They do not like the GATT when there is a panel decision they do not like. They do not like the U.S.-Can-ada Free Trade Agreement, and now he apparently does not like our presentation on Article XI. Everybody else likes it.
The hon. gentleman will have to wait until negotiations are completed. We will only agree to what is in the best interest of our supply management system and Canadian agriculture generally.


CURRENCY
Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
Oral Questions
Nova Scotians were honoured a few years ago when the beautiful beach at Lockeport graced our $50 bill. When we found it was not going to happen we were disappointed, but we felt we were moving up in the world when they put the historic town of Lunenburg on the $100 bill.
Now we are told that that is to be no more. It seems our goose is cooked, because they are going to put the Canada goose on the $100 bill. All Nova Scotians are outraged.
Given that the geese will not be offended if they are not on the bill but Nova Scotians will, given that the geese do not vote in Canadian elections but Lunenburg-ers do-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister would like to respond quickly.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member that the Bank of Canada did not have any intention of reflecting negatively on the good people of Lunenburg. However, in 1986 the Bank of Canada indicated that it wanted to change the design and go to a more simple design for two reasons, basically.
The first is for new security features against counterfeiting, and the second is to assist the blind and the visually impaired to distinguish among denominations. These are the reasons for the changes.


TRANSPORTATION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
As he knows another day has gone by since the Federal Court quashed the licence to build a dam on the Oldman River. To make things worse, the Government of Alberta maintains that it does not intend to stop the work on the dam on the Oldman River.
Could the minister give assurance to the House that he intends to proceed and inform the Government of Alberta that all the work on the dam on the Oldman River must be stopped, using the powers he has under the Navigable Waters Protections Act?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as all members of the House know, the decision with respect to the Oldman River if it is upheld in the court, should it be appealed-

March 15, 1990
Business of the House
the province of Alberta has indicated its intention to request leave to appeal-would certainly have very widespread ramifications not only for this project but for others.
Consequently, representatives of the Departments of Transport, Fisheries and Oceans, Environment and Justice have been meeting and will continue to meet in order to study the judgment and its ramifications on this and other projects.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the ramifications of this decision were known to this government a long time ago when the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment and other ministers of the Crown subscribed to the notion of sustainable development at home and abroad. This is no excuse to give us in the House today.
My supplementary question is again for the Minister of Transport. He has received a request from an organization in Alberta called The Friends of the Oldman River. They are urging him to take action and to stop the construction of the dam.
Will the minister be a friend of this organization and inform the Alberta government that the work must be halted immediately? Or does he want to let the organization do the work for him?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has answered the question. This is a decision with far-ranging implications. I think that the people of Canada-all those interested, such as the people of Alberta and environmentalists would want us to take every look at it that we can in order to come up with the best decision as to how to proceed. We have no difficulty with doing that and explaining to the people of Canada that we are taking that kind of a look at it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Premier Devine and the minister have been leading western Canada to believe that a cash program will be
forthcoming to assist producers in putting in the crop this spring. However, no program has yet been announced.
Tonight, the minister and the premier are meeting with bankers in Toronto to discuss the agricultural debt. How does this meeting affect the expected cash pay-out? When can western Canada expect this promised pay-out to materialize?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have received the report of the federal-provincial committee that has assessed the current situation. We are evaluating it and looking at various options that might be considered.
The meeting tonight with bankers and Premier Devine is to discuss some of the long-term farm credit problems that exist within the province of Saskatchewan and to look at some options there as well.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, western Canada needs stability, not political gamesmanship. The agricultural industry is clearly in crisis. Prairie cities, towns and villages are in a desperate situation. The net-out migration from Saskatchewan alone is some-


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time I would like the hon. member to put his question.


Rodney Edward Laporte: My question, Mr. Speaker, is this. Given the fact that there has been a tremendous out-migration from western Canada, will the minister be telling Canadian banks today that they should be treating western Canada with the same compassion that they are treating Third World debtors with the restructuring program that is taking place there?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and other hon. members of the House that we are working on this veiy serious problem at the present time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, and now for the customary Thursday question: we would like to know what the government's order of



March 15, 1990

business will be in the days to come, and I would like to ask the minister whether he could inform the House what the business of the House will be during the next few days, until next Wednesday or Thursday?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be an allotted day.
Next week on Monday and Tuesday we will start with third reading on Bill C-48, the crop insurance bill, followed by report stage on C-56, the Small Businesses Loans Act.
I will then call second reading of Bill C-65, the borrowing bill. Wednesday next week will be an allotted day.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice of this issue to both parties. It involves house business and relates to the new regulations with regard to demonstrations on the grounds of Parliament Hill.
I would ask the government House leader recognizing, first, that the request for new regulations came from the Hill, and the need for safety and to ensure that there is unimpeded access to the buildings by MPs, their staff and, more important, emergency vehicles. In view of the concern that a number of people in this House from all parties have with regard to demonstrations and the ability of Canadians to come to Parliament to express their views, and considering the fact that the regulations which were produced have not been the result of a thorough consultation among the parties, will the minister refer this matter to a standing committee?
I ask this to make sure that the regulations meet the needs of the safety of the people working here, but also to ensure that the public has a legitimate right to demonstrate on the Hill, specifically that they have the right to demonstrate on the outside far central staircase, something which is not very clear if you read the regulations.
Points of Order
The central staircase is outside the building. It has been used for public demonstrations, for speeches by the Leader of the Opposition, as well as other political figures. I would like to ensure that we have a thorough review of these regulations so that the public is protected.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this decision preceded my assuming my present position on the Board of Internal Economy.
According to the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Internal Economy of November 22, 1989, there was in attendance the House leader of the New Democratic Party. The member for Kamloops was there, as well as the then House leader for the Liberal party, the current Leader of the Official Opposition. There was as well representatives from our party, of course.
A request was made that the Speaker on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy write a letter to the Minister of Public Works requesting that the Public Works nuisance regulations be amended to permit the Minister of Public Works to designate specific areas on Parliament Hill for holding demonstrations and other activities, and to allow the minister or a peace officer to prohibit or evict any persons not complying with the order.
Clearly, the message from the Board of Internal Economy indicates that there is the desire to provide a space on Parliament Hill for demonstrations. There is a legitimate desire to provide space for those demonstrations. The Department of Public Works has done that. There is a process for regulations that takes into account public input, public reaction. There is that opportunity.
What is being done is to deal with the public's obvious right to come and express their views, but also with the clear nuisance factor as well as safety factor that arises from persons, in my opinion, exceeding in some cases what is reasonable and appropriate. Having an office on that side of the building, I am sometimes unable to open my window. In fact, I am sometimes unable to work with the window closed because of the volume of noise. After a year and a half the message, if there is one, is heard.
I do not think it is a terrible intrusion. It was unanimously agreed to by all parties, including the hon. member's party, to say that perhaps these demonstra-

March 15, 1990
Supply
tions should not be so as to make it impossible for other people to perform their equally legitimate duties.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on the same point-


Mr. Speaker:: I will listen to the hon. member for Churchill, but very briefly. This is going well beyond a point of order. It is getting into debate. Perhaps the hon. member has a very brief point. I am bound by the rules, as are we all.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my further comments are going to be very short and very brief as you requested.
I understand that it was a Board of Internal Economy request that there be some regulations. I understand that there was a request that there be some area guaranteed for demonstrations.
My concern is that the actual regulation that came out, first, allows too much discretion by the minister on this issue. Second, the traditional area-


Mr. Speaker:: I have been very patient here. The hon. member for Churchill has raised a matter concerning some regulations with respect to demonstrations on the Hill. There has been at least some response from the hon. minister, the House leader of the government.
I am going to ask hon. members to discuss this matter among themselves. If it cannot be settled, then of course I will hear hon. members again. This is no longer a point of order. This is a debate. I must be bound by the rules as we all are.


CORRECTION TO HANSARD
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is rare that I rise in this House to make a correction to Hansard, but there was an error made in the debates as reported at page 9247. In the column on the left side of the page, about the third paragraph down I was speaking about the government House leader in the course of my speech the other evening. The sentence was seriously misunderstood.
I would like to read the corrected sentence. It should be: "He got completely confused and obviously he completely befuddled every other member of the government who spoke on this subject because they have all
agreed with the nonsense he spouted out yesterday, saying that the Senate was somehow acting improperly".


Mr. Speaker:: Could I ask the hon. member if that is what the hon. member said?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I may have said that, Mr. Speaker. What Hansard reported was the word "opposition" instead of the word "government". Of course the government House leader did not befuddle the opposition; he befuddled his own members.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The difficulty I am in is that if I said it it was because of the braying that was going on at the time and I was getting confused.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the sentence that the hon. member read out, I have heard exactly the same sentence used on both sides of the House within minutes of each other.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I just wanted to get the record straight.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that somebody will do the very best they can to straighten up the record. I thank the hon. member for his intervention.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nault:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to protect, support and promote the regional economies of Canada, in order to eliminate regional disparities in the Atlantic provinces, northern Ontario and western and northern Canada.
Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I would like to enter this debate to speak on the supply motion before the House today. We have a unique opportunity this afternoon to correct the record on economic development programs put forward by the federal government in northern Ontario. That is what I would like to concentrate on in my remarks this afternoon.
March 15, 1990

I want to take as a text for making these remarks a very erroneous statement make by the member of Parliament for Kenora-Rainy River who slammed the federal budget, as the Kenora Daily Miner states. The member said that the budget will seriously erode business opportunities in northwestern Ontario. He implied that the future of FEDNOR was bleak. There were even some comments from members of his party to the effect that FEDNOR was going to cease operations.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, FEDNOR has gone from success to success. It has made an immense contribution in northern Ontario, a contribution which is micro by micro as opposed to just a big macro splash. It has affected dozens and dozens of different communities by helping the small business sector in those communities.
I have some numbers which I really think I should introduce before I take a few minutes to explain what the program is doing. I will have to do that because of what I have heard this morning when there was a lot of erroneous information about what FEDNOR ought to do.
There have been 323 projects approved by FEDNOR since its inception. There has been over $22 million in federal assistance and almost 2,000 jobs have been created. This is an expenditure which in a city, for example, of 10 million people might not be noticed. But in northern Ontario where the population is a little over 800,000, the vast majority of enterprise is small business, this is a very significant contribution.
This program has been chaired by the king of northern Ontario, Leo Bernier, a former minister in the provincial government of Ontario for many years, who understands the north very well and who is sitting beside the clock up here, Madam Speaker. He might even wave to you.
He has worked veiy, very hard for northern Ontario for decades. He has done a careful, perceptive job in making sure that FEDNOR is understood and that it is accessible to the small business community in northern Ontario.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: Before I go to just any kind of dry description of what FEDNOR is, I have to tell you one of the proudest moments I have had as a minister was going
Supply
to North Bay just a few months ago to announce the opening, with the very significant help of FEDNOR, of Mirolin Industries. Let me just tell you something about that announcement.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Was it a joint announcement with the member?


Thomas Hockin: Yes, the member was there, and he was delighted. Instead of sitting behind the hon. member opposite he was with me that day in North Bay. This announcement was typical of what we are trying to do in northern Ontario.
There was a company operating in the suburbs of Toronto and it had to expand. It had three or four problems with expanding there. One was the cost of property. Another was getting clearance on a railway siding which was absolutely crucial for the success of this company. The other was to get expertise and labour with a good work ethic and prompt response to the company's ads for labour. Of course, the company had to build the facility in good time at a good price.
It found that it was very difficult to accomplish that in its existing location. It placed an advertisement in the North Bay newspaper, advertising these jobs that might be available. It received over 600 excellent responses from educated, hardworking people who wanted to work for this company. It found a good property on the railway and together with help from FEDNOR and the province, which helped with a loan guarantee, we suddenly were able to make an announcement of 319 new jobs being created in North Bay.
I want to say something else which is very important to my hon. friends opposite. That particular program is typical of most of the programs that FEDNOR has pursued. We did it in co-operation with the provincial government of Ontario. This has not been a program where there has been tremendous rivalry between the provincial government of Ontario and the federal government of Canada. In fact, it has been very co-operative. There have not been games played.
I am frequently with the ministers Rene Fontaine or David Ramsay making these announcements. It is the same taxpayer that is paying for this. It is the same taxpayer in northern Ontario who will benefit from it, and we have worked together. I say this to the member for Kenora-Rainy River. We have worked together very well with the provinces. It is not right to overlook that,

We want not just to develop another fishing lodge, or another golf course. We want to have a comprehensive approach to this and, of course, we have announced it.
FEDNOR, which was established in 1987, has been an immense success. I see its reputation for effectiveness is growing. We have recent public opinion surveys that indicate a large number of people in northern Ontario know about FEDNOR now. We want to see it grow from strength to strength.
No other province has a special federal program designed for the northern tier of the province. We have that for northern Ontario. Northern Ontario has that economic board, FEDNOR. It is doing a tremendous job. That is an indication of the importance in which the federal government holds northern Ontario in the life of our country.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is a five-minute question and comment period.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear from the minister this afternoon and to know of the plans with regard to FEDNOR. I just have a couple of questions. I know that we have a limited amount of time. I concur with his desire to assist in the difficulties that communities such as Elliot Lake face in providing special assistance with regard to incentive grants for small business. I wonder if he could clarify a couple of points in that regard.
In communities like Elliot Lake we are not talking about 200 or 300 jobs being lost or trying to create a couple of hundred jobs. We are actually talking about over 2,000 jobs in a community with a workforce of 3,600. Will the FEDNOR board and the chairman, Leo Bernier, be empowered not only to expedite grants under the FEDNOR small business incentive, or the other programs that are now there, but also to have a co-ordinating role with regard to major federal-provincial agreements? Ministers from the province of Ontario such as Rene Fontaine are saying to us: "You know, we are facing the loss of 2,000 jobs here in the next 12 months, what are the feds going to do? " That is what I have been trying to determine. For instance, I have suggested that we have not only a special allocation under the community initiatives fund of the Community
Supply
Futures Program but, as well, if there are major economic developments that we can suggest, will the federal government and will the FEDNOR board act as the co-ordinating agency to put together larger projects? We have a very capable board and chairman there.
I appreciate the comments the minister has made with regard to incentive grants, but I think it is hard for most people to imagine that a program like FEDNOR which has to deal with an area that represents 88 per cent of the land mass of northern Ontario, has created only 2,000 jobs. We are appreciative of those but we are talking about the loss in Elliot Lake of 2,000 jobs in one community. I wonder if the minister could clarify that. That would be really useful.
The other matter that I wonder if he could clarify relates to page 12 of the budget where it states:
We are taking a more businesslike approach to assistance to
business. With limited exceptions, grants will be eliminated and
financial assistance will be repayable on more rigorous terms.
There has been a great deal of misunderstanding concerning this. Most of us believe that the grants are being eliminated by FEDNOR. Will grants still be available?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If the hon. member wishes some answers to those questions, he may want to leave time for the hon. minister.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to respond to my friend's questions. The first thing I should do is reiterate what I said before. FEDNOR itself cannot through countless grants to small enterprises ever absorb the 2,000 jobs directly, and he knows that.
What we could do is play a co-ordinating role, and I like his suggestion. That is one reason why we are sending this subcommittee of the FEDNOR board there next week. It is to take a look at what we may be able to do in terms of giving leadership comprehensively.
The federal government in the past, and you saw this in Sudbury just a few weeks ago, has taken a major initiative to build a world class science facility, the Neutrino Observatory in Sudbuiy. We have been able to take these lunges of leadership right into the heart of new opportunities internationally and put them in northern Ontario.

March 15, 1990
Supply
The funds through FEDNOR are of course limited. There would have to be a new agreement with the provincial government if we were going to do something in northern Ontario of a great bulky or megaproject nature. I would encourage the province to respond if we were able to come up with a proposal.
Let me just answer with a couple of caveats here. With respect to the money that the Northern Ontario Development Corporation, NODC, and the provincial government's Heritage Fund, is getting instead of stumpage on lumber, quite frankly, there does not seem to be a co-ordinated approach to those funds. I am disappointed with that. NODC has been very co-operative with us in terms of FEDNOR, but most of their contributions are loan guarantees or repayable loans. That, I have to say to my hon. friend, is not the answer to 2,000 jobs.
We have to get the provincial government-and I wonder what my friend the member for Kenora-Rainy River would say-to take a more comprehensive, rather than just a loan guarantee approach to what it is doing in northern Ontario. I would urge that we have an intensive discussion of that after we get our subcommittee from the FEDNOR board back from its visit to Elliot Lake.
I should not let the hon. member forget all of the things we have been able to do in that region. I have listed here absolutely dozens of investments that FEDNOR has made for small businesses ranging from $14,000 for a small food and beverage operation to $250,000 for a retail store. These add up to jobs. We must not give up on this either.
In the interim we must target Elliot Lake if we can through FEDNOR, as well as do what we can to come up with a comprehensive plan.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, let me do as my colleague just did and speak on regional development as it relates to western Canada.
I want to read the motion. It states:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to
protect, support and promote the regional economies of Canada, in
order to eliminate regional disparities in the Atlantic provinces,
Northern Ontario and Western and Northern Canada.
The motion itself does not contain any suggestion as to what, in fact, the opposition would do differently or, presumably, do better. I have listened to the debate and the comments coming from the opposition side of the House and have not heard any suggestions as to what we have been doing right or what the opposition members would do differently if they were in the position of government.
Let me also point out what we are dealing with. In western Canada, we have been dealing with largely a resource-based economy. Roughly 50 per cent of our exports go to the United States. Something like 85 per cent of our exports out of western Canada are resource-based, exported in relatively a primary form without a lot of value-added. We have been dealing with some very difficult market situations. I would like to point out how difficult they are so that we do not underestimate the problem.
I have had a chance to be in touch, on a regular basis, with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act people who are located in Regina. In looking at the weather statistics, they tell us that of the six worst years in western Canada as far as weather is concerned-going back to when we first started to keep records in the country-that five out of the six worst years have been in the 1980s, 1937 being the exception. Thke 1937 and five years out of the 1980s and those were the six worst years that we have had weather-wise on the Prairies. Also consider that a big part of what we do in western Canada is directly related to agriculture. It is obviously a resource industry.
Against that back-drop of how bad the weather has been and all of what has happened in commodity prices, whether it is oil or some of the metals-lumber is somewhat of a different story-listening to the opposition, one would think that everything was terrible. Well, there is no question that there are problems, but, if one looks at some of the numbers, they do not bear out what the motion says and what we have heard to date in this debate.
In point of fact, Manitoba and Alberta have the second-lowest unemployment rate in the country. Over 400,000 jobs-new and, 85 per cent of them, permanent jobs-have shown up in western Canada in the last five years.
March 15, 1990

What I do not understand is that they can be critical of us and tell us we can do better, but put it in some perspective. Things are not as bad as they make them out to be. Second, if they are that bad, then tell us what you would do differently. All we hear is: "Spend. Spend more money. Get us out of the problem by spending money." Well, if in fact that was going to solve our problem, one would think that with the mountain of debt that we are carrying in the country, accumulated over a period of years, that that would have solved our problem.
Big debt, I think we have come to learn rather graphically and dramatically, is not self-liquidating. It turns out to be, as we find, self-perpetuating. If we let it go and do not deal with it, I would suggest that it can be self-liquidating. It can cause all kinds of problems for us. So, within that back-drop, we have begun to bring some sense about it as far as government spending is concerned and we have begun to reduce gradually the over-all deficit which, I think, is what most people want us to do, and with that we are going to see some results.
Think about that. We have begun to reduce government spending. At the same time, the government has supported the average family farm on the Prairies to the tune of something like $30,000 each over the last five years. We have done that. So, to suggest and condemn us out of hand, without putting some of those things in place so that we can have a reference point for which to criticise us, does not make a lot of sense. To talk specifically about my responsibilty with Western Diversification, I do not think that the opposition understands what Western Diversification is.
Let me give you a quote from the hon. member for Winnipeg-South Centre who elected to this place in 1979, at the same time I was. Here is what he said after the budget of the Minister of Finance last February, as reported by a Winnipeg newspaper:
The Western Diversification Initiative is "being gutted" by
shifting from grants to loans, the Winnipeg-South Centre MP said.
This is absolutely incredible. This member has been in this House for 11 years. He has been here since the inception of WD, and he says the outfit is being gutted because we are no longer going to do grants. Eighty per cent of what we have done from day one has been loans. We do very few grants. Surely to goodness we can expect better than that from the opposition members. It is bad enough that they criticize us and do not want to use the whole story, but to come out and make an obvious error
Supply
like that tells me a lot about some of the homework they do. We do not do grants as a rule of thumb. We never have. Surely, we can expect them to do a little bit of homework when they want to be critical of us. I have given up on expecting them to give us any suggestions as to alternatives.
Let me tell you what we do. This is first time ever that we have had a deputy minister of a full department of the federal government located in western Canada. Have you ever talked about that? Four assistant deputy ministers are located in western Canada because we believe, if you are going to deliver regional development programs, the best place to administer them is in the area we are trying to help and it is easier for people to come to see us.


An hon. member:: Right on. Get them out of Ottawa.


An hon. member:: In the regions, for the regions.


Charles James Mayer: A full deputy minister of a full department of the federal government is located in Edmonton. There are four assistant deputy ministers, one in Winnipeg, one in Saskatoon, one in Edmonton and one in Vancouver. Did anybody ever talk about that? We also have an assistant deputy minister of Agriculture for the first time located in western Canada.
In the gain and oilseeds business, Winnipeg used to be the centre for North America. One can now make the case that, if there is a centre in Canada, it is in Winnipeg. It makes a lot of sense to have the grain and oilseeds policy branch of the Department of Agriculture located in Winnipeg. That is what we have done. Has anybody ever talked about that? No, no.
We do loans. We do small loans and big loans. We are very flexible. We try to restructure the payment schedule around the individual business. If we make a loan and there is going to be increased returns as a result of the loan, immediately we will structure it so that repayment starts quickly. If it is going to take a little longer, then we will wait one, two or three years, in some cases, before we want repayment. We try to structure it on the basis of the individual company.
Let me say a little bit about trade. Everybody talks about the free trade agreement and how terrible it is. Think about this: 50 per cent of the west's exports go to the United States. In Alberta, it is something like 70 per cent. It makes sense to have some trade rules with the

Supply
Americans so that we can have a little more secure access.
Let me just read a little bit out of a Winnipeg Free Press story of last week. There is an outfit in Winnipeg called Versatile Equipment. It started out manufacturing swathers and sprayers. Back in the late 1950s, I bought one of its sprayers as a farmer. I still have it and that tells you about the kind of equipment it makes. That makes it 30 years old. It is a good piece of equipment. Laterally, in the last 15 years, it has begun to manufacture four-wheel-drive tractors. It is a leader in its field. Its tractors under 40 hp are made mostly in Japan, worldwide and some in Europe. Those between 40 and 100 hp are made in the United States. Above that, the tractors are made in the United States and Canada. We have better trade rules for these people as far as access to the U.S. market.
For those of us in the west who are connected with agriculture, the GST is going to be a net benefit to the agricultural industry. We estimate that, because of the way the GST is going to work, there is going to be somewhere between $200 million and $250 million of direct net benefit to the agricultural industry right across the country. Here is how Versatile views the GST and how it is going to affect them.
The Winnipeg plant produces four-wheel-drive heavy tractors, swathers, and industrial front-end loaders for Ford New Holland's 5,200 dealerships around the world.
Versatile has had some financial problems and it has been restructured as a result of Ford New Holland coming in to be part of their operation.
The article continues:
The GST, which is geared to help export-oriented manufacturers, fits Versatile like a glove. More than half the Fort Garry plant's outputs are destined for American, Australian and European markets.
'Any country that has a VAT-type of tax-
-which is what the GST is-
-is by definition trying to get an advantage in export markets vis-avis countries which don't have a VAT-
'To that extent, the GST brings Canada into line with most of
Europe, Mexico and various other countries."
It goes on to state, and I will conclude with this point:
He said the cost the tax added to the price of a Versatile tractor
now-
-and here, he is talking about the present manufacturer's sales tax-
-may be the difference between being cheaper or more expensive than its major American rivals.
Here is a case of a western company, that is a leader in the world and is hooked up with Ford New Holland with 5,200 dealers around the world, is going to have an advantage because of the GST over the present manufacturer's sales tax.
I will conclude on this point. It is one of the things that we have done in the government that makes me particularly proud to be part of this government. We have taken the case that we have at GATT on behalf of our farmers very, very seriously. Fifty per cent of every income dollar that a Canadian farmer earns comes from exports. Canada is a country of 25 million people. If we cannot have better rules and fewer subsidies around the world for our farmers to compete against, then we indeed have problems when we look down the road. There is another thing that we have done in terms of regional development. We have taken some of these things seriously.
To conclude, in looking at our record, one may want to say it is not perfect, but it is not that bad. We have created over 400,000 direct jobs in the last 10 years-not part-time jobs, but direct jobs. Western Diversification, designed to diversify western Canada, is responsible for about 20,000 of those 400,000 jobs. GST is going to benefit manufacturing in western Canada and a big part of what we do goes into the export market. We are going to control our deficit and get interest rates under control as a result of controlling the deficit. As I indicated here and there are many more examples of it, dearly the GST is going to help industries in western Canada that need to compete on the export market. That is a pretty good record on behalf of western Canada as far as regional development is concerned. There are a lot more things I could say if I had the time.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the minister and I do not question at all the sincerity with which he approaches his job, nor would I want to be one

of those who does not recognize that some positive advances are made from time to time. However, I represent a constituency in the province of Saskatchewan, and I think the government does have something to answer for, at least in respect of that province. I am talking about the failure to renew ERDAs.
As the minister knows, the province of Saskatchewan lost 23,000 people from its population last year. That is the equivalent of some of our largest communities. In fact, Saskatchewan has only four cities that are bigger than 23,000. Three hundred of the 500 communities in that province lost population last year, so it is an urgent situation.
The existing Economic Regional Development Agreements, ERDAs, were originally scheduled to run for 10 years. The first five years were up last March 31, at the end of the fiscal year, and people had done their planning on the basis that there would be another five-year renewal. The minister said at the time that the negotiation of new agreements was just around the corner. When asked about it again later on in the summer, negotiation was just around the corner. I am starting to think that this building is an octagon. There are always more comers to go around to get to see the actual ERDAs. When is the government going to get serious about renegotiating those ERDAs?
In the area of minerals, they have kept small exploration companies They have now been nailed by the elimination of the flow-through share program. In the area of forestry, not only are we not catching up, but with the forest fire devastation and so on, we are falling even further behind. In the area of northern development, a lot of good initiatives in the community development corporations, and so on, that were just getting up a head of steam are being allowed to stagnate. In the area of tourism, which does hold some potential, a lot of projects are stagnating. There have been a lot of positive suggestions made around the idea of supporting local economic and sectoral organizations so that small communities and small business can get involved in organizing their sectors to be more competitive and to access big programs like WDO. If the commitment is so serious, how can we have waited a whole year and still have nothing in sight? In fact, we are being told once again that this building has another corner.
Supply


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, we do not have to get serious about negotiating ERDAs. We have always been serious and we have said so right from the budget in April, 1989. The provinces are well aware of our position.
I will be straightforward with the member. It has taken us longer than any of us would have liked, or I would have thought at the time, to get the final paperwork done to get everything in place. In the meantime, he should know that there is regular western diversification programming going on in the province of Saskatchewan. It is pretty significant in some areas. He should also know that there are some fairly exciting projects in the pipeline that we are looking at with province of Saskatchewan that will be of direct benefit.
We have $242 million still there. We do not operate on the basis of spend it or lose it. The money is not rotting. It is there. I have met with representatives of the province of Saskatchewan as recently as a month ago to go over where some of their priorities are. We are both getting ourselves geared up so that once we have our final paperwork done that we will be in a position to sit down, be specific and sign the agreement.
The province is not chomping at the bit to sign these agreements because some of the other money is still flowing. There is regular programming under Western Diversification and they are satisfied that the money that we were allocated to use in ERDA-type arrangements last April is still there. I have never used the word "corner". We are getting closer and closer all the time to signing those agreements.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak in this debate this afternoon which is of vital importance to every member of our caucus, to every member of the resource areas of this country, including Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario and the western provinces.
The resolution was brought forward this afternoon by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River because of the extreme concern there is in every part of our country with the direction that we are going, whether we are talking about transportation across these regions and VIA Rail, the dramatic cutbacks in the funding of ERDAs, as has been raised by the hon. member from Saskatchewan, the fishery problems in Atlantic Canada, or the tremendous problems that western farmers face because the government is not willing to make a commit-

March 15, 1990
Supply
ment as to what financial support will be provided to them in a timely manner.
Last week I met with a group of members of the Saskatchewan Pool who described the kind of malaise and tremendous concern there is because the government simply will not make up its mind whether it is going to provide any support or not. The night before I was meeting with this group of pool operators and producers, the Premier of Saskatchewan came on the air on province-wide television to pleaded with the federal government to provide financial support and assistance. That is what makes the whole speech by the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds such a joke. The Tory Premier of the province was pleading with the federal government on a province-wide hookup. It is a spectacle that no one would ever imagine. The sad part of it was that it had not come because he had not been able to have a meeting with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. He had had his meeting and struck out. They were turning him down and he was demanding support.
I think we are dealing more with the regional development programs of the country. We can sketch across Atlantic Canada with the tremendous cutbacks it suffered a year ago, the kind of critical situation which exists in the Prairies with the agricultural economy, and the kinds of difficulties we have in transportation all the way across the country.
I want to spend more time on northern Ontario. I hope the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism will respond to my comments. He spoke about the FEDNOR program and the small incentive grants in such glowing terms today, and even though it is a modest program compared to the economic development across the whole country, it has been extremely useful in small communities.
The question hanging over everybody's head is whether the program is a grant or a loan. The Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, who is also responsible for the Western Diversification Fund, said that they mostly give loans in western Canada under that program. In FEDNOR, it has been mostly grants. The question is in everyone's mind because of the budget and the minister
did not respond to that this afternoon. Is it because the budget says, with limited exceptions, it will be able to become a loan program? It simply will not be effective as a loan program with the kinds of small projects that we are dealing with in northern Ontario.
The minister is already disparaged with the NODC program. The NODC program is a loans program. When Leo Bernier and the advisory board to FEDNOR sat down to design the FEDNOR grants system, they said the problem in northern Ontario is equity. The loans do not help because there comes a point when one just does not have enough equity to support any loans. Adding another government loan is of no use.
I hope that Mr. Bernier will put great pressure on the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism and use the same arguments that he used when they were setting up the FEDNOR program, that our problem is equity. For these relatively small projects, small by business standards, it is essential that we reinstate or clarify that the grant program, at least under the small rural incentive program of FEDNOR, be maintained as a grant program because it is the equity that is needed.
I cannot emphasize too much to the government its importance to communities like Elliot Lake which have suffered literally hundreds of thousands of job losses. It is not unique just to Elliot Lake. In areas like Timiskam-ing, as the minister mentioned, we had Corps Addison Mines signal that it was shutting down in June, 1989, with the loss of 360 jobs; another silver mine in Cobalt, 120 jobs; the Adams mine in Kirkland Lake, 350 jobs; and a mine in Temagami with 350 jobs. There are three mines which are going to have massive layoffs in Elliot Lake. We are looking at 1,600 layoffs at the Quirke and Panel mines in the next 12 to 14 months and another 450 at the Denison mines, representing over 50 per cent of the labour force. It is essential that we have a co-ordinating activity and body from the federal government. I would hope that FEDNOR would be the agency to help co-ordinate the federal government response.
We have the Minister of Employment and Immigration saying that her department will provide the assistance for the industrial adjustment activities. That is important for the individual worker, community and so on, but it deals mainly with the relationship between the worker and the mining company to ensure that the
March 15, 1990

workers have adequate tools for adjustment, retraining and severance pay.
Clearly, the mining industry in northern Ontario is facing grim times because we are not only talking about the half a dozen mines in the Temagami and Kirkland Lake area, but the ones in Algoma. We are not sure about the situation with regard to Wawa; it is another mine in the area north of Sault Ste. Marie about which there is some uncertainty in the next two years.
One of the things which the government has removed in the last two or three years is the MEDA, the Mine Exploration Development Assistance grant and flowthrough shares. That program, which was instituted in the 1983 budget and implemented in 1984, in the last four or five years put literally hundreds of millions of dollars into exploration and development in northern Ontario and resulted in a number of mining operations being approved there. Without that program, I am not sure whether we are going see many new mines come on stream. I really am very concerned. There was a report in The Globe and Mail this morning with the headline: "Canadian Mining Facing Uncertain Future". It documents how the lack of exploration and development funds is going to have a profound impact on the development of new mines because there simply is not the kind of incentive necessary.
We have a number of other decisions in the budget which are extremely harmful. That MEDA program was done away with a couple of years ago. The CEIP program was done away with in the current budget. The incentives for assistance in areas such as northern Ontario and western Canada for oil, gas, and mineral exploration will be completely lost under this system.
A number of other programs should have been in this budget of a few weeks ago removed funding for programs like the Small Craft Harbours Program. It is a very small program by national standards. I think there is $3 million in the Ontario regions. Let us put into perspective how much the small craft industry does for the province of Ontario compared to what the federal government spends in it.
The industry of small craft harbours, when you take into account fishing boats, licences, tackle, and all the rest of it, turns back something like $150 million in sales
Supply
taxes to both the federal and the provincial governments. Out of that $150 million it receives each year, the federal government provides a budget for the Small Craft Harbours Branch of only $3 million. Imagine, in an industry which is so very valuable to the whole tourism economy of Ontario, the two levels of government take roughly $300 million on a shared equal basis in sales tax, and retail sales tax from the province. The federal government obviously will take more under the goods and service tax, if it is ever implemented. The federal government turns back about $3 million in the Small Craft Harbours Branch. I am very sorry to see that decision made in the budget.
There are many aspects to regional development that are important. Small craft harbours is important in my constituency, it isn't in all constituencies in northern Ontario. Chiselling away at each department, as the recent budget did, has an extremely adverse impact on the economy of northern Ontario. Our economy is based on the resource industries and tourism. It is based on minerals; it is based on some agriculture in some areas; and it is based on forestry. Clearly, the pulp and paper side of the forestry industry for the past few years has gone through an unprecedented period of growth. While it is coming into a period of consolidation right now, it has been strong. One of the most important employers in northern Ontario is the forestry industry. In 1987 when the government signed the agreement to impose a 15 per cent export tax on the industry it drove a stake into the heart of that industry. It is clearly an incredible decision made by our government.
The hon. member across the way knows that if the government had let the United States impose its countervail duty of 15 per cent, or whatever, it could have been easily appealed to the International Trade Tribunal in New York, we would have won it the same as we won it in 1982. It was strictly a sell-out by the Government of Canada that was in the final stages of negotiation with the Government of the United States on the free trade deal. They thought this was a giveaway. It was a token that they gave the United States industry. In British Columbia, in order to get rid of it, the government had to impose something like $600 million in stumpage fees. In Ontario, we chose not to. It has to be a most asinine deal.

March 15, 1990
Supply
The stumpage charge that we would have had to impose to get rid of the export tax in Ontario would have had to be imposed across the entire gamut of all softwood lumber production in the province. It would not just be imposed on the 25 per cent or 30 per cent that is sold into export. We would have to impose it across the entire spectrum.
So, the Ontario government and the Ontario industry said no. There is no point in taking a much bigger bite across the whole industry which would result in an increased stumpage charge of some $75 million rather than the $30 million that it is costing now, so it goes on. The result is that communities and sawmills in communities like Thessalon, Naim Centre, Searchmont, Du-breuilville and Hearst throughout northern Ontario are now cut off from sending those exports to the United States because it simply is not a viable proposition.
If the government had really thought-and it was not thinking very much when it made this deal-one of the problems was that the United States at that time had a great deal of difficulty in competing with our softwood lumber production. The technology was farther advanced in Canada. One of the factors was a very low dollar. You will recall that when this government first came to power the dollar dropped to something like 69 cents, certainly in the low seventies and, of course, that gave our producers a tremendous advantage.
The free trade deal was signed and part of the hidden and secret agreement was that we would raise the value of the dollar. That is why the Canadian dollar rests at about 500 basis points higher than the United States loan rates. The bank rate now is about 13 per cent now compared to 8 per cent in the United States. That was part of the free trade deal although it was kept secret. When the documents are released in 30 years time it will clearly indicate that it was a secret deal to raise the interest rates to provide for a very high dollar.
The result has been that our softwood lumber industry is getting a total double whammy. They are getting a 15 per cent export tax and the value of their product has gone down by 15 per cent. They have an incredible disadvantage and, of course, literally dozens of sawmills have shut down and have been gobbled up by pulp and paper industries and the local management lost.
There are a lot of factors involved in regional development. One is good trade policy. Another is good transportation policy. Northern Ontario has always depended on VIA Rail and rail service. What have we got? We used to have trains from Montreal and Toronto to Sudbury and the west. We used to have train service from Ottawa to North Bay to Sudbury and to the west.
What happened when the VIA Rail cuts came about is simply unbelievable. It is simply unbelievable what the government did. There was a train travelling through communities such as Sudbury, Thunder Bay and North Bay with populations of something like 400,000 people. By the time the government got through, there was one train, a trans-Canada train which missed all the big centres in northern Ontario. It travels three days a week, stopping at Capreol, going through to Winnipeg. It stops in communities with 20,000 or 30,000 population.
It will not be hard for the government to prove in a few years time that people are not using the train. It only goes through three days a week, so why do we not cut it out altogether? The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River used to serve on one of the national railways. That is why his community and other communities throughout northern Ontario are veiy upset and very concerned. It is interesting that the day the government announced the cutting of VIA Rail service was two days after it had announced that Air Canada would discontinue its service to northeastern Ontario, Timmins, North Bay and Sudbury.
There are a lot of factors involved in regional development. Clearly, the screws are tightening in areas like northern Ontario whether it is in grants, transportation or regional development policy.


Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to question my hon. colleague from Algoma. When he was talking about small craft harbours, he mentioned that in Ontario there is only $3 million spent. That is incorrect. I know in British Columbia it was $6 million and in Ontario it was over $6 million. I would like the member to just check that out. He will find that $3 million is incorrect and $6 million would be more like it.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member raising this matter. In my constituency of Algoma-Manitoulin we have about 10 per cent of all small craft harbours in the Ontario region. We have one office with about seven professionals and half a dozen clerical people looking after all the small craft harbours,
March 15, 1990

not only in Ontario where there are about 4,400 of them, but in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories.
The hon. member talks about the budget for small craft harbours and about the budget being $6 million. He may well be talking about what the government did in 1987. Essentially, what they did with the department from 1984 to 1987 was nothing. Suddenly there was a big shot of money, I think about $17 million, in the Ontario region to provide funding in preparation for the general election in 1988.
If there ever was a bass ackwards way to run a department and an industry, it is on the political kickout system. I did not say kickback, I said kickout. The hon. member is either talking about the budget for employees or he is talking about the special funding provided in 1987-88. You cannot even maintain the 4,100 or 4,400 small craft harbours in the Ontario region with an annual budget of $3 million or $4 million. That is why I am very concerned that we saw a cut-back in the recent budget of $4 million from a small agency of government which can be extremely useful in assisting in tourism.
In my constituency we could easily use the entire Ontario region budget. We do not get it because it has to be spread over the other 90 per cent of the projects in the Ontario region. I certainly hope that the hon. member will be making representations to the government not to implement that $4 million cut because it is not only going to hurt B.C., it is going to hurt the Ontario region. It is certainly going to hurt the Algoma-Manitoulin area where we have some 10 per cent of all the small craft harbours in the Ontario region.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the regional development motion put forward by my colleagues, I congratulate them on raising a very important issue.
I wish to put a comment to the hon. member with regard to the sense of fairness and justice in this
Supply
economy concerning the recent cuts by the Conservative government to women's centres across Canada.
In my area the Campbell River and district women's organization had 100 per cent of their funding cut. That organization played a very important role in ensuring that women could participate in the workforce in a fair and equitable way. It assisted in putting employment training and retraining programs together. They were involved in counselling services, referral services, operated a drop-in centre and provided a very active organization in support of local child care.
In addition, this organization put together the initiative for a transition house to protect women and children from family violence. It was involved in putting together programs to assist in remedying child abuse, planned parenthood and providing legal advice. This was a tremendous community service and initiative to provide services to women. This helped to get women into the workforce, to get them out of job ghettos and into fair paying jobs and to ensure pay equity. The organization was exemplary in terms of a community service and absolutely important in terms of services to women in that community. The organization also became the spark that started women's organizations in other communities in more remote areas and in single industry towns where there are no employment opportunities in many cases. It did a tremendous job.
It is interesting that this particular Campbell River and district women's resource centre was started by the present Minister responsible for the Status of Women. She was one of the key individuals who started this particular resource centre. It is ironic that she would turn around and justify the government's position for gutting the community of this tremendous resource. I ask the member of the party that brought forward this important motion today whether he feels the government should immediately restore funding for women's resource centres and whether or not that core funding should be enhanced to an acceptable level in order that the centre may do the kind of work that would provide opportunity and equality for women in the employment opportunities which would be created in a rational regional development program.

March 15, 1990
Supply
I see the Minister for International Trade in the House today. I wonder if he as an advocate of the rights and equality of women in Canada might stand up and comment on the government's position, if the hon. member for Algoma would permit it.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to have the hon. Minister for International Trade stand up and defend the government's budget with regard to the cuts, not only for women's transition centres, but the cuts that were made in this budget which often hit either low income or remote areas. That is what we are talking about in this motion today, although obviously there are low income areas in cities as well. These programs that the hon. member is speaking about are very important in remote areas. I must agree with him that the funding is always extremely tight for rape crisis centres, transition houses and programs for people who are disadvantaged, not only women but aboriginal groups. There are a number of them in communities in my riding or adjacent to them.
It is as if the government is taking the disadvantaged and cutting off their ability to communicate with the country at large or to communicate with the larger community. It is taking away their voice. If they are not organized,they do not have the drop in centre or the transition house. There is nothing worse than to be in difficulty and have no one to speak for you.
Funding has been cut to the CBC as well. If you really want to get your story out across the country, it is the local CBC station that can do it. The local radio station can broadcast the problem for the local community, but they have no capacity to carry it across the country unless they are tied into Canadian Press, and that often is not the case. I think the cuts to the CBC are another way of trying to smother or to push down any dissent or opposition there is to the government cuts in regional areas suffering great difficulty.
By the same token, our resource areas are going to be extremely adversely affected by cuts in the CBC nationally. I think of the situation where we have one national farm broadcaster, George Price, who covers meetings of the agriculture committee, transportation committee and other committees concerned with agriculture across the country. This is an important resource throughout our country. He is retiring in another month or so and is not being replaced. That hurts agriculture and those
resource industries across the country because there is no report going out.
We see this kind of unique national mechanism, which is so important to our country in trying to build understanding and knowledge of our country on a broader basis, being hamstrung by these cuts that were brought in the recent budget.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today to the opposition motion which refers to the government's actions and policies across the country, and of course one of our policies was the last Budget which, as you know, is a major component of this country's economic strategy.
Madam Speaker, in the latest Budget, various types of government spending have been frozen, and this includes spending on transfers to the provinces. In my riding, Madam Speaker, and I am sure you have had the same experience, I have been asked a lot of questions because people don't understand the difference between cutting payments to the provinces and freezing the amounts they receive.
We have a major deficit which was created, although this falls on reluctant ears, by the previous Liberal government. If you tell me the deficit increased since the Conservative party came to power, you are right. But it is also true that since 1984, since we were elected, we have managed to control our expenditures. This year, excluding interest payments, government revenues exceed government expenditures by $9 billion.
In 1984, when we were elected, the government was spending $15 billion more than it collected in revenues, always excluding interest payments.
We have now turned the situation around and are in a position to say that by 1993-94, we will have enough money to pay for all federal spending, including the interest on our debt.
Madam Speaker, we must remember that Canada consists of ten provinces, and when interest rates go down as a result of Ottawa's policies, the provinces benefit. When inflation goes down across the country thanks to Ottawa's policies, the provinces benefit. And even when we have a debt of $350 billion, it is also because the provinces have benefitted.

Madam Speaker, when we realize that since 1984 federal spending has increased 3 per cent annually and that the provinces increased their annual spending by 5 and 6 per cent, it is obvious that we will all have to bear our share of the burden.
Madam Speaker, we transfer $35 billion annually to the provinces-that is for 1989-90-an increase of 6.5 per cent over 1984. The federal government, however, kept the increase in its own spending below 4 per cent.
So it was time, and I think it was the best possible choice for the Minister of Finance, to freeze federal spending, including transfers to the provinces, and I said freeze, not cut, Madam Speaker. If we look at annual interest costs for the federal government, these represent 35 cents on the dollar. The provinces, however, pay 12 cents on the dollar.
Madam Speaker, in this country we have to work together. We need the help of the provinces. We must not forget that there are two main components in provincial transfer payments. One is called established programs financing, under which the same amount of money per capita is given by the federal government to all provinces. All the provinces receive the same amount because it is a set amount per individual. This program was frozen in 1989-90.
There is another federal program which comes under provincial transfers and I am referring to equalization transfers. Equalization is for provinces with the lowest incomes, and these payments have not been reduced. This means that lower-income provinces, including Quebec, our native province, the beautiful province I represent here in the House of Commons, Madam Speaker, will receive more money in 1990-91 than in 1989-90. Established programs financing payments are frozen, but equalization payments have gone up-there is no freeze on this component. As a result, payments to the provinces will increase by $1 billion between 1989-90 and 1990-91.
Madam Speaker, we give the provinces $36 billion without any obligation to account for the way they spend that money. This is an important point. The federal government spends nearly 25 per cent of its budget on the ten provinces and has no idea what the provinces do with that money. Do they use it for hospitals, education or roads? We have no say in this whatsoever. You may recall the Auditor General made some comments in this respect.
Supply
Madam Speaker, I think we have a duty to support the latest Budget and so does the opposition, including the cuts in all federal spending, the freeze-no cutbacks but a freeze-on established programs financing payments to the provinces and the increase in equalization payments.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Madam Speaker, the current economic conditions in the north contrast sharply with those of the mid-1980s when the joint federal-territorial economic development program began under the economic development agreement.
In 1984 the economic indicators such as gross domestic product, value of production and employment, still demonstrated the effects of an earlier economic recession. Today these indicators show signs of growth. For example, in 1988 the gross domestic product increased by 10 per cent in the Yukon and 7.4 per cent in the Northwest Territories. We must, however, ensure that the improved situation today is sustained and that present growth which has occurred, thanks in part to policies and economic development programming of this government provided by this government, continues. It has provided such a tremendous input in incentives that we want to see this growth continue.
In particular, the government recognizes that Yukon and the Northwest Territories must continue to strengthen their leading sectors and also continue to diversify into other sectors if they are to achieve greater stability in the future and provide northerners with an adequate number and variety of economic opportunities.
This is not a quick step approach to economic development. We believe in concrete, sensible, co-operative mechanisms which meet the needs of northerners and creates the climate of economic opportunity and growth which was lacking under the previous government.
The government has undertaken a number of successful initiatives to help support economic development in the north and also to provide a stable planning framework. From a policy perspective it has provided greater certainty to northern developers by reaching agreements in principle with northern native groups on outstanding land claims, with territorial governments on the northern energy accord and by introducing a northern mineral policy. Through targeted economic development programming under the federal territorial economic development agreements, it has provided assistance to

Supply
northern entrepreneurs in organizations to investigate and pursue new employment and business opportunities.
Federal funding over the past five years has amounted to $43.1 million. This programming has been successful because with minimal support the federal government is able to lever additional territorial government dollars and project proponent dollars.
The tripartite co-operation is essential in the north where the territories are assuming greater responsibility. That is good to see. Most private sector investment is from other regions of Canada or from abroad. These agreements have been successful because spending has been targeted at strategic priorities and projects that now are showing and will continue to yield definite, long term benefits. This is particularly so in the societal infrastructure which has been put in place in numerous communities under the auspices of economic development planning subagreements. I am also thinking of the renewable resources subagreements where various projects have been undertaken to develop commercially viable renewable resource businesses such as a bison ranch in the Northwest Territories and a char farm in the Yukon.
These projects have enabled the territories to market their products effectively in new and existing markets and to upgrade both human resources and infrastructures serving this sector.
Participation by native people in organizations as proponents of economic development agreements in the Northwest Territories have really been significant. In the Yukon, however, uptake has been increasing but we know that we can do more and more can be achieved.
The federal government has introduced the Canadian aboriginal economic development strategy to support native business and employment opportunities and to address the economic development requirements of native people in general. This program will benefit native people throughout the regions of Canada. With a participation of representatives of native organizations on these EDA committees, a greater understanding of programming has been gained, with a great deal of results.
This government believes in involving northerners and involving the native people in the decision-making process. The efforts under the economic development agreements to date have certainly made a positive contribution toward expanded, diversified and more stable territorial economies. However, to realize the full potential, long-term benefits of federal government's contribution to economic development, government support and assistance is needed in the sectors that we have been encouraging. As I mentioned earlier, this support is in co-operation with the territories and with the private sector.
The future challenge for the federal government in co-operating with northern governments is to continue this transformation of the northern economies. This involves further diversification of economic base with increased emphasis on sustainable economic development, structural changes to sectors such as mining to enhance the economic and social returns to communities and also to their residents, and increased linkages among the sectors of the northern economy.
Given the relative strength of the Canadian, the Yukon and Northwest Territories economies and the possibilities that are arising from the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, it is easy to see that there are opportunities which can be pursued through the improvement and expansion of the mining industry, through growth in the renewable resources and tourism business sectors, through export opportunities and programs leading to skills acquisition and other human resource developments, plus economic planning by communities and governments.
The theme of diversification is not new. It has been the thrust of the federal and territory economic program in both of those territories over the last six years. We all recognize it is the solution to another challenge which is to minimize the reliance upon few sectors for revenue and employment.
Contrary to the hon. member's motion, we are working on expanding the economy of the north. Import substitution is a principal component of diversification. The renewable resource sector is an excellent example of this type of development which will lead to stronger

linkages between the wage economy and traditional economies of the aboriginal people.
Technological innovation is another avenue for generating business opportunities, especially at a time when science and technology is a national and also an international growth area for future development.
Regardless of the approach which is taken to diversify the economy, long-term benefits can only accrue when economic growth has been balanced by the development and the maintenance of a healthy resource base. Keys to this are the acquisition of the requisite skills and training by northerners participating in their expanding economy and the provision of an infrastructure that will be achieved through community based planning which will encourage industry to locate and develop. I expect future economic development programs for the Yukon and also for the Northwest Territories to recognize many of these opportunities.
In addition to further development of the preceding sectors there are other events which I foresee as having significance to the north: the North American air defence modernization project and the renewed interest in northern gas pipelines. We have seen that that is something which is coming and coming quite quickly. Oil and gas projects in the Beaufort should also generate opportunities for new and expanded business and indeed enhance the employment for the northern people. These will be reflected in and complemented by the organization of the land use planning commissions and the settlement based on the agreement in principle of the land claims for Yukon Indians, the Dene Metis, and the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut.
Settlement land claims will be of particular significance to each territorial economy. Obvious benefits will be derived from a direct injection of funds into the economy.
In conclusion, as a member of this side of the House I am confident of the ability of northern Canadians to move forward, see the challenges and accept them. We will be behind them all the way to see them expand and continue expanding.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I should like to compliment the hon. member on her remarks this afternoon. She twigged my attention
Supply
to something I think we have forgotten on this side of the House when it comes to debt and deficit.
We have been hearing a lot of members on the side opposite today talking about the fact that when they came to governance here in 1984 they inherited this massive debt. The facts are that in 1980 when the Liberal Party came to power we had a national debt of approximately $80-odd million.
From 1980 to 1984 it is factually correct that the debt of the nation doubled. It went to almost $170 billion. This happened during the worst recession in the world. Interest rates at 21 per cent and 22 per cent were world-wide.
The Conservative government came to power in 1984 and by the end of 1988 it managed to take that national debt of $170 billion and double it to almost $360 million. In her speech today the hon. member referred to this incredible growth in the economy.
My question is a very simple one. With that incredible growth in the economy, when interest rates were much better and employment was down, how did your government manage to double that debt? What policies did the government have that did not work, or was there waste?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood for his question. It is interesting that he brought forth two important issues: one is talking about the national debt and the other is talking about the deficit. I would just like to refer to the fact that in 1984 when we were elected to power the national debt was $200 billion or $199.5 billion.


Dennis Joseph Mills: It was $170 billion.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I am sorry, it was $199 billion. We also had a deficit of $38.3 billion.
The hon. member's government was increasing program spending by 15 per cent per year from 1980 to 1984. When we took over the national debt was $38.3 billion. The previous government was in a negative position of $16 billion on its program spending and in a negative position of $22.5 billion on the deficit. That shows that his government with its $38.3 billion deficit caused most of the problems.
In exactly five years we have lowered the deficit and we now are in a surplus position on program spending. We turned around $25 billion, and we do not need any

March 15, 1990
Supply
lectures from that side of the House which led this country absolutely into debt.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have just a short comment. The concern respecting regional development that I would like to explore with the member who just spoke is the matter of cutting 100 per cent of the funding for women centres.
Again, I return to the Campbell River and District Women's Resource Centre that offered programs to help women get back into the workforce, women who had been out for many years, through re-entry programs, training programs and retraining programs. This women's resource centre ran counselling and referral services. It was involved in assertiveness training programs, as well as a whole host of other opportunities for women to go back into the workforce, to make basically the entry into a job, to get women out of job ghettos, and to fight for equal pay for work of equal value.
This women's resource centre was a credit to the community which along with other women's resource centres across the country provided an effective, important service to 50 per cent of the population, especially in rural and remote communities like Tahsis, Gold River, Zeballos, and Bella Coola. These are important organizations that should be fostered and developed with core funding to an adequate level and also program funding. The Minister of National Health who is sitting here could be an important agent in that program funding.
How can the hon. member sit in this government and justify the kind of cuts that have happened to the women's resource centre, a national women's organization, and still speak about the record of this government in regional development?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: We certainly do not target out small areas, whether they be in the north or in the south. I can assure the hon. member that getting women back into the workforce is indeed extremely important.
We will do this with the training centres and by co-operating with the provincial governments. We have not let those people down. This government has and will continue to diversify and support the regions whether it
be western Canada, Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario, or north of 60th parallel.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would like to refer to a point which is held very strongly by the New Democratic Party. I am afraid that the government has recognized the problem that it has created in the regional development issue. I refer to the question of the cut-back to women's organizations and link it to a serious impact on regional development. In the area I represent on northern Vancouver Island and on the coast of British Columbia, most communities are in fact resource based communities and a great many of them are very small, single industry towns.
For example, when a family moves into a single industiy town with, for example a pulp mill, the male member of the family goes to work and the woman stays in a trailer with a couple of children and there are no opportunities or very few opportunities for employment. Most of the opportunities for employment that crop up are very low paying, part-time service jobs. We are all aware of the kind of exclusion from the workforce, the exclusion from decent paying jobs and the exclusion from justice and fairness in the economy that women experience.
This House has reacted very strongly for the decade that I have been here and in the previous decade to try and get that situation turned around. It is important that a regional development program contemplate very seriously the needs of women. It is not just contemplation in the drafting of the legislation and the policies, but it is also a strong action program associated with it.
The issue that is so important to us is the recent action of the government. I would juxtapose it to the comments on more than one occasion by the Minister for International Trade whose contemptuous remarks toward women in Canada make Canadians wonder if this government really understands what is wrong with his remarks and what is wrong with making the kind of cuts that they did in women's programs.
For the regional development aspect, I would use the example of the Campbell River and District Women's Resource Centre. There was a desperate need in the community for organized assistance for women. One of the major aspects was an opportunity for women to get involved in the workforce. This organization came together and began to provide a service to women by working with other agencies in the community, such as
March 15, 1990

Canada Employment Service and the North Island community college system, trying to get workforce reentry programs for women and attempting to get training programs for women who were looking for employment.
There has been a great deal of initiative in that community for training programs, be they in traditional employment for women or even in non-traditional activities. There are women training as electricians, welders and working in those trades today in very, very small numbers. There is a need for greater access. These women's centres have done an enormous job in breaking down those barriers, but they have just simply started the procedure.
The cut in the case of the Campbell River example was $25,000. That $25,000 was probably the best dollar value this government ever got for anything. That $25,000 a year put together a hard working board of directors, three paid staff members who were essentially doing a tremendous professional job for peanuts. It paid for the rent of an office and all the utilities and the equipment in it. Ultimately the $25,000 represented a 100 per cent cut in government funding and all that is there today is an answering service which states that the federal government put out of business this women's centre and all the services it provided to the community.
We cannot have a regional development program without the human resource development aspect of it. What the government is telling us is that 50 per cent of the people in the community, the women in that community, are not going to be provided with the assistance to get into the job market. They are not going to be provided with the incentive and the opportunity to get into training and retraining programs, that the counselling and referral services that were provided through that agency are not going to be part of it. What the government is saying to Canadians is that 50 per cent of the population do not count in regional development and do not have that access.
In addition to the direct programs related to employment, there is also the question of individual and family support. Women today bear the responsibility for fami-
Supply
lies in many, many cases. Of course the most serious example is the single parent attempting to raise children.
This women's resource centre fought continuously to attempt to get community child care resources enhanced so that a woman who wanted to gain training and go to work knew that her children would have safe, dependable child care at a cost that she could afford. This community resource centre fought for that. The Conservative government promised to put it in place and has now reneged on it. Not only has the government reneged on it, but it is proposing to cap Canada Assistance Plan funding that funds the child care centres. It is absolutely unconscionable activity.
There is no doubt that people equate the government with the remarks on more than one occasion of the Minister for International Trade who shows that he does not understand the issue. By association with him and with the cuts, they believe the government does not understand the issue. It is important that it does some work on this and turns it around.
It is extremely sad that the minister who is now responsible for the status of women happened to think that the remark made by the Minister for International Trade was funny. It is an absolutely ridiculous situation. Again, as my colleagues say, the government has no understanding of the requirements of women, of the respect of individuals, or of the need to provide the opportunity to gain access.
It is ironic that the present minister responsible for the status of women was one of the people instrumental in putting the women's resource centre together. The present minister responsible for the status of women was a key individual in organizing the Campbell River and District Women's Resource Centre. She went through the community with others, got this organized on the basis that it was a serious and desperately needed resource for the community, and can turn around today and support the role of the government in making 100 per cent cuts and putting these organizations out of business. Not only is that not acceptable, but it is an incredible act of hypocrisy.
Although it may drift an inch or two from the topic at hand, that community resource centre along with those in Port Albemi, Courtenay and all over Canada, were not only involved in the economic and employment side

March 15, 1990
Supply
of justice and fair play for women, but they were also involved in critical support to family services such as the child care issue. Without safe, effective child care, a woman cannot leave her children without leaving them in jeopardy. For either two-parent families or singleparent families in which the parent can be either sex, child care is an absolutely critical aspect.
Another important aspect is transition homes where women and children who are exposed to family violence can find a safe place to protect them from the violence in the home and give them an opportunity to begin to reorganize their lives. That women's resource centre in Campbell River was instrumental in getting just such a transition house going. Not only has the resource centre closed but there are questions about the continued viability of the transition house. Elopefully, it will not be dragged down by the negative policy of this government.
The Campbell River and District Women's Resource Centre was an outspoken advocate for better programs, more direct programs to prevent the abuse of children, be it mental, physical or sexual abuse of which there is an enormous amount. It is a hidden problem in Canadian society. That organization was instrumental and very effective in the discussion to try to get at this problem through prevention, through protection, and through treatment of offenders.
It is absolutely critical that that core funding be restored so that not only operations like the transition house can continue but programs they are instrumental in developing or supporting for the prevention of the abuse of children.
There is a need for planned parenthood. This government, with its head buried in the sand along with the provincial Government of British Columbia, has created serious damage to individuals who want rational family planning. What we need are community services such as the women's resource centre which took an active role in providing information and leadership in developing proper programs for planned parenthood. I congratulate them for the job they have done and absolutely urge this government to consider the wrong-headed approach that led to the 100 per cent cut in this organization's funding.
This organization provided legal assistance and in many cases advocacy services for women with a whole range of problems, be they legal problems or debt related problems. One could go on all day about the kinds of important services it provided to the community.
For $25,000 this government obtained an active, hard working board of directors, a system of volunteers, three part-time employees, and a modest, low cost office in the community. It could not be bought in the Public Service. It could not be obtained anywhere. These people were principled, dedicated and working for absolute peanuts. This government put that valuable service to the community out of business.
I for one urge the present Minister responsible for the Status of Women to get on the government's case-from the Prime Minister to the Minister of National Health and through the entire cabinet-to have that funding restored or resign. No one with a clear conscience could stay with a group of individuals who would carry out an activity like that, especially a woman who was instrumental in assessing the needs of that community in Campbell River and finding that that community desperately required the kinds of resources provided by the women's centre. She was instrumental in putting it together. If she cannot turn this cabinet and this government around, she should resign. It is the only position of integrity that she can take.
It is an extremely important issue. It is the first thing on which I wanted to speak in terms of regional development because it is absolutely critical. It is a first priority that half this population be in a position to enjoy and to obtain access to the benefits of the economy and the society in which we live. This government has blocked it in a very wrong-headed approach and hopefully it will change its position and provide adequate core funding to these organizations.
If it wants to involve the provinces, fine. Leave the funding in place until an agreement can be worked out with the provinces, but don't cut off the women in the communities of Canada from the kinds of services that allow them access to the economy, a decent position in the economy, and essentially fair play in this country.

I want to talk about regional development in terms of western initiative programs. In Port Hardy there is a proposal to put a ferro-chromium plant in place by an individual, Mr. P. J. Woody. As my colleague points out, they have thrown him out of Bamberton and they have thrown him our of Nanaimo. Many communities are very concerned about it.
Be that as it may, what is critical is that we do not understand the environmental impact of his project, and yet about a quarter of the total funding of the budget for British Columbia is being put by the federal government into his project. Yet it will not provide in the environmental assessment review panel for intervener funding. Nobody knows what the impact of this project is going to be. There is veiy serious concern in many, many of the quarters, be it the Kwakiutl Tribal Council, the Fort Rupert Indian Band, the fishing industry or people concerned about water supplies.
It is absolutely important that when the federal government undertakes to fund an industrial initiative those people who have concerns, especially about technical and long-term impacts with the potential to contaminate the environment, have access to intervener funding. I would ask the Minister of National Health who is sitting here in the House today if he would consider assisting with this intervener funding because it is the health of Canadians that we are dealing with here. Would he encourage the provincial government, in partnership with the federal government, to provide funding for those people who need to obtain some technical expertise to evaluate the project and to come up with some indication of what is going to be its impact on the future health of Canadians?
We have put the proposition to the Minister of Indian Affairs who is responsible for the Kwakiutl District Council members, the Fort Rupert group, the Kuatsino Indian Band and the Tsulquate Band in that area. We have also asked that the minister responsible for western initiatives provide intervener funding. At this point, there is no response from fisheries, environment or health.
The provincial government hands it all over to the environmental assessment review panel. It in turn passes it back to the government saying that the Federal Court requires that some assistance be provided. Hopefully, the conscience of the individuals involved in those
Supply
cabinet positions will make some intervener funding available so that people have a fair chance to evaluate this project.
Some of the initial comments by the owner of the project concerning organized labour and the desire not to have organized labour involved in the project are interesting. The main concern I have as a member who represents the riding in which the project is located is one of fairness. When the federal government is giving a grant, a condition of that grant should be that the employees of that operation have the right to organize and bargain collectively with a fair contract for wages and working conditions. Not only should the opportunity for environmental impact funding be provided through that grant but also in that grant should be included the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively. That is absolutely critical.
I had hoped to discuss some of the difficulties in regional development that we have had created by this government in the fishing industry and in the forest industry. A catastrophic effect caused by the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade is the deterioration of the fishing industry in the province of British Columbia. In the Johnstone Straits there is a continued erosion of the fishing industry and an absolute unwillingness of Fisheries and Oceans to permit traditional fisheries to continue in those areas. That has negatively impacted on places like Campbell River, Port Hardy and Alert Bay. Instead of a fishing season that would extend from July through till September we are now looking at 10 and 12 days. People cannot even qualify for unemployment insurance in the fishing time provided, and the communities will undoubtedly wither and die.
The fact that the Minister for International Trade and this government are prepared to allow the export of salmon and herring directly into the United States means that, if we can believe what the B.C. Fisheries Council said when they appeared before the committee, it is their intention to move their production units into the United States. It only makes sense because their employees are not organized, they do not have collective agreements to protect them, their wage level is half, there are no benefits and Canadian processing companies, which are already in position in southeast Alaska and

March 15, 1990
Supply
the State of Washington, will move into their areas and close Canadian processing plants.
Here you have a program of regional development which is trying to create a few jobs, and yet is destroying an entire industry. It is an absolutely astounding role to play. Regional development operations are not ensuring that people can organize and bargain collectively for wages. Low wage units mean that the foreign companies that the Conservatives have invited in usually take higher profits out of those areas and remove them right out of Canada. At least with a decent wage level, protected by a collective agreement, more money stays in that community and the greater benefit from the resources we have is spread among the residents of that community.
But what has happened with the fishing industry on the coast of British Columbia is absolutely catastrophic. It makes a mockery of any regional development proposal when the government is prepared to destroy industries like the forest industry and fishing industry.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the member for North Island-Powell River for that section of his remarks that dealt with family life. Too often we in this House forget the importance of talking about family issues. His remarks today were some of the finest I have heard.
I come from a riding where 25 per cent of the children come from single parent families and it is tough right now. It is especially tough with a government that is retreating from its responsibilities. But I have always had pretty good luck with this Minister of National Health and Welfare and I want to ask the hon. member a very specific question.
Does he not think that there is a possibility that this particular women's resource centre, which he claims has been turned down for only $25,000, may have been turned down because of a bureaucratic foul-up rather than the political will retreating again?


Raymond John Skelly: Unfortunately, we have lost that resource centre as well as the one in Albemi and the one in Courtenay. I guess it was just the selection within the department as to where those budget cuts were applied. My colleague says Penticton is gone. The dilemma was the funding cuts. To my way of
thinking, when they began to cut the national organization's budget they made the ability to lobby the government ineffective. The next step was to take out the women's resource centres. The two activities, of course, are delivering services but they are so constrained in the delivery of those services by the present legislative framework that they had to begin an intensive lobbying process to try to increase funding for the services and their core funding, and to try to get the legislative framework within which women are confined changed.
I really think that behind the cost saving motivation of the government was this fear of the political action that women were taking. That political action was to try to create greater space in which they could work. That greater space is respect for the individual and equality. Unfortunately, that is why this must be turned around.
I too have great respect for the Minister of Health and his predecessor. It is my hope that they, in their concern for the health of Canadians, can see the development of programs. The member mentioned that 25 per cent of the children in the area that he represents are the children of single parent families. There is also, of course, the problem of drug and alcohol. Enormous difficulties are created for individuals and families by that. There is a very limited amount of treatment available or prevention activities. There is greater stress on police enforcement, on one side, but we do not have the corresponding support for people in the drug and alcohol programs and the treatment centres. Hopefully that minister can be of greater assistance in making sure that we have that resource that women's centres have been crying for as well.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for tying into this debate the very important issue of the cuts to women's programs. I was quite fascinated when he pointed out that although this government claims to be in support of women and children when it comes to family violence and protection of the family, it has cut and put women on notice not only in Transition House and the Women's Centre in Campbell River in the member's riding, but in 28 women's centres out of 33 in British Columbia. I found that astonishing. The cutting of the federal government funding means the doors have closed and those women have been fired.
March 15, 1990

I would like to thank the member for raising another issue which I found shocking. How can he reconcile that the government minister responsible for the status of women, I believe he said, had a role in building and opening the Campbell River Women's Centre and creating it as a community activist, with the fact that she is now failing to fight for it? I find it fascinating that that is happening.
I would really appreciate it if the hon. member would comment on that and possibly also, in terms of regional development, the failure of this minister to fight for the Polar 8 which is also in her riding.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I agree that the minister responsible for the status of women is in a terrible position. First of all she, with other women in the community of Campbell River, realized the shortfall in services to women and the desperate need for a resource centre there. She got out with those women and campaigned in order to get the funding and the program rolling.
I happened to see her presentation on CBC after the news on Sunday night in which she was justifying the activities of the federal government. I have to say it is a terrible act of hypocrisy to know of those needs, to be moved to the point where she became involved in trying to resolve those needs with other women in the community, and then to turn around and to say that what the federal Conservative government had done was acceptable. That could only be construed as an act of hypocrisy.
I would let her conscience deal with the matter of finding the remarks of the Minister for International Trade funny. I mean that is such a tragic comment from a person so highly placed in the government that the appropriate action is a resignation, or a demand for the resignation.
I think that both of those ministers have some very serious soul-searching to do and certainly owe the public of this country an apology. In addition to the apology we need a change in behaviour. We need solid support for those women's resource centres. A partial funding, core funding, of those organizations is not acceptable. Putting them on a decent footing so that they can provide the needed services to the community is absolutely essential.
Supply


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I would like to add my own words of congratulations to my colleague from North Island-Powell River, particularly for his reference to the closing of the women's centres in the context of the debate on regional development.
I know some members of the House may have a hard time understanding how the two jive together, but I can assure the House that, as my colleague knows, in areas like mine in the West Kootenays and his in North Island, women often do not have access to the kind of social service institutions at the sophisticated level that they do have in major urban areas. Those centres do play a very vital role in the economic and social development of women and their organizations in hinterland areas.
People from my own constituency often find themselves here in Ottawa on behalf of the women in trades movement. I often see them in the galleries because they have been acting as advisers to the government on policies dealing with those issues. They, along with their sisters in the Nelson women's centre, in our case, are now being cut off totally at a time when we are seeing major construction programs beginning in our area and they finally have a chance to take advantage of some of those employment and economic opportunities. It is absolutely criminal and stupid. It is counterproductive for the government to be making major cuts to those kinds of development organizations just at this time.
The only other short comment I would like to make, and if my colleague has time to comment he may wish to, is on the major cuts that we now see emerging to the Forest Resource Development Agreements. The former Liberal government continued to make cuts to forestry over years and years. Finally, in its death throes, in the last one or two years, it saw the light and brought in a program that in 1983-84 saw some $55 million from the federal government matched with the government of B.C.
When the Conservative government was elected in 1984 it thought it was doing great things when it spent $30 million a year over five years. But we forgave it that annual cut because at least it did it on a sustained basis and it made some sense. Now it is going back to the worst

Supply
days of the Liberals and it is only going to be $6 million a year, if we ever get it renewed at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments has now ended. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk.


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I take a bit of pride in being able to speak here this afternoon on the motion. Before I get too far into the motion I would like to say that I truly understand the importance of regional economic development. As a businessman who started out in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, I personally felt the effects of what the previous Liberal government was doing with its centralized economic policies. It caused significant problems for us in western Canada.
We talked about interest rates on supply products. As a businessmen trying to finance various projects at extremely high finance rates, I found at times that I was on working and working and working and at the end of the year the finance costs basically took over all the efforts and any profit margin that my small or medium sized business was able to attain.
One of the other problems that I had at that time was supply material. Because of the centralized policy that the government had at that time there was a reasonably booming economy down in southern Ontario. When you come from a small region such as I did in Manitoba, the suppliers and manufacturers, although they did not really take a dim view of what we were doing in my region or the other regions of western Canada, they took a look at market shares. They decided that it was unimportant to make sure that the small business or the small wholesaler in regions outside central Canada had goods in place so that they could carry on their projects. That is one of the major reasons why the past government was defeated. Those of us in areas outside central Canada took a complete dislike to what was going on. It is important to give that background before I get into what I have to say because I think the record of our government since 1984 speaks for itself.
In the last little while we have taken on economic renewal, not only in western Canada but all throughout Canada. We have put a lot of thrust into small business. We have taken a look at small business and we know how important it is to each individual small community. Small business is one of the greatest creators of employment.
We have done our job to reduce the deficit. We have reduced the size and role of government in all aspects, not necessarily just business. We have gone through regulatory reforms and we have gone into privatization. We have privatized a number of things.
One thing to remember is that we have delivered on all the things we said we would do, not only in 1984, but also when we resumed after the past election.
We can talk about how we have turned the deficit around. When we came into power in 1984 there was a program spending deficit of approximately $16 billion. For this present year, we are going to have a $9 billion surplus in program spending. The net result is that we have turned that program spending around by $25 billion. That is quite significant. That is an awful lot of money.
We have reduced the public service. We have taken the attitude that government does not have to be everywhere. We listened to the people of the country and decided it was important to reduce the size of the federal civil service, and we have done that by approximately 12,000 people. Right now we are back down to the 1973 level. It is quite surprising that we can do all this work with fewer people. What we have, for lack of a better word, is a lean, mean machine here.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Check your contracts.


David Bjornson: Well that could be, but we get the job done and we have reduced program spending. Even if it is out there in contracts, we are spending less money doing it. That is a good thing to remember.


Robert Daniel Nault: At double the price.


David Bjornson: If I could get a job at double the price I would probably be out there right now, but I do not think that can happen.
We have sold 16 Crown corporations. We have done it. We have turned it around. We got rid of Air Canada. Air Canada is out there operating on its own, and who is the biggest shareholder in Air Canada right now? It is its own employees. We have turned this around and the government is doing quite well.
Let us talk about what has happened in agriculture. The farming community in western Canada needed help and we provided it. Last year in western Canada, on an
March 15, 1990

average, we put $30,000 into each farm. We have an attitude that is positive.
What about the National Energy Program? What did that do for western Canada? What did that do for regional development? Down the tubes, pal. That is exactly what happened. There was absolutely no support for western Canada when the National Energy Program was in place. That hurt us and hurt us bad. I do not see anybody from Alberta or western Canada, Saskatchewan included, considering the transfer of money that went from western Canada into central Canada as a result of the National Energy Program.
We have also taken a look at financial institutions. We were concerned about them. There were times when there were problems and the government responded. There were some problems in the banking industry in western Canada and the government put in approximately $1 billion to save the pensions and the savings accounts of many people in western Canada.
We have taken a look at the transportation industry. We have deregulated the transportation industry and it is now wide open. I know what the effects of that are on the small communities of western Canada. Now the farmer is not paying top dollar to get his fertilizer delivered. He is paying an economical rate so he can put it on the field.
A personal friend of mine has been very involved with the regulation. He has expanded his company. He is booming. He is making a living because the government's has an attitude that small business should look after itself.
We can talk about free trade and what free trade has done for regional development. Once again, I come from a small area in western Canada and I like speaking about western Canada because I think it is a fine place. The three biggest employers in my area are exporters. The fact that we have free trade makes their products more competitive in the international market, in particular in the American market.
I know that the people who work in these industries in my communities are more than impressed with the effects of free trade. The workers are not being laid off any more. They are not working for three or four months and off for a month and back for three or four months.
Supply
They are out there full time and they are working hard. They are making money and at the end of the day they have money in their pockets. They can take their children on holidays in the summer time. They are doing well. I think that is all because the government has decided to do something about regional economic development.
Let us talk about unemployment in 1984 and 1989. Let us start off with British Columbia. I think it is important that these numbers get on the record. In British Columbia in 1984 unemployment was at 14.9 per cent. In 1988 it was 8.3 per cent. In Alberta it was 11.7 per cent in 1984 and it was down to 7 per cent in 1988. Saskatchewan had 8.8 per cent unemployment in 1984 and it was down to 7.2 per cent in 1988. Manitoba's unemployment rate dropped from 9 per cent to 7.2 per cent. I think it is important that you take note of those figures.
We can talk about job creation in western Canada from 1984 up until September, 1989. We have created 404,000 jobs. Eighty per cent of those are permanent jobs. Over 60 per cent of those jobs are held by women. We do have an attitude of trying to do something in rural Manitoba, rural Saskatchewan, rural Alberta and rural B.C. We want those people working. British Columbia had
246,000	new jobs. Obviously we must be doing something on this side of the House to be creating jobs.
All the approaches of past governments obviously led us some place that we did not want to be. What did FRED do for us? What did ARDA do for us? GDAs, REDAs, ERDAs, IRDPs, where did they all go? They were a bunch of fixed programs that had no flexibility to react to short term needs. They were tied in. You had to spend that money no matter how. Away it goes. We just spend that money because that is the way of it. There was absolutely no flexibility; spend, spend, spend. That is exactly what these programs did.
How many of these programs did nothing but support civil servants in the provincial government for working and not actually accomplishing anything? We did not give the private sector the opportunity to work. We did not give the private sector the opportunity to take that money and go out and do something.
At least we had enough sense in this government to bring on western diversification, the opportunity for businesses in western Canada, with something new and innovative, to get out in the marketplace and put people

Supply
to work in western Canada. I think we have got the minister to do that.
We have got a minister who really is important. He works hard and he is very influential at the cabinet table. We have got a minister with a mandate for change and for addressing the regional development challenge in western Canada. And we want to eliminate the disparity between western Canada and elsewhere. We want to make everybody the same. In the budget we looked at what has happened to the ACOA program. We are finally getting a level playing field, which is the terminology everybody is using.
We can talk about the fact that we have put $1.2 billion into western diversification. Instead of wasting the money that was in all these other programs we are bringing it in so that the private sector has the opportunity to go out and create jobs.
Through the leadership of the minister we put together a program. We have 313 person-years in all of the western diversification programs. If any members from western Canada have an opportunity to do any business with WD they will find that they get those programs turned around right away. They are not buried. They are not lost on somebody's desk or in somebody's file. We have a turnaround time to put that stuff back out on the table and if it is a good project that really works, it is done. No more bureaucrats sitting around playing games. We have a job to do and we are going to do it.
Where are the offices of the deputy minister? They are in western Canada. No longer are the offices looking after development in western Canada situated in Ottawa or Toronto. They are in western Canada, exactly where it should be. There are regional offices throughout western Canada. In each of the major centres we have an office which handles the Western Diversification Fund, and they do it quite well.
We also go into risk sharing. We take a look at the projects that are coming up. I will use one in my own riding as an example because it is one of the best examples I can find. We have a company coming in which is going to spend well over $100 million looking into what we can do in research and development.
The first phase is the risk sharing. We understand the company is spending a lot of money and we are risk sharing. If the project is successful, we get the money back. If the project is expanded, we have decided that western diversification should become a participant in
phase two of this project. If it is successful we will have well over 400 jobs in the community within the expansion program itself.
Think of the spin-off coming out of that. If we have 400 jobs at the plant, what happens outside with all the service industries, the grocery stores, the school teachers, everything that is involved. This is mainly due to western diversification.
We do take risks and I think it is important to take risks. We have to understand that the private sector involved in making decisions, and some very risky decisions, and we are prepared to do that as well. Rest assured that when those decisions are made, they are good decisions. They are not far out decisions. I would think that, in most cases, being Conservative, we make rather conservative decisions in situations like this.
From what I understand, less than 2 per cent of the funds that have been put forth by WD so far are in risk. That is a pretty good rate. I do not think any of the other development programs which will be putting money out and looking to getting it back could say the same. Western diversification is a very tight ship.
I think the whole concept has to do with the attitude of western Canada. Western Canadians do not look for hand-outs. They look for help when it is needed and when they do get help they put their best foot forward. Far too often in the the late seventies and early eighties everybody had their hand out. We do not like that in western Canada. We have had enough of that attitude in western Canada. Development in western Canada is going to be done with the help of government funding, but not with only government funding.
That is the attitude that we should have throughout Canada. No longer should a businessman come to the government and say, "I've got a great idea for a project, but I need your money". Western diversification is prepared to help, we are not prepared to give. That is important because those projects in which everyone is involved work a heck of a lot better than the ones where there is just grant money. I think we should keep this up.
There is a lot of procurement in western Canada through the direction of WD and a lot on the initiatives of three prairie provinces. We know that government spends a lot of money. But now, through WD, if there is an initiative in place we want procurement to be equal throughout western Canada. We want things to work
March 15, 1990

together. With the direction of WD I think we are going to be far more successful in that.
We can talk about ERDAs and the fact that the Prime Minister made a significant announcement in Brandon, Manitoba, three or four weeks ago, basically tipping our hat to the fact that we do have what we will call a new style of ERDA programming. There is $242 million which will be shared equally between the four western provinces. The whole direction of those funds will be negotiated through the Western Diversification Office and in particular with Minister Mayer. He has taken a very personal concern about how things will be handled and seems to have quite a rapport with not only his cabinet colleagues from western Canada but also with his provincial counterparts. It is working very well. I know, coming from Manitoba, with the flags that have been showing for us that there is a concern through western diversification, which I call the new ERDA, in rural redevelopment of Manitoba.
We are working to maintain the rural Manitoba communities so that they are viable and so that we do not have people leaving the communities. We want to maintain industry there. We want to give industry the ability to expand in southern Manitoba. We do not want to lose those businesses. Western diversification is taking that attitude to the rural communities of Manitoba with the help of the Manitoba government.
We are also looking at other issues in Manitoba. I know I speak best about Manitoba where we are looking at the communication industry. We are looking at the cultural industry. We are looking at the mining sector. We are looking at the forestry sector. These are all concerns that we have in Manitoba, and they will be addressed by this WD funding and on the joint efforts with the provincial government. I am looking forward to being very, very successful in what we will be doing.
In conclusion, the attitude of this government toward regional development, whether it be in western Canada, eastern Canada, with the FEDNOR agreement, or in southern Ontario, I think it is equally favourable throughout Canada. I think the attitude that we have is not one of just grants. It is one of equal participation. It is one that stimulates the business communities to have an input to get things going, to make things work so that they know at the end of the day that it was not a gift. It is
Supply
something that they earned themselves. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak on this important issue, particularly to those in Manitoba and western Canada.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I was interested in listening to the member's comments. Although he may be here on Parliament Hill in the same office building, after I listened to his speech I think we must live in different worlds in western Canada. The western Canada I live in does not feel that it has been treated well by this government in terms of regional development. The facts are there to prove it, certainly in the province of Saskatchewan.
Twenty-three thousand people have left that province in the last year. Three hundred out of 500 communities lost population. There is a feeling of despair and hopelessness in that province that in all my years of living there and even in the memory of people who were there in the thirties that has never been seen. In all that time nobody has been as depressed about their prospects in that province as they are now.
We look at what the Conservative philosophy has done to that province, now that we have Conservatives both federally and provincially for this period of time. We have seen a debt load that went from the NDP period in Saskatchewan of zero public debt chalked up by the government, with balanced budgets for 11 years in a row to $4 billion plus that the people of that province now have to carry in debt. We see that in spite of what the Conservatives proclaimed when they were in opposition before 1984. They were always saying that high interest rates were a detriment to western Canada, that what interest rates did was suck money out of the prairie region, out of western Canada, out of the resource producing regions and send it to Toronto from where it is tougher and tougher to get it back. That still persists.
The member brags about deregulation. He knows full well, I am sure, that in many of the communities where there used to be an orderly transportation system, none exists now. Trucking has become worse and worse. Only the major points get covered. The smaller communities are left out. The airline service is now all done by regional carriers with smaller aircraft, which makes it a lot less attractive for people to do business there. We see farm income falling steadily. Certainly, there have been other factors. Ad hoc programs from year to year have

March 15, 1990
Supply
not convinced any farmers that farming is the thing to stay in.
The member alludes to WDO being involved in procurement and the great things it has done for procurement. If he would look at the record, he would see that for all the smoke and mirrors and song and dance, procurement percentages for western Canada have declined during the period of Conservative governments since 1984.
My colleague from the Okanagan tells me that in B.C., which has 11.5 per cent of the population, procurement has gone down from 4 per cent to 3 per cent during the period of Conservative government.
The member says that the Minister for WDO is doing a tremendous job in terms of the ERDAs. I would like to ask him where are those ERDAs? Those ERDAs have not been around for a whole year now.
Forestry is suffering. Mining is suffering. Tourism is suffering. Northern development is suffering. I would like to ask this member how in the face of that can he say that this Conservative government is sympathetic and supportive of regional development when the facts say that that region is going down the tubes. The kind of structures that we need by way of infrastructure, economic structures, interest rate policies and public fiscal policies are all heading us even further down the tubes. How does the member respond to that?


David Bjornson: Madam Speaker, first, the hon. member expressed some concern about the fact that there seemed to be some loss of population in the province of Saskatchewan. I am glad the hon. member moved out there so that the number was not quite as high as it should be. I do not know how long "all these years" are, but I imagine there is a certain amount of experience up there in northern Saskatchewan.
I think possibly the member just maybe missed the fact that I talked about $242 million which was brought forward by the government which is to be handled by Western Diversification which is to be shared equally by the four western provinces. I do know, as I said in my
comments earlier, I am more than impressed with the attitude of both the provincial governments and the federal government, how they are working together to solve this problem.
He makes some comments about the concern of deregulation in the transport industry. In the areas that I represent, which is rural Manitoba, somewhat like the area the hon. member represents in rural Saskatchewan, there does not seem to be a problem. In that particular industry there seems to be trucking companies popping up all over the place. Maybe you do have a problem in that area. I cannot speak to that, but I can speak for Manitoba. That is not a problem in my area.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would like to put a proposition to the House. This has been a very interesting day. I am sure that the interventions have been very constructive. The Liberals would like to have one more speaker on this day. It has been our day. We only had three members today up to now speaking on this debate.
I have the member for Nunatsiaq who has his speech and who would like to speak for northern Canada. I think that the House would benefit hearing from him.
I wonder if there would be a disposition, Madam Speaker, to give the member for Nunatsiaq a chance to make his speech and then adjourn the House. I can give you my undertaking we will not be doing anything to prolong the hour past his regular 20-minute allocation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Speaker is quite prepared to hear the hon. member, if there is unanimous consent from all three parties.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, certainly I think it is important that the member be heard. Given that, I believe that we in this party would be more than happy to agree with the proposition put forward, on the understanding, of course, that the co-operation from this comer be noted when it comes time for some of our motions.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, speaking on behalf of the government, we agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
March 15, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If I understand correctly, the hon. member will have 20 minutes, after which we shall adjourn.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Nunatsiaq.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, it is always an honour when the House saves the best for last.
I would like to comment on the remarks of my colleague from Calgary Southwest who was speaking on some northern issues when she had the floor. I would just like to bring back to reality some of the comments she has made.
I am pleased to be here today to speak to the motion of my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I would like to congratulate him for putting forward this very important topic of regional development for debate.
The motion refers to the government's failure to protect, support and promote the regional economies of Canada, Atlantic, western, northern Ontario and northern Canada. This motion is appropriate and timely for all these regions, but I will focus specifically on northern Canada.
The northern economy is a developing economy. It is an economy in transition. In the Northwest Territories our economy is moving from a land-based to a wage-based market economy. Our economy is heavily dependent on natural resources, and we export these raw resources.
Ours is also an economy which imports many goods and services, and labour. The economy of the Northwest Territories mirrors in one important aspect the Canadian economy in general. While the economy has been growing, not all regions have benefited from the growth. In fact, there are serious and continuing disparities between regions within the Northwest Territories.
Local efforts to reduce these disparities are constrained by our dependence on federal funding and by our high cost of living. At the present time the Government of the Northwest Territories receives about 85 per
Supply
cent of its revenues through direct transfer payments from the federal government.
The Northwest Territories has a small and volatile tax base and cannot strain that base much more than it is doing now. The federal government knows this. It knows the northern economy is a developing economy and that our cost of living is the highest in the country. It knows that some of our regions have the highest unemployment rates in Canada.
Figures released in the budget of the N.W.T. Minister of Finance last month established an employment rate of 16 per cent in the first quarter of 1989, northwest territorial wide. But the three regions in my constituency in the eastern Arctic have unemployment rates above 20 per cent. The Keewatin and Baffin have an unemployment rate of 21 per cent. The Kitikmeot region in my constituency has an unemployment rate of 31 per cent.
This is a tragic situation. The government should be dealing with the situation as a national tragedy, but what is the government doing about it? The government's proposed changes to the unemployment insurance system will make it harder for northern residents to receive unemployment insurance. When they do get it, they will get it for a shorter period of time.
In addition, federal transfer payments to the northwest territorial government have been cut by this government. These transfer payments go to the N.W.T. government through a formula funding arrangement.
Prior to losing office in 1984, the previous Liberal government negotiated a generous formula funding agreement with both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories governments for a five-year period. That five-year period has expired. Negotiations with the current federal government on a new five-year funding arrangement did not prove successful for the northern governments. The federal government unilaterally imposed a new funding arrangement which is detrimental to northern economies.
In his budget speech to the Legislative Assembly of the N.W.T., the N.W.T. Minister of Finance did not mince words about how bad this new arrangement is for the N.W.T. economy. He said the N.W.T. had been dealt a bad hand by the federal government with the imposition of the new formula financing arrangements. The immediate financial impact of the new arrangement is a reduction in this fiscal year of about $25 million from what the government would have received under the old formula. The reduction in the federal grant represents a

March 15, 1990
Supply
reduction of $475 per person in the Northwest Territories.
Over the next five years, the reductions will amount to about $110 million. Not only are these cuts damaging to the government's fiscal position and to the N.W.T.'s ability to respond to the pressing needs of its residents, but the new formula contains serious flaws which will limit the N.W.T.'s ability to develop the northern economy.
The new arrangements take effect April 1, 1990, and will be in place for five years with a review after three years. The changes to the formula financing mean that the N.W.T.'s revenues will grow by less than inflation in the 1990-91 fiscal year. This is the first time that this situation has had to be dealt with by the territorial government.
The territorial government, because of reduction in federal transfer payments, has had to reduce expenditures and increase taxes. The new formula funding arrangement forces the territorial government to increase taxes. However, as a result of the federal changes, the N.W.T.'s funding will be tied to an indicator based on a provincial and territorial tax effort in the year 1987-1988. The result is a reduction in the grant to the N.W.T. because the federal government considers the tax effort of the N.W.T. government to be lower than the provincial average for that year.
In addition, the federal grants in subsequent years will be reduced according to how the N.W.T. has lagged behind the growth in provincial tax effort since the base year 1987-88. These changes by the federal government to the financing arrangements with the government of the Northwest Territories have fundamental consequences for expenditure and taxation policies of the N.W.T. government over the next five years. The government of the Northwest Territories will have to impose the same taxes as the provinces at rates comparable to the provincial average in order to recover the cost imposed by the federal government.
We will also have to keep up with increases in provincial tax efforts to protect the total funding from further erosion. This provision of the formula ignores the fact that northern residents already face a higher tax burden than most other Canadians when the high cost of living in the north is taken into account.
According to the N.W.T. Minister of Finance: "In fact, the formula as a whole, we believe, acts as a disincentive to economic development". Some small comfort was provided by the phase-in of the financial impact over three years, and the fact that the reduction is not as large as was originally proposed by the federal government.
However, the government of the Northwest Territories remains fundamentally opposed to the application of the tax effort adjustment to the formula. Its use produces a formula which is flawed and its imposition by Canada could have severe financial consequences for our government over the next five years.
The federal budget released on February 20 had more bad news for the northern economies. Recent budget cutbacks are going to negatively affect the northern economies. Under the terms of the new federal formula financing arrangements with the northern governments, the two northern territories will have to increase their taxes if the provinces increase their tax rates. They will have to raise their own taxes or face a reduction in their annual operating grants.
By cutting transfer payments to the provinces for health and education, the federal government is forcing the provinces to increase their taxes. If the provinces increase their taxes, the territorial government will have to increase theirs as well.
I have already mentioned the cutbacks the federal government has imposed on the funding it transfers to the two territorial governments. The Northwest Territories has been cut back by $110 million. Yukon's transfer payments have been reduced by $9 million this fiscal year, by $12 million next year, and by $20 million the year after next.
According to the N.W.T. government, the cutbacks jeopardize the territorial government's ability to stimulate the economy. The Northwest Territories Minister of Finance has called the federal action a disincentive to economic growth.
March 15, 1990

The recent budget also eliminated the Canadian Exploration Incentives Program which will affect mining exploration. While not as helpful as the flow-through shares program which was cut two years ago by the current government, it is still a loss.
Cutting back on the subsidy to Canada Post for the food mail program to remote northern communities is having negative economic and social effects on the residences of these communities. Many of my constituents are paying $5 for one litre of milk so that the government can pocket more of Canada Post's profits. In the budget, the Minister of Finance said he wants Canada Post and other profitable Crown corporations to turn over more of their profits to the government. This is supposed to contribute to the deficit reduction. This government is taking food out my constituents' mouths so that it can put more money in its pocket.
The budget of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been cut by $100 million over the next years. Economic development is among the affected areas. Aboriginal communications groups and organizations have had their funding slashed, and in some cases eliminated.
Jobs are being lost. How does the loss of northern jobs, aboriginal jobs contribute to northern development? Between 100 and 180 jobs will be lost as a result of these cuts to the aboriginal communications programs throughout the country. In the north the cuts to the Inuvialuit Communications Society means two people will have to be laid off at the end of this month. Four other positions that were up for hire will not be filled.
The Native Communications Society of the western N.W.T. has been cut by so many jobs, adding insult to injury, as of last week. As of last week, they still had not received their funds for February and March. Furthermore, April's money will not arrive until May.
In addition to the cuts they have suffered, they will have deficit finance incurring additional and unnecessary bank costs.
The Inuit Broadcasting Corporation will lose more jobs as well.
The proposed goods and services tax is a source of serious concern for the N.W.T. Northerners have argued against the tax in its proposed form because it is inequitable and will reduce the N.W.T.'s relative competitiveness with southern Canada. The tax will result in N.W.T. residents paying more sales taxes than other Canadians for the same goods and services. The current sales tax which will be replaced by the GST is applied at
Supply
the manufacturers' level. Because the GST is applied at the retail level, the large component of transportation costs and higher northern margins that are not currently taxed will be fully taxed under the goods and services tax proposal.
Also, higher incomes in the north will result in residents with the same real purchasing power as southern Canada benefiting less from the enhanced federal sales tax credit. In addition, with the exception of some industries, the proposed goods and services tax has the potential to seriously reduce the N.W.T.'s competitiveness compared with southern Canada. The tax will make the N.W.T. an even higher cost region in which to do business and, therefore, a less attractive place in which to invest. This will, according to the N.W.T. Minister of Finance, retard the N.W.T.'s economic development.
The goods and services tax, whether at 7 per cent or 9 per cent, is simply not acceptable to the residents of the Northwest Territories. Rather than assisting the N.W.T. government to effectively deal with its economic problems of regional disparities, high unemployment and lack of infrastructure, the federal government is blocking further progress.
At present, the federal government retains control over N.W.T. land and its resources. The Government of the Northwest Territories' ability to plan and manage the economy is limited as long as control over land and resources remains with the federal government.
However, the scale and face of development is largely controlled through the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with priorities designed to benefit all of Canada.
Devolution of responsibilities is a slow process. Transfer of control goes hand in hand with aboriginal claim settlements. Aboriginal people want to be partners in northern development.
A new economic development agreement is being negotiated between the N.W.T. and the federal government. I urge the federal government to recognize the unique development needs of the north. Transportation is an essential element in the development of the N.W.T. economy.
The government of the N.W.T. is actively pursuing the transfer of federal government responsibilities for transportation, and work has begun on a special joint study to develop an N.W.T. transportation strategy. Any transfers must be accompanied by the necessary resources. The federal government must continue to play a major role in the northern economy, particularly in developing the necessary public infrastructure to stimulate and sustain

March 15, 1990
Supply
the economic growth. Job opportunities and an economic future for the use of the territories must be a priority for both the federal and territorial governments.
The population of the Northwest Territories is very young and these young people will soon be moving into the labour force. There is a need to focus efforts on education, training, income opportunities, infrastructure and job creation.
As a final comment, I urge the federal government not to view economic development in N.W.T. only in terms of the export of natural gas from the MacKenzie Delta. In 1989, 64 per cent of the people with jobs in the N.W.T. were not born in the N.W.T. Dependence on imported labour is greatest in the mining, oil and gas sectors, sectors where northerners have very little control or influence at this point in time. It is critical to the balanced development of the N.W.T. that an acceptable northern accord for the revenue sharing of oil and gas royalties be concluded in the near future. Diversification of the N.W.T. economy must be encouraged.
We cannot afford to place our economic future in the hands of non-renewable resources development alone.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is now my
duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose
of the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion
the nays have it.

Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until 7 p.m. on Monday, March 19, 1990.
It being 5.58 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 16, 1990