1990-02-09

Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order as my party's communications critic and a member of the communications and culture committee of the House of Commons.
John Kim Bell is a distinguished Canadian. He is the first North American native to become a symphony conductor and he is founder and president of the Canadian Native Arts Foundation, which provides educational grants and scholarships for promising young natives.
I can testify to the fact that he has been applying to appear before the House of Commons committee on communications and culture to be heard with respect to funding for native cultural projects. There has been some resistance to allowing him to appear before the committee.
He is quoted in the Ottawa Citizen today as saying with respect to the hon. member who is the Chair of that committee, that the Chair said, "The problem is, Indians are lazy." These were his exact words. These are the words of the Chair of the committee to Mr. John Kim Bell. There is a very serious allegation of racism and it comes at a time when there are some unfortunate similarities of racist attitudes in other issues in other parts of the country.
I put the government on notice that we expect a statement from the Minister of Communications or from the Prime Minister with respect to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that is a point of order.


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two comments. The first one is that the hon. member from Manitoba is not here at the moment. Traditionally, before any charges, or any accusations against a member or any points of order of this nature are heard, we ask that the member affected be in the Chamber.
Second, I understand from talking with the member who is being referred to here that he plans to rise on a personal point of privilege later in the day. So I think that issue can be addressed at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps the best way to deal with this is to leave it where it is at the moment. Let us see what events unfold during the day. I know very well the very sincere and serious concern that brings this matter to the floor of the House, but I think that the hon. parliamentary secretary is right. It has been said. Let us await events.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, January 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard (Roberval) that Bill C-5, an act to amend the Railway Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I will just take a couple of minutes to make one point on this legislation. The transportation policy over the years has been based on the need for transportation, particularly in remote areas. What is happening today is that transportation policy is becoming less of a national policy and one more based on economics, the amount of money that can be made. This why I want to make one

February 9, 1990
Government Orders
point on this particular shortline railway, the Central Western Railway bill.
This railway is an experiment. The basis on which the movement of grain can be paid for has not changed because this railway is in place. It is an experiment. Any grain that would be delivered from any point to Vancouver or to Thunder Bay, would get the same amount of freight as if it were transported from the end of the railway. In other words, there is no basic method, except for government subsidies, to pay for the continuing operation of this railway.
The $7 million used to operate this railway is entirely a government subsidy. Those funds which I gather amount to some $17 million after upgrading are of no real value in changing the arrangements for the movement of grain. They are a slight saving to the CNR, and of course they are a saving to the farmers on that line because they would have to haul many more miles if the line were abandoned.
We should recognize that the funds to keep this railway or any other shortline railway within the structure we presently have will require the subsidy of the government for its entire operation. That is the way it will operate unless a change is made in the movement of grain by this government.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: On division.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, January 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, the National Defence Act and the Trademarks Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Stanley J. Hovdebo: I was
speaking to this bill when it was before the House a week
or so ago. The point I was trying to make at that time was that although it is very important to have the Geneva Convention and the protocols ratified, there are other things we should be doing to make sure that the world is a better place and that there is less chance of war.
Making rules for making war less barbaric, although recognized as necessary, really gives us the idea that war is okay. Therefore even as we ratify the protocols that are part of the Geneva Convention, we should do things that will help to make the world more likely to keep the peace.
I want to mention a few of the things I think Canada can do to increase the likelihood of peace around the world. Something we could do immediately here right at home is ban the testing of weapons in Canada. We could eliminate testing of the cruise missile tomorrow if we wished. That in itself would send a message that we are really concerned about making peace possible in the world.
We could establish a comprehensive test ban and Canada could press for such a ban. The 1963 treaty banning the atmospheric testing of nuclear warheads was a move in that direction. We can thank Howard Green, who was the minister at that time, for his significant contribution to the ban on testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.
We now have U.S. resistance to a comprehensive ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. But Canada could do something about that by refusing to be part of it. Instead, we are going along with the strategic defence initiative, the star wars initiative, that the U.S. has in place. By being part of that star wars initiative we are contributing to the development of armaments in the world. We are therefore part of the resistance, if you wish, that the U.S. has shown to the testing of nuclear weapons.
We should consider all of the money we are spending on armaments in conjunction with the money being spent on other things happening around the world.
Over 20 million people have died in wars since 1945. The world spends $130 million every hour on armaments. During that same hour 2,000 children die of starvation and disease.
The transfer of arms to Third World countries has risen from $5 billion per year in the early 1970s to as high as $35 billion per year in the 1980s. Many of those arms transfers are done on credit, something which adds to the debt of Third World countries. Consequently, this
February 9, 1990

decreases the possibility of worthwhile development and the elimination of hunger and disease in those countries.
There have been some positive developments, and Canada has a good record of development aid. However, our record is not as good as it could be and we could do more. We could do more in terms of peacekeeping work and development. As I mentioned the other day, we could also make a very basic and direct move by reducing our military exports.
When this government first came to power five years ago, one of its first privatization operations concerned the armaments industry in Canada. While the armaments industry was under public control we had very specific control over the export of those armaments. Since that time-and I cannot blame the company that took over the manufacture of armaments too greatly- arms made in Canada have been appearing all over the world.
According to Project Ploughshares, approximately 300 million armaments from Canada go to the Third World either directly or as parts of units assembled elsewhere. A large number of the recipient countries that are serious violators of human rights.
In the Iran-Iraq war, Canadian-made components for weapons appeared on both sides. There should be stronger restrictions so that, minimally, military and military-related products do not go to human rights violators. The end use of any components should be part of the exporting requirements and should be firmly controlled. Better still, we should stop making and selling armaments completely.
Canadians could also make an effort, both nationally and internationally, to reduce the flow of weapons on the international market. As a place to start we could make requirements which would force suppliers to recognize when they are contributing to world armament.
We could appeal to places such as Indo-China, the Horn of Africa, South Africa, Central America, the Middle East and other places where there is widespread killing, devastation and injustice. We could deal with
Government Orders
them and start a movement toward the elimination of armaments.
Even as we make rules for war we should be doing much more to ensure that war becomes less likely in the world.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions or comments, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for my hon. colleague who has spoken so thoughtfully regarding Bill C-25. We are aware that the legislation deals with international conventions. From time to time one asks why we bother to sign these conventions if we are going to ignore them.
The Canadian government supported the American invasion of Panama which was in direct contravention of the international principles of national sovereignty as articulated in the United Nations Charter to which, of course, we are a signatory. Does that not put into question the whole matter of living up to these international conventions that we sign?
I suppose we could also draw attention to the situation in East Timor. Again, despite the United Nations Charter's recognition of the rights of the people to self determination, the Canadian government continues to refuse to recognize this right in practice when it comes to the case of East Timor.
I had the opportunity some time back to actually be one of the visitors to East Timor. As a result of that visit there were some unfortunate comments that all is well. Despite all of the evidence that was presented regarding Indonesia's invasion of East Timor in the late 1970s and the fact that Indonesia has continued to occupy East Timor ever since we have really never had any comment from the federal government. It is simply ignoring the plight of the people of East Timor.
We could talk about the issue of the CANDU reactors and nuclear proliferation when we see our sale of CANDU reactors to regimes like those in Cambodia, South Korea, and India. Obviously this has implications in terms of nuclear proliferation in contravention of the principles of the non-proliferation treaty.
There are so many conventions that we have signed, yet one could provide a whole list of where the Canadian government ignores the fact that we are a signator to these conventions. I think particularly economically

February 9, 1990
Government Orders
about asbestos when the International Labour Organization has laid very clear restrictions on the sale and use of it yet we send tons and tons to countries like Thailand.
I wonder if my hon. friend would comment on some of these questions and the fact that, while we give lip service to international conventions, when the crunch comes we seem to often turn a blind eye. Does he agree with that, and what would he suggest we could do as a result of that?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, Canada is not lily-white in any way when it comes to making itself considered around the world as a peace-loving nation. We do have a considerable reputation as a peace-keeping nation, but we continue to support a variety of actions which belie the seriousness of our seeming desire to be seen as a peace-loving nation.
I spoke earlier about the hypocrisy of Canada in these areas. It is not something that we should dwell on because it is something that every nation in the world can be accused of. Even as we say that we want to eliminate war, we establish rules under which wars can be carried out and, therefore, seem to legitimize the war. At the same time we build, sell and trade armaments. We force countries into debt by giving them armaments on a credit basis. Our reason for this is, if we do not do it somebody else will. It is a pretty thin excuse.
The areas of export and indirect violation of human rights to which Canada contributes are all part of that hypocrisy. I want to stress the point that we are one of the nations that can be accused of that. We are not the only nation but we can lead the way in eliminating many of those things which do contribute to war, devastation and hunger, and in doing so perhaps make the world a better and more peaceful place to live.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise as my party's former energy critic. I started out going right up the National Energy Program and then right down the National Energy Program. I was there as it was brought in and as it was dismantled, and we are back to square one. We are not really back to square one. There have been some major changes in energy and I would like to speak briefly about that in addressing this bill.
This bill concerns the financing of the Hibernia energy megaproject; drilling for oil in iceberg alley, as they call it, hundreds of kilometres off Newfoundland in the Atlantic ocean. This bill, C-44, runs parallel to another bill, C-45, which is to finance what is called the OSLO project, which is a project in the Alberta tar sands, another vast energy megaproject.
As Canadians we must ask ourselves whether Canada's energy future lies with big hydrocarbon megaprojects. Consider that last year Canada spewed 473 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. The carbon era, the era that powered our society and powered our motor vehicles especially through gasoline from oil, I believe is coming to a close. Part of our problem, to be fair, is that we are in an interstitial period, a kind of interim period. We still drive cars. We have not adjusted to the new reality of the world environment.
Scientists are telling us the carbon dioxide that is produced from the burning of fossil fuels is producing, together with other greenhouse gases, a global warming by trapping the infrared radiation in the atmosphere. There have been all sorts of dire predictions: melting ice caps, rising sea levels and changing weather. We all seem to notice changing weather, but is it real, are the predictions real? We do not know, but we would be foolish not to take seriously the prediction of scientists.
February 9, 1990

I am told by some of my friends and some professionals in the area that all bets are off, that, as David Suzuki said, we have ten years to save this planet. So we have to look at these vast projects in a new way. We have to look at them as environmentalists as well as energy producers. I think that members on all sides of the House realize that, including people from Alberta and people from Newfoundland who want to benefit from the projects.
There is a second reality we have to face. One of the news headlines this morning reads: "Get ready for harsh budget, Tories warn". We are going to have a budget on February 20 and I suspect that we are going to be told how we have to cut the deficit and how difficult it is to run a modern government, how there will have to be cutbacks in certain programs. That is one of the reasons we are getting the goods and services tax, to pay for government expenditures.
I want the House to look at the expenditures here in Hibernia because they are very illustrative of how expensive these projects are. This bill talks about a grant. Do not forget that there are some of the biggest oil companies in the world involved here, but we have to give them a grant. We have to cut back on giving grants to welfare families, single mothers and so on with kids. That is welfare, but this is not welfare, this is a grant to Exxon, Imperial Oil, Shell and Mobil, the biggest companies in the world. We are giving a grant for the defraying of capital costs in the amount of $1.04 billion. As well we are taking up loan guarantees on the capital project of up to $1.66 billion.


Mrs. Sparrow:: That's a loan.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, Mr. Speaker, do you get a loan guarantee on your mortgage from the government? Do you get a loan guarantee when you go to the bank? Not likely. The government is giving a direct loan in the amount of $300 million, loan guarantees for what is called a temporary financing facility in the amount of $175 million and interest payable guarantees on the $1.66 billion loan guarantee. In other words, if the loan is defaulted, the government has guaranteed that not only will we pay the principle, we will pick up the interest charges as well. Not a bad deal for the international oil companies.
So we are talking about a direct expenditure, a grant of up to $1.04 billion, a $300 million loan, and various and sundry loan guarantees and interest guarantees in the
Government Orders
amount of $1,835 billion. That is a total possible government investment of $3,139 billion. That is a tidy sum in anybody's book.


Herbert O. Sparrow: Talk about the jobs.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will come to the jobs. The fact is this is the price that we are paying for hydrocarbon fuels. You can make the argument that we have to have the insurance of having fuels. There is also a suspicion that governments tend to win elections with promises. Projects and megaprojects are among the famous ones: Bourassa, James Bay; the Conservatives and the Liberals before them, Hibernia; the Tories promising the upgrad-er in Lethbridge and the tar sands project.
I am hearing from the hon. members from Alberta across the way. I am just saying that it costs a lot of money. We are saying to Canadians that we are going to have a tough budget, we are going to have to cut back, we are going to have to pull the purse strings in, yet look at the money that is going to feed this beast, and it is a beast. It is the hydrocarbon beast.
There are alternatives, but before I come to them I would like to talk about the OSLO project. I have just said there is $3.1 billion in the Hibernia project.


Herbert O. Sparrow: It will not go ahead unless it is economically sound.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The member says it will not go ahead unless it is economically sound. It is only going ahead because the Government of Canada is putting up the guarantees. It is not the market. The private companies will not do this of their own accord. They want and have received government guarantees. This is not free enterprise.
Let me deal with OSLO. I am trying to be fair. I have already said that we need gasoline. We are still riding in a carbon society, still feeding the beast. OSLO is the megaproject in Alberta. We are talking about a grant for capital costs of up to $425 million and a price of oil production subsidy of $48 million.
I will be consistent. When I was energy critic I advocated a price floor in difficult times and a price ceiling in times that were too easy for the industry and it was creaming it off. But this is what is happening in this project. It is a regulation and it is providing a no-lose situation to the private entrepreneurs who are making

February 9, 1990
Government Orders
this project go basically. That is a pretty good deal and it is pretty costly to the Canadian public.
We are looking at a $48 million floor guarantee, $425 million in capital cost start-up and loan guarantees of up to $642 million. If you add that up we are looking at another $1.4 billion. So now we are up to $5 billion in two projects. That is billion, not million. This is at a time when the headlines are saying: "Get ready for harsh budget, Tories warn",, and the GST is coming in to put a 7 per cent sales tax all across the country. This is what Canadians are paying for and Canadians should know that.
Let us talk about the environment for a moment. It seems to me that there is another energy future we should be looking at.


Herbert O. Sparrow: Nuclear.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: At the Montreal conference and other conferences there has been a target set for a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005. We are going to need special measures to do that. Now where is the money coming from for that? Here is $5 billion for two megaprojects. The government has cut back on its research into alternate energy measures and we are spending something like $49 million on research and development in energy conservation.
There have been studies which go back ten years. Amoiy Lovins, in Hard Energy Paths, says that nuclear, coal and hydro big energy projects are no longer appropriate. The nuclear industry is pushing hard to come in because it says it does not produce acid rain or greenhouse gasses and so on. The problem is that we do not have any reliable way of disposing of nuclear waste. It is immoral for this generation to hand nuclear waste to a future generation, with vast clean-up costs. People are starting to understand the cost of the environment.
I will give an example. My hon. colleague from Esquimalt knows that recently the government of British Columbia sold land in downtown Vancouver, the old Expo land, to Li Ki-shing of Hong Kong for $100 million. Then it received a bill, which may exceed what they got for the land, to clean up the old industrial wastes in the land. There are a lot of costs out there. People are now environmentally conscious. We are trying to save this planet. We should not be putting $5 billion into megaprojects.
Lovins says that we have to look at alternate ways of getting away from the beast. I think we all agree with that. He says that we should be encouraging hydrogen fuels, which are currently being wasted.
As an example, one pipeline in Alberta is venting off $360 million a year in unused hydrogen. We have to start getting into the 21st century a little ahead of time. We have to use the hydrogen.
Hydrogen can be made with surplus electricity and at sites of natural gas extraction so we can use the Alberta natural gas. Hydrogen creates water vapour when it is burned. It is a good transportation fuel. Now is also the time when we have to retrofit all isolated communities with solar, wind or small-scale hydro projects. We have known this for years but now the reality is coming in. We cannot feed this beast any more. We have to come up with alternate energy paths, not $5 billion into a vast megaproject.
I want to address the project itself. This bill provides inadequate job guarantees for Newfoundlanders for the public money that it is spending. Many members of the House who are not from Newfoundland, that wonderful province, travel there. It seems to me that for so many years people in Atlantic Canada have been led down the garden path or, if I can mix the metaphor, have been led to believe that there is a pot of gold at the rainbow. There is always a pot of gold at the end of that rainbow and Hibernia is the latest. It is suddenly going to turn a have-not province into a have province.
We all sympathize with that, especially people from western Canada. The former premier, my friend from Esquimalt, made the gas industry in British Columbia into a public marketing agency and used our resource to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the provincial budget and then redistributed that money to the people of the province. That was good government. So we westerners know how to use heritage funds and we sympathize.
Let us not lead Atlantic Canadians down the garden path. Let us not put out Hibernia, with all the money going into it, as a project that will suddenly turn a have-not province into a have province. The real future of a province like Newfoundland is still in the harvesting of the fisheries.
In my view, for the public money that goes into Hibernia, the bill still does not guarantee jobs for native Newfoundlanders. I submit that when the committee is considering this bill it should look at what was done by
February 9, 1990

the Scots in Aberdeen and how they managed to get jobs for local people there.
Look at what the Norwegians do. Look at the requirements. Somehow the Canadian government has a mind fix that we cannot require jobs for Canadians because that is against the international marketing system. Look at the way the Brits did it with the North Sea oil and the way the Norwegians did it. They were much more sophisticated than we are. They guaranteed jobs for their people.
I say this bill provides inadequate job opportunities for Newfoundlanders in terms of the public money that is going into the project.
Second, putting so much money into one project will inevitably take away other moneys that could go to Atlantic Canada for economic diversification. That is what Atlantic Canada needs, not one big energy megaproject but a number of projects that can work with the resources in Atlantic Canada.
The government says it will leave that up to the market. If you read the speech made on December 18, 1989, in this House by the energy critic of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Edmonton East, sets out in detail the cost of this project, the fact that jobs have to be guaranteed and the fact that there has to be other economic diversification for Atlantic Canada. If we do not say that to the people of Atlantic Canada we are not telling them the truth. We are saying that Hibernia is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and it just does not fit in.
I want to return to the environment briefly before I conclude. As I said, Canadians have added a new criterion to deciding on energy projects and that is the environment. We are requiring, and the courts are requiring now, that every project be looked at in terms of its environmental impact and so on. This project in Hibernia will have to be looked at in that regard. There are some vast dangers out there.
We think of the icebergs out there and remember the Ocean Ranger oil rig. I remember being in the House when the minister stood up on that very sad day and announced the loss of those workers on that oil rig. It is a very dangerous area. When you have an accident it is
Government Orders
pretty hard to cap things 400 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean off Newfoundland.
One has to go back to the Brundtland report, the United Nations report which is now in the forefront of our criterion for considering environmental projects. Brundtland said, in Our Common Energy Futures, choosing an energy strategy inevitably means choosing an environmental strategy. That is the key.
Dare I quote the Prime Minister? He said at the Changing Atmosphere Conference in Toronto: "The world is coming to recognize what we believe to be self-evident, that development and environmental protection are mutually enforcing, not mutually exclusive. Our economic activity must be increasingly compatible with today's environmental facts of life."
Here is an energy megaproject, with is over $3 billion in loans, guarantees and so on, at a time when we do not have much money in this country. Is that where we should be putting our money? Is this the way to deal with carbon in the atmosphere? Are there no other alternatives?
We in the New Democratic Party believe in the greening of Canada and the greening of the world. We are going to deal with these projects and these bills with questions and comments in the House of Commons from the point of view of being a newer, greener party.
I would like to move an amendment to the motion, seconded by the hon. member from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. I move:
That the motion for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources of Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:
Be it resolved that Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto be not now read a second time because:
(1)	this House is of the opinion that simply giving huge amounts of money away to any private sector development without securing equivalent equity in such project for the people of Canada is wrong in principle;
(2)	this House is of the opinion that pursuing further fossil fuel megaprojects in the absence of concerted government action to reduce C02 emissions in Canada generally is wrong in principle; and,
(3)	this House is of the opinion that proceeding with the Hibernia project in the absence of sufficient guarantees of consequent job opportunities and economic development prospects for the people

Government Orders
of Newfoundland and Labrador and of the Atlantic region generally, is wrong in principle.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will reserve the decision as to the admissibility of the motion and report to the House right after Question Period. In the meantime, on a point of order, the hon. member for Portage-Interlake.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order regarding media stories in this morning's newspaper reporting on a recent meeting between myself and the President of the Canadian Native Arts Foundation. The meeting was arranged to discuss an appearance before the Commons Committee on Communications and Culture, which I chair.
It has been reported that during the meeting I made comments which, if true, would have offended our native people. I did not make the statements attributed to me and I clearly did not intend to give offence to any individual or group.
My support for native programs and native people's aspirations are well known to my colleagues and within my constituency and I, in no way, want to leave the impression that it is otherwise. I strongly deplore any misunderstandings my comments may have generated, and if any person took offence then I sincerely apologize.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I raised this matter this morning on a point of order. I am pleased that the hon. member has come to the House and made a statement, but I must say that I feel this is not adequate. All too frequently the member, as chair, has embroiled himself in controversies and I think we have to hear from Mr. John Kim Bell. He does not have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must rule this out of order. I realize the member raised the question this morning. I will give the floor to the member on that matter later on during the day, not now. Questions and comments.


HIBERNIA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you consider the admissibility of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, might I direct your attention to the fifth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, at page 226, citation 744(1) and 744(2) governing the content of reasoned amendments, and citation 745 governing aspects of the admissibility of reasoned amendments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have about two and a half minutes for questions and comments. I recognize the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt and I ask him to be brief.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a sequence of questions. I will ask them all together. They are three very short questions.
First, would private enterprise have gone ahead with this had the guarantees and the government assistance not been in place? Second, could the member give us any indication of what the price per barrel of oil would have to be for private enterprise to have gone it on their own? And third, does it mean that indirectly, or directly if you wish, we are guaranteeing that price per barrel to the corporations that do go into this project?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the member's question is exactly on point. It depends. Private enterprise would not go into this alone because the price of oil is too low. I never could get out of the Minister of Energy, even with repeated questions when I was energy critic, what market price for a barrel of oil was required for Hibernia to be economically viable without government subsidization. They said it was between $30 and $50 a barrel.


Herbert O. Sparrow: That's too high. You know that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, we do not know whether it's high or low. Certainly the price of oil right now is too low and so we have a government subsidized project, which still may
February 9, 1990

not go ahead. The hon. member is right. In fact, the government is guaranteeing the project and guaranteeing an economic price for the project.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 11 o'clock we will proceed to Statements by Members.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wilson has made a statement of profound importance to relationships between men and women and to the very foundation of our values as a society. She is right when she says our laws and judicial system discriminate against women and that they fail to respond to women's values of mutual obligations, caring for one another and preserving relationships.
She has put her finger on the root cause of pervasive injustice against women and children, the reason courts treat theft more seriously than wife beating or child abuse, why court ordered support payments leave mothers and children in poverty and then are ignored in 85 per cent of the cases, and why governments can play games with pay equity and pension justice even for its own employees.
To paraphrase Justice Wilson, it is impossible for men to respond even conceptually to the vulnerability women feel because it is outside the realm of their personal experience. Canadian society cannot wait while women make their way in equal numbers into the Parliaments and courts to change this system. We will only be the richer if our government acts-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but her time has expired.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, a recent survey of my constituents revealed that 63
per cent of respondents felt that the Meech Lake Accord was important for Quebec and Canada, while only 16 per cent disagreed. Twenty-one per cent of respondents indicated they had no opinion.
Mr. Speaker, the results of this survey show that the people of Temiscamingue care about Meech Lake and want the Accord to be ratified so that Quebec will grow within our Canadian federation.
Mr. Speaker, I also see a very clear message to opponents of Meech Lake that they should weigh carefully the consequences of their actions in the months to come, if they do not want to jeopardise the unity of this country.
History might judge them very harshly. Yes to Meech Lake means yes to Quebec and yes to Canada, and it means saying yes to a country that is stronger because it is more united.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the House the latest in the government's campaign to sell the universally unpopular goods and services tax.
Canadians are already being bombarded with a $14 million GST propaganda campaign. Now the ultimate in insults arrives in the 1989 tax guide, a GST insert that is purely a propaganda tool.
The insert states that the GST will reduce the deficit, but the Minister of Finance has repeatedly claimed that the GST will be revenue neutral. It states that the GST will make a fairer tax system, yet the GST is regressive and hurts lower and middle income earners.
The insert states that the GST will pay for social programs, but this government continues to reduce social spending. It states the GST will help lower and modest income earners, but seniors and the poor simply do not believe this.
Surely a person filling out an income tax return should be protected from the Mulroney government's political hypocrisy. Can this government not at least let people do their incpme tax in peace?

February 9, 1990


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, these are challenging and stimulating days to be a Canadian. We are living the historic reality of building our nation Canada and we must build it together in our two official founding languages and in our many ethnic cultures. For me, that is the essence of being a Canadian.
To achieve true understanding about our diverse identity and to generate the kind of tolerance and mutual respect which Canadian unity will demand, we must constantly strive to know one another.
In my riding of Fredericton today, a small citizens' committee on language and culture is meeting regularly to encourage continuing dialogue between English and French neighbours. It is succeeding, slowly but surely, to enhance a spirit of common cause among its members which will spread throughout our city.
From such small candles, larger lights will glow. I recommend similar initiatives for true communication among Canadians in every community across this country.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the past week or two there has been a lot of talk about the cost of bilingualism. What are the facts?
The whole federal bilingualism program costs less than one-half of 1 per cent of total federal spending.
Again, one-half of 1 per cent is the total amount for the whole federal bilingualism program, including contributions to help the provinces deliver minority language education and services.
The new Ontario French Language Services program entails no costs whatsoever for municipalities. Moreover, the Ontario government estimates that it will spend about $11 million a year to deliver this new program. This is about three one-hundredths of 1 per cent of Ontario's total spending.
To put it another way, federal bilingualism program costs every Canadian man, woman and child 6 cents per day.
The new Ontario program will cost each resident of Ontario three tenths of a penny per day. Add the federal and Ontario programs and you get six and one-third cents per day for each Ontario resident. Is an investment of six and one-third cents per day too much to keep our country together?


CANADIAN FILM INDUSTRY
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, our Canada is a great country and Canadians are a capable and creative people.
On Wednesday night of this week I was privileged to join with some distinguished Canadians, including members from both sides of this House, at the Museum of Civilization for the premier showing of an all-Canadian film Divided Loyalties, the story of Joseph Brant. This 100 per cent Canadian film is a tribute to a great Canadian loyalist. Produced by Baton Productions and Mr. Tom Gould, it is an example of the quality that can be created by Canadians. The film is a tribute to the actors, technicians and financiers, all of whom are Canadian. They deserve congratulations for an excellent production.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this week Moose Jaw Packers was forced to stop shipping pork to the United States due to the U.S. countervail and U.S. inspection harassment at the border. This has meant that half of the plant's employees have lost their jobs. This affects much more than Moose Jaw. Intercontinental Packers of Saskatoon have cut their shipments of hogs to the U.S. from 5,000 a week to 1,500 and are contemplating ceasing shipments altogether.
In fact, in 1988, 53 per cent of hog exports were to the U.S. and represented some $410 million in trade. These trade dollars are now in jeopardy. Not only are Canadian producers and processors upset, but Clover Dale Meats of Minet, North Dakota have stated that they prefer Canadian hogs to American hogs.
February 9, 1990

This government said that the free trade agreement would be good for Canada, yet Moose Jaw Packers is forced to search for markets 1,200 miles away in Vancouver and 2,000 miles away in Ontario, instead of 400 miles south in Minet, North Dakota in a market that wants Canadian pork.
There is nothing free in this free trade agreement for Canadians. It is time to tear up this agreement right now.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the small business community continues to be a vital component of our national economy. Statistics show that between 1978 and 1987 over 1.5 million net new jobs were created across Canada through small, independent business ventures.
These Canadian small businessmen and women continue to demonstrate that initiative. Coupled with sound planning and a lot of hard work, they can be successful and prosperous all across our country.
I cite Dollard Landry's company, Atlantic Mini Bar Inc., which is a new and thriving business in Moncton, New Brunswick as a prime example.
Small business, without hesitation, continues to be the backbone of our economy. It is one of the greatest sources of new ideas, opportunities, wealth and employment. Like all members, I wish to pay tribute to the men and women across Canada who have and will embrace the bold Canadian spirit of small business entrepreneu-rialism.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Leslie Harris, in his recent report on the Atlantic fisheries crisis, stated that commercial extinction occurs when it is no longer profitable to go after fish. We think we are fast approaching this point.
No one has accurate figures, but the federal Department of Fisheries estimates that the harp seal population
has grown from 2 million to about 3 million in the past six years. Estimates of how much these seals eat, whether it is herring, capelin, cod, crab or other commercial fish, is placed between 3 million and 10 million tonnes a year. It is estimated that 90 per cent of the fish they consume are commercially important.
No matter how you do the mathematics, it is apparent that seals catch between two and seven times as many fish each year as the entire Canadian fishing fleet and it costs the fishery close to $90 million a year.
I join many others in publicly calling on the Government of Canada to implement now, immediately, a cull of the seal herd population using appropriately sized vessels and using idle plant capacity to process the seal meat. This in itself is not enough. To complement this, the government should initiate an aggressive public relations campaign aimed at countering any future boycotts of Canadian products at home and abroad resulting from the seal management issue.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw to the attention of the House the support of the English community of the Quebec metropolitan area for the Meech Lake Accord.
By a resolution passed on Monday, January 29, the association Voice of English Quebec stated that it was in favour of supporting the Meech Lake Accord.
Voice of English Quebec stated also that the accord brings the province of Quebec fully into the constitutional family and urges the First Ministers, the Government of Canada and the provinces to take all necessary steps to ensure the passage of the Meech Lake Accord and to commit themselves formally to a process for further constitutional renewal.
The support of this important group from Quebec for the Meech Lake Accord proves once more that the accord must be ratified as is, without delay, in the best interests of all Canadians.

February 9, 1990


RADIO CANADA INTERNATIONAL
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs has told Radio Canada International to disband its German broadcasting system in favour of switching to Arabic.
Events have changed radically in Europe. It means that that has become a poorly timed decision, to say the least. It is important to note that the German service is not only broadcast on shortwave, the service is also picked up between 6.30 and 7 p.m. daily on a local Berlin FM station. This enables us to present a Canadian perspective to the people of Berlin. It comes out of an old post-war arrangement the allies made. We do this through the British Broadcasting corporation. This is really something that we have. At a time when there is talk of German reunification, this access to people in East and West Germany should not be abandoned.
We have a large German-Canadian community that is interested in this as well. I have written to the Secretary of State for External Affairs about this decision, asking him to reinstate the German service of Radio Canada International.
At this time in Europe, with the momentous events that are happening and with our access, we should not give that up.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago a member opposite stated that a car dealer in his riding was concerned about how the GST would affect his business. He clearly does not understand that the principle of GST is to completely relieve Canadian business of the federal sales tax burden.
As a new car dealer for 15 years, I see very tangible positives for dealers in several ways. First, inventories. Dealers carry large volumes of inventory. The GST will reduce the dollar amount and the cost of carrying that inventory.
Second, operating costs. Any business that consumes materials, tools, supplies and facilities, will see their costs of operation go down.
Third, and probably most important, the benefits to purchasers. All customers will see the after-tax price of vehicles go down.
In particular, farmers, fishermen and commercial customers in the system will benefit even more because they are relieved completely of both the FST and the GST, about a $2,000 reduction on a $20,000 pick-up.
As well as the positives, of course, there are always some negatives, mostly relating to transitional issues. These are now being addressed by the Department of Finance. By any standards, the positives of GST far outweigh the negatives in this business as in other small businesses.


POSTAL SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: In
June 1988, the Conservative Government announced it would establish a Postal Services Review Board that would be responsible for examining changes in postal rates and postal services and submitting recommendations to the government.
Last Tuesday, however, when the chairman of the relevant committee appeared before the House committee, he told us that so far, his committee's experience and the consultation process had been disappointing. He added that after a full year of operating as an advisory body, the Postal Services Review Committee felt that if the review process did not improve substantially during the current year, the government should consider amending the proposed status of the Postal Services Review Board and making it a regulatory body.
On behalf of the Official Opposition, I invite the responsible minister to table forthwith a bill that confers real powers on the Postal Services Review Board, so that it can discharge its responsibilities and prevent the Canada Post Corporation from raising rates and reducing service.
February 9, 1990


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, we know that when democratic rights and privileges are widely abused, anarchy will result.
We also know that when lawmakers circumvent then-own rules, they promote the very disorder the rules were intended to prevent. The planned and deliberate actions of the New Democratic Party to thwart the rules and orders of the House in pursuit of their own ends is exactly the kind of conduct that creates disorder and breeds anarchy.
Do hon. members want examples? The member for Nickel Belt went to a flea market in Nova Scotia to gather anti-GST petitions in defiance of the ancient rule of parliamentary petition.
The NDP House leader announced on TV his intention to stall and delaiy House business. This is conduct contemptuous of the parliamentary process. No wonder The Ottawa Citizen warns the NDP not to stall Parliament and states: "Play by the rules, not with the rules. All Canada is watching".


SCHIZOPHRENIA
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, there is an illness that is affecting one in a hundred Canadians but that no one seems to want to talk about. That illness is schizophrenia, a disease which costs Canadians over $3 billion in direct health care and support costs each year. This brain disease often leads to hallucinations, thought disorders, loss of emotions and an inability to function in a work environment.
Federal funding for schizophrenia research is only $2 million per year. The quality of research is excellent and research results have greatly improved the outlook for discovering the causes and methods for preventing and curing this terrible brain disease. More needs to be done. Including private funding, cancer research in Canada receives $300 per patient, schizophrenia receives $17. The progress in combating schizophrenia is now just as possible as for cancer.
I urge the government on behalf of the thousands of Canadians afflicted by this disease and the families and friends who share their suffering to do more to help
Oral Questions
these physically able individuals to become fully productive members of our society.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister for employment. Today's statistics show that the unemployment rate has now increased for four consecutive months to 7.8 per cent, with over one million Canadians unemployed and major plants closing all over this country.
In these circumstances, I ask the minister when the government will change its hands-off policy to counteract this disturbing trend in the economy, to change its policy to stimulate economic growth and save these jobs, or are the government and the minister willing to accept the 8.5 per cent unemployment rate predicted in the Minister of Finance's budget last April? Is the government going to put its head in the sand and let thousands of jobs go down the drain in this country?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that for the month of January, he should read the statistics for what they are. The number of new jobs increased by 42,000. The reason why there was a marginal increase in unemployment was that the number of people working increased. I think the performance is good. I would put our record of job creation against that of the former Liberal government any time.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a marginal increase in unemployment. We are talking about a four month trend in which unemployment has increased substantially. I remind the minister that in 1981-1982, which he and the Prime Minister often refer to, the western world was in a recession. The Liberal government did something about it and changed that situation around, which was evident in 1984.
This government is willing to tolerate high interest rates, a declining trade situation, high employment and at the same time is bringing in new taxes which economists say will accelerate the recession. How can the minister justify this blend of policies at this time as we

February 9, 1990
Oral Questions
face a recession? How can he justify that trend? How can he be so callous toward the unemployed in this country?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that lower rates of interest would be good for the economy. That is why it supports the Bank of Canada in its policy to bring interest rates down in a way that will allow them to stay down. We cannot work on this artificially. We support the Bank of Canada's approach to fight inflation. Inflation is the threat. If we did not act in this way, we would not be acting responsibly. Again, without any hesitation, I would put our record on this side of the House against that of the former Liberal government.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, since 1984 the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have claimed credit for every job created in this country as if the private sector and the international market-place had nothing to do with it. They had all the answers. That was easy in an expanding economy, but the real test of a government's policies is in a declining economy. If they have the answers to these problems, I ask the minister to show them to us today, and reverse this four-month trend of unemployment. What is the minister going to do about it? What new policies is he going to give the Canadian people?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I think we are doing exactly what needs to be done. We are taking very tough decisions. GST is one of them. The terrible tax on the Canadian economy, the 64-year old manufacturers' sales tax which destroys jobs, is being removed. For 50 years groups have said that Canada must change this system. We are doing it. We are making sure that inflation does not run away like it did in the early 1980s when interest rates were above 20 per cent and inflation rates above 10 per cent.


YOUTH PROGRAMS
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This morning the minister confirmed
fears anticipated by the youth of our nation. At a time when they are faced with higher tuition fees, escalating education costs, an unbearable debt load and devastating double digit unemployment, the minister in her wisdom decided to respond to this already grave situation by cutting the seed program by 35 per cent and wrongfully denying summer job opportunities for young Canadians. How can the minister justify this action?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the initiative that we announced today. It is a stay-in-school initiative. As the hon. member knows, people who are on our social welfare system and back on UI are very often people with a grade 10 education. If we can convince them to stay in school until they are in grade 12, their chances of better employment are doubled. We think it is very important that our young people, looking at the future for them and the kind of lives they can lead, stay in school. That is the first point.
The second point is that last summer in many areas there were more jobs than there were students to fill them. What we have tried to do is look at an area of greater need. There will be a regional balance to the summer employment program so that we continue to be sensitive to the needs of students where employment conditions are not so good.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister, whose rhetoric is quite unacceptable. Not only is the minister's policy direction misguided, but it steals money and opportunities away from post-secondary education students to pay for high school drop-outs. How can the minister pit two needy groups of our society, the post-secondary education student and the high school drop-out against each other? How can she morally justify that? Does she not know that both need our help?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to remind the hon. member of how we feel with regard to our young people that the youth unemployment rate in 1984, when his party was in power, was 18.2 per cent. The youth unemployment rate now is 12 per cent. That
February 9, 1990

means that young people and students are considerably better off today than they were then.
I would also point out that there are a greater number of high school students in need across this country than there are at the post-secondary level. The hon. member should be congratulating us. If we cannot keep people in school, they are not going to achieve the post-secondary level. It is very important that those young people be encouraged to stay in school.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to he or she who will answer today for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the interest rates hit a five-year high. The Conference Board has observed that the economy is in the same state as it was in 1981. In Windsor the focus of the automobile industry in Ontario, accountable for 140,000 direct jobs and responsible as the engine of growth for the economy over the period of the last seven years, the unemployment rate has hit 13 per cent, chiefly because of lay-offs in the automobile industry. That was the first fiscal sign in 1981 of the downturn that followed. My question to whoever is speaking for the Minister of Finance is this: Is this really the time to be talking about a tough budget that is going to cause yet more unemployment and economic troubles in this country?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that there are no miracle policies. There are difficult decisions to steer the economy on a good course. This is the course we are following.
We want to be sure that inflation does not run away from us. This would be devastating for members of the hon. member's riding and for all Canadians. We know that we need to bring interest rates down. We must do that by fighting inflation, by making sure that we can bring them down.
In mid January we saw the first sign that things were easing up a bit. The pressures in the economy which cause these rates were diminishing. We brought the rate down to some extent, but it is a very volatile situation. We need to manage it in the best interest of Canadians.
Oral Questions
In the meantime, I think our policies are the only good policies that can be followed. Over the years they have resulted in a a very good performance compared to any other industrial country.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly clear that everybody knows that the interest rate policy is not in the best interests of anybody. It is not in the best interests for the Minister of Finance to be communicating that there is going to be a tough budget that is going to affect the middle class and the poor and the regions yet more. In the province of Quebec the unemployment rate has gone from 9.5 to 10.5 per cent. This is one of the regions that will be most affected by Bill C-21.
I ask the minister whether it is not time to withdraw Bill C-21 as a part of a whole series of actions that ought to be taken to address the fact that we face not inflation, but high unemployment rates because of an economic downturn that will affect a great many people in this country.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House before, Bill C-21 is designed precisely to help those who are the first hit in an economic downturn. Those who need training are thrown into unemployment quickly. The workers we have spoken to and the surveys we have conducted among unemployed workers indicate that the reason they cannot get jobs is they do not have the skills.
Our job as a government is to make sure that they do have the skills. That is why we need Bill C-21 and need it quickly. That is why we have the stay-in-school initiative that I announced this morning, so that young people in Canada will have the right high school education in order to have job training for the future. We are focusing on regional development because job training and regional development go together. That is what this government has done. It has taken tough decisions on those things and they are the right ones.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the government is adopting policies that are going to increase the unemployment rate. It has a bill that will lengthen the qualifying period and shorten the payment period. Then the minister has the nerve to talk about the stay-in-school initiative. The Challenge program is being cannibalized to introduce a half-baked program that the minister could not even describe in

February 9, 1990
Oral Questions
detail this morning. Is that the answer to the unemployment situation we face in the future? That is outrageous.
I ask the government again to reconsider this cocka-mamie, bucket of programs that have no relationship to the realities of this country. In the portions of this country on which this economy depends, the unemployment rates are going up. I ask the government to lower the interest rate policy, to do something about changing the budget direction. It is going to be hurtful. Increase the government's role in helping those who will be affected.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there was some kind of question in there. I want to correct the impression about the stay-in-school initiative that was announced today. I am sure if the hon. member has done his homework, he knows that federal labour market programs and services now directed at in-school youth are going to be increased. Those are programs that are working. They include co-op education, work orientation workshops, Canada Career Week and counselling services.
In addition, within my own department the job entry programs under Canadian Jobs Strategy are directed at our young people as well. We spend within our own framework alone $700 million on the young people of this country.
That is money well spent. We know that they will be better educated. They will be better trained, and they will have much better and more stable futures with the kinds of programs we are providing than with the kind of crap the NDP talks about.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, given the paucity of senior ministers over there, I will direct my question to whom it may concern. I want to raise the serious issue involving the chairman of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
John Kim Bell, the first native Canadian to become a symphony orchestra conductor, has said that the chairman of the Communications and Culture Committee has called native Canadians lazy. This is a very serious matter and something which cannot be ignored.
I am aware of the fact that the hon. member has already denied making the statement. He has said that the statement is inaccurate.
However, the government cannot escape its responsibility. I want to know where the government stands on this issue and whether the government accepts the member's statement.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, sooner of later perhaps the hon. member will recognize that his responsibilities as a member of Parliament require a little more discipline and attention to detail than simply being a talking head on television.
He will know that the member in question took the first opportunity today to rise in the House of Commons to make an apology and, among other things, to say on the record of the House of Commons that he did not make the statements attributed to him.
The hon. member will know, if he knows anything about Parliament, that there is an elemental rule here which says that the word of a member is accepted. That finishes the matter.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, if the minister was listening closely, he would have heard me quote the hon. member saying that he denied making the statement and that the statement was inaccurate. I quoted the hon. member, and I am not going to take any lessons from the senior minister.


Albert Glen Cooper: You should.


John Harvard: My supplementary questions is this-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


John Harvard: Perhaps the jackals would just shut their mouths for a moment.
I think there is a lesson for all of us. I think there is much too much loose talk in this country-


Mr.   de Cotret@: We are hearing some of it right now.


John Harvard: -and I think it is incumbent upon all of
us to get a grip on ourselves.

The chairman was elected on the strength of the majority of the Conservatives on the committee, obviously on the recommendation of the government. Despite the hon. member's denial, does the government still support the chairman in that role as chairman of the committee?
When will the government stop the hon. member from always putting his foot in his mouth?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first part of the question is out of order. There were two parts to it, and the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs may answer the second part.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member believes that there is too much loose talk in the country, I can suggest a direct contribution he might make to solving the problem.
There is a rule in the House with respect to accepting the word of the member. The member has given his word and it therefore must be accepted.
Therefore, the government does not intend to act on an allegation which has been denied following the proper procedures in the House. This government, as a product of the House of Commons, intends to respect the rules and traditions of the House of Commons.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


TAXATION
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the Minister of State (Finance) and ask him this: If the current sales tax is so bad for employment, why did the government increase this tax four times in the last four years? And since in the past, the government took the credit when unemployment rates went down, why does the same government refuse to take the responsibility for the present increases in the unemployment rate? Why is it so indifferent to the people of this country?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, this government is certainly not indifferent to the circumstances of Canadians and Canadian workers.
Oral Questions
In fact, we have had policies that were central to the economic development of this country. I am not going to claim that all the good things that happened in Canada were a direct result of the government's actions, but they would certainly not have occurred if the environment had not been favourable.
We increased the existing tax because it is one of the pillars of our system for raising revenue, a pillar that has its faults and has been around for 64 years. However, when we saw the impact it had on a country that must become increasingly competitive, we decided, considering our general development strategy which included the Free Trade Agreement and other measures, to introduce this tax reform which is not very popular but necessary, difficult, but good for the country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there are some serious contradictions in its policy when the government admits that the present sales tax is one of the pillars of its economic policy and at the same time is saying that it is a silent killer of jobs in this country. My supplementary for the Minister of Employment and Immigration is as follows: If the government is not indifferent to Canadians, why will it cut the student summer employment program this summer and what is the government going to do for those students who used the program last summer? What is the government going to do for this important group?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my earlier answer, the program will remain regionally sensitive in areas where there is higher unemployment among students.
In the meantime, in parts of southwestern Ontario, not all of it-and we have gone through this very carefully-there are certainly places where there were more jobs than there were students to fill them.
We believe it is a higher priority for the country, and I think the public would agree with us, to ensure that high school students remain in school in order that they can then qualify to be in the post-secondary stream about which the hon. member is so worried.
Oral Questions STATUS OF WOMEN

February 9, 1990


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the status of women in Canada.
All through Canadian society we see negative attitudes and sexism rampant toward women. Last night, Supreme Court of Canada Justice Bertha Wilson said that "some aspects of criminal law in particular cry out for change since they are based on presuppositions about the nature of women and women's sexuality which in this day and age are a little short of ludicrous".
She cited studies that show sexism is the underlying premise in many judgments and that gender based myths, biases and stereotypes are deeply embedded in the attitudes of many male judges.
Will the minister consult with the Minister of Justice? Will she make input into the inner cabinet of this government and insist on training programs for judges? Will she insist that the Minister of Justice work with the provinces to ensure that judges receive education and training in women's equality issues, in sexual assault issues against women and wife battering? Will the minister do that?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that this is something I regard as an ongoing part of my job. I have been doing it from the beginning.
I point out to the hon. member that probably she and I are in some agreement on the subject. We understand the references Justice Bertha Wilson made. We all have to work toward making some of those changes.
Since we have been in office this government has not only agreed that women, for example, should be better represented in the judiciary, but we are working very hard to achieve that.
We have made a total of 222 new appointments to the bench and elevated 66 judges to higher judicial office throughout the land. Of the new appointments, 37 have been women or 16.7 per cent of the total. Clearly we would like to improve on that, but it is a fairly good record so far. More significant, 16 of the 66 judges
elevated to higher office or 24 per cent have been women.
In addition, we are following with interest the judicial education centre which, in its early formulative stages, the government was helping to promote and encourage with the judiciary in Canada.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the slight progress in appointing women judges and women into positions of authority, but it is very slight. The record speaks for itself.
A judge in Quebec has said: "Rules are like women. They are meant to be violated". A judge in the Northwest Territories said sexual assault was not as serious there because "women get drunk and men see a pair of hips and help themselves". A judge in B.C. blamed a three-year old girl, a child, and called her sexually aggressive. She in fact was seen as responsible for her own assault. A judge in Nova Scotia was removed from the bench for telling women that they should obey their husbands and go back to them.
It is just not good enough. The time for action is now. It is past time for real action.
Will the minister consult with the Minister of Justice? Will we see real action for mandatory training programs for judges on the issues of women: women's sexuality and equality for women in the judicial system?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I regard this issue as an important part of my job.
I think it also goes back much further than that. The audience whom Justice Bertha Wilson was addressing on this topic was a very important audience because these things start in law school. They probably start in high school. They do not all of a sudden spring into place when people are on the bench. I am sure the hon. member would agree with that, as would the Minister of Justice.
In the meantime, we are making better progress than has been made in the past; not as good a progress as I would like to see us make in the future or that this government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice would like to see us make.
February 9, 1990


NATIONAL REVENUE
Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue.
The people of Red Deer, and I am sure all thinking Canadians, are becoming increasingly concerned about the need for deficit reduction and spending restraint. They are rightfully concerned about a report suggesting that the government will need an army of bureaucrats to administer the proposed goods and services tax.
In a time of restraint and given the Canadian taxpayers' desire to see a stronger effort in reduced spending and tax fairness, why do 3,000 or 4,000 tax police and collectors have to be hired to administer the proposed goods and services tax?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this government has continued to reduce government spending five years in a row, to the point of reducing the deficit by $10 billion.


John Paul Manley: $10 billion, that is not out of the Department of Finance.


Otto John Jelinek: In so far as people required to administer the GST is concerned, late last year I predicted a maximum number required of 3,900 people, and that was before discussions progressed with the provinces-and I am pleased to announce that those discussions are progressing very well-in order to eliminate any overlaps or duplications.
Let me make one thing clear, Mr. Speaker: there are no tax police. Of the total amount of people required to administer and prepare for a smooth launch of the GST, only 11 per cent of those people will be tax collectors. The rest are there to plan, to reach out to the business community, to provide technical and information assistance, and to prepare and plan GST credits for low and modest income Canadians and senior citizens. Those are not tax policemen. They are people to process payments, claims and refunds to businesses and to assist the small business community to plan in an orderly, smooth, efficient and simple fashion.
That is what this is. It is a service. Once and for all let us put it to rest: there are no tax police.
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


EAST COAST FISHERY
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is chairing the special cabinet committee on the east coast fishery.
The 1989 Prince Edward Island lobster season saw prices drop drastically and inventories of frozen lobster products reach peak levels. Just recently the U.S. passed legislation to keep lobster out of its market. Fishermen in my riding want to know what this government is doing to develop new foreign markets for their lobsters.
Can the minister tell this House today if this problem has been identified to his committee and, if so, what steps have been taken?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the question was addressed to me in my chair of a committee dealing with a specific problem. It has nothing to do with the implications of reductions in the resource of the northern cod. We are focusing on that problem and its implications for the fishing communities affected.
The government takes very seriously the implications for the lobster fishery.
My colleague, the Minister for International Trade, through his responsibilities in that department, is seeking to determine whether there are other viable outlets and markets for the Canadian lobster fishery.
I can assure the hon. member that it is a matter of as high priority to us as it is to him.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, if this government does not take action now many of my communities will end up like Canso. Surely this government must have learned from the costly mistakes it made in the northern cod.
Can this minister make a firm commitment today to the P.E.I. fishermen that this government will develop new markets for lobsters before it is too late?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly make a commitment that we will try to develop markets for P.E.I. lobsters.

February 9, 1990
Oral Questions
The hon. member realizes that there are some limitations upon what even this government can do. That is one of the difficulties we are encountering with the question of the northern cod.
The fundamental problem is not a problem relating to policy. It is a problem that has to do with overfishing, that has to do with the disappearance of a resource, that has very little to do with mismanagement, unless we go back to an earlier time before this government was elected when decisions were taken by a former Liberal government to give away large amounts of Canadian fish that should never have been given away.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question with the acting minister of trade.
There is a report out of Washington this morning that a representative of the U.S. Commerce Department has said that any effort by the Canadian government to cover losses of the fishing industry, or any attempt to provide a subsidy which does not meet the test of specificity, would be contrary to U.S. trade law.
Is the Canadian government prepared to declare today that we have the sovereign right to support and provide any subsidy to any industry, the fishing industry included, and to say today that we will cover any costs encountered by the fishing industry in a countervail case taken by the Americans?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was properly precise in identifying the source of that comment. It was a comment by an official in the Department of Commerce in the United States.
There has been no investigation. There is no countervail action. It is a matter of opinion. Usually those opinions are expressed by that official or others in the U.S. Congress Department whenever Canada takes any kind of action.
If there is a countervail action raised, we will defend our interest and we would expect to prevail.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the statements made by
officials in the U.S. government. The problem is the lack of statements made by officials in the Canadian government.
We really need a clear statement of what is a statement and what is not. The government has made no effort to describe what would be a subsidy during the forthcoming negotiations. We gave no reaction to the U.S. court case which said that our regional programs, our industry programs, were unfair according to U.S. trade law.
Will the minister now say clearly on behalf of the Canadian government that any subsidy directed to the fishing industry is proper under Canadian law and we do not give a damn what the U.S. trade law has to say?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I assume that last declaration which would have Canada take itself out of the world was not intended seriously as a statement of Liberal policy by the hon. member.
The hon. member well knows that the question of the definition of subsidy is one of the most difficult questions in international trade. It had been approached extensively in bilateral discussions between Canada and the United States before the negotiations of the free trade agreement. There was an attempt made in the context of those discussions to get an agreement on subsidies. We were not successful then. A process was set in place trying to set a timetable by which there would be an agreement on the definition of subsidies.
It is not only a difficult issue between Canada and the United States, but with all nations involved in trade. We are pursuing it vigorously as we have in the past.
We have defended Canadian programs. We have taken the case to court. We have won court decisions with respect to the right of Canada to follow programs that we believe are in the national interest, and we will continue to seek a common definition of subsidy.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who spoke so glowingly earlier in Question period about regional development grants.
February 9, 1990

Atlantic Canada is in serious need of real economic development help. Yet, instead, I have evidence here of wasteful government grants to a highly questionable project. The federal government has granted over $2 million to a company called Technitread, a tire retreading operation in Cape Breton, despite the fact that the owner's previous company in Brantford had a 30 per cent failure rate on the tires it produced and went bankrupt after having received half a million dollars in previous government grants.
Is this the kind of magnificent record of regional development grants that the Minister of Employment and Immigration was talking about earlier in Question Period?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which this government created and put in Moncton to administer regional development grants, to the benefit of industries in Atlantic Canada, has been working very well. There have been hundreds of grants given out to small and medium sized businesses which have produced hundreds and hundreds, indeed thousands of jobs.
The hon. member has asked about a specific grant. He provided some details which there is no possibility of verifying and asked for a comment on them. If he had given us the courtesy of alerting us in advance of his intention to do so, we could have had a detailed answer, but as it is we will have to take that as notice and get back to him.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, letters with specific reference to this company have been constantly sent from New Democratic members to the minister responsible for this area.
The minister was told last summer of the failures I talked about and said at that stage that he would investigate. Despite these problems which are backed up in a letter from the Ministry of Transport, from this very government, why was it decided and in fact carried through that this grant would go to this highly questionable project? How can this government justify that in view of the very serious problems put before ministers long before this point?
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the hon. member has waited until the one day this week the minister responsible for ACOA is not here to pose that very specific question.
As of January of this year ACOA has dealt with 14,141 applications. The hon. member stands up in some indignation and asks why we do not have the details on one of those 14,141 applications at our fingertips. The answer should be obvious to him.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I bring to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of Mr. Gerard Collins, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is for his boss.
It was announced this week that Moose Jaw Packers Limited has laid off one-half of its staff and is blaming the move on U.S. border harassment since the introduction of the free trade agreement.
In fact company officials are quoted as saying: "With the free trade agreement we were supposed to have less hassles but it has become more and more difficult". What is the minister prepared to do to stop this U.S. border harassment? What is he prepared to do to help these displaced workers at Moose Jaw Packers?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a question of considerable concern to the government. The Americans should know that they run a sizeable trade surplus with us in agricultural products, to the tune of $1 billion a year; in that neighbourhood.
We are investigating this matter very thoroughly. If in fact the Americans cannot show good cause for the kind of hold up and what some people would describe as

Oral Questions
harassment at the border, we are going to have to consider very seriously taking some retaliatory action.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, how long is the minister going to consider? When will he take action? The Canadian meat industry wants the minister to take action today.
Since the free trade agreement came into effect, the U.S. has increased fees charged to Canadian exporters from $100 U.S., to as high as $700 U.S. per inspection. It has increased the frequency of these inspections from one in 20 shipments to one in 7 shipments.
Given that this is clearly a non-tariff barrier to trade and is in complete violation of the free trade agreement, when will the minister stand up for the Canadian meat industry, demand that the Americans stop this harassment of our agricultural industries, and take immediate action today to deal with this problem?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may want us to go ahead today. It is important that we take a responsible action. If the Americans cannot justify what they are doing and there is no other conclusion that we can draw except that it is harassment, we are going to be in a much better position to proceed if we do get to that day.
Let me say again that the Americans should understand they run a sizeable trade surplus with us in agricultural products. We are a major customer of theirs and we expect that to be recognized when we trade with them.
We are investigating. That process is under way now in a very thorough way. We want to do our homework and be responsible. If the Americans cannot justify their actions and we are left with no other conclusion to draw except that they are harassing us at the border, as the hon. member says, we are going to have to consider very seriously, I say again, taking retaliatory action.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
The goods and services tax is going to cause hardship for charities. We are informed that in the case of the Arthritis Society it will have to raise an additional $100,000 a year to offset the effects of the GST.
Given that last August the Minister of Finance promised that he would treat charities in a way which reflected the important role these organizations play, why is this government now placing this extra burden on charities?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, we are not placing any additional weight on charities. On the contrary, we have been very careful in devising the new tax so that it would be equitable.
I have heard comments about elderly people. We were extra careful to ensure that those who especially need our attention would be better off the changes. Charitable organizations will receive the same treatment. They will not have to pay higher taxes than they were paying before.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I think the Arthritis Society is very capable of calculating how much more this tax will cost it. That is the figure the
society has estimated.
My supplementary question is to the same minister. Certainly charities provide a very valuable service. They deserve all the help they can get.
Will the minister guarantee that charities will pay no more tax under the proposed goods and services tax than under the present manufacturers' sales tax? Can he promise that? If so, how?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. member that if the association gets its information from the opposition members who have been stating all kinds of things about the GST, I am not surprised. However, when its members read the facts they will find out that they are treated very fairly. We have made a special case of these organizations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will close Question Period with two questions, one from the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and one from the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
February 9, 1990


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I direct my question to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.
He indicated that he would look into the matter respecting Moose Jaw Packers. All he has to do is call Moose Jaw Packers. He will be told that it is now going 1,200 miles to Vancouver to find markets and 2,000 miles to Ontario to find markets when Cloverdale Meats of Minot, North Dakota, 400 miles to the south, has said that it wants Canadian hogs. Cloverdale Meats prefers Canadian hogs to American hogs.
When is the minister going to do something about this outrageous situation?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we understand the situation. It does not only involve Moose Jaw. There are other areas across the country that are experiencing the same kind of difficulties.
I know that the hon. member wants us to do our homework and be thorough when we proceed, if in fact we do get to a position where we have to proceed. If we were to take some action now that could not be justified farther down the road, he would be the first one to get up in the House and say: "Why didn't you do your homework before you proceeded?"
We are putting the Americans on notice that we think it is a very serious situation. We are letting them know that if they cannot justify their actions we are prepared to take some retaliatory action.
If the hon. member wants to be fair about it, I am sure he thinks that that is by far the responsible way to proceed.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I have made some telephone calls and done some investigating. Intercontinental Packers in Saskatoon, which was shipping 5,000 hogs a week, is now down to 1,500 a week and in fact is thinking about cutting out sales to the U.S. altogether.
This is a $410 million industry that is being lost. This is a national matter and is affecting not only producers but hog producers across the country.
Oral Questions
When will the minister have some answers for the people of Canada with respect to this most important issue?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I will elaborate just a little bit. We want to make sure that we investigate this matter very thoroughly.
We can all make phone calls. All of us have had these concerns expressed to us. I have had these concerns raised through my constituency office for the past three or four months. We want to make sure that this matter is dealt with properly.
The hon. member asks what we have done in the meantime. The Americans are well aware of our concerns. When the time comes, as I said, we are certainly prepared to take some retaliatory action. It will not be very long before we do that, but in the meantime we want to make sure that we do our homework so that if we get to that situation we will be on very firm ground when we decide we should proceed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has confirmed that Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze will be participating in the Open Skies conference here next week. My question is for the chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs.
Can he confirm that Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze will be appearing before the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs? Will that meeting be open to all members of the House?


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I can indeed confirm that Mr. Shevardnadze will be here. He indicated a desire to attend. Our Secretary of State was instrumental in making it possible.
The precedent was Mr. Gorbachev's visit to the committee in 1983.
It is certainly our intention to invite the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee to participate as well as the defence committees of both Houses.

February 9, 1990
Routine Proceedings
It is our intention to find a room to which we may invite all members to attend what I suspect will be an historical meeting.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to 219 petitions.



STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table an Order in Council confirming the intention of the Government of Canada to participate fully in the United Nations observer group in Central America.
As I announced on November 30, 1989, in concert with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Canada has dispatched nine officers to Honduras as part of the UN's advance party. I am pleased to announce that a further 12 observers are being deployed.
As well, the first elements of an approximately 100-person helicopter squadron was deployed beginning this week. It will continue to be deployed during the month of February to Central America where it will join the UN observer group known by its Spanish acronym of ONUCA.
I would like to emphasize that Canada's involvement in the Central American peace process should not be seen as something new, but something that has been evident for a number of years, especially over the last decade. My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and others in this House have visited the region a number of times and those visitations were to promote the peace process.
Following the August, 1987, signing of the Esquipulas II Agreement in Guatemala City, an agreement that outlined, "a procedure for the establishment of a firm and lasting peace in Central America", this House
created a Special Committee on the Peace Process in Central America to consider Canada's participation in the peace process.
An important recommendation of that committee stated: "If and when a verification force of some kind is created and Canada is requested by the five to participate in the force, then Canada should favourably consider such a request". Today, I am able to say that we have been able to comply with the recommendations of that special committee.
You will also recall, Mr. Speaker, that when it became obvious that the peace process would require a verification mechanism, the five Central American nations turned to Canada, Spain and the Federal Republic of Germany to undertake this mission. It was Canada which, while giving full support to the peace plan, pushed to have the United Nations intimately involved in the process. We can now take some degree of credit for seeing this phase of the peace plan being conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
We have supported UN involvement, as did the special committee on Central America, because we believe that it is the most credible and competent authority to undertake peacekeeping operations. This belief is firmly tied to our support for the obvious capacity of the United Nations for peacemaking.
You may well ask this question, Mr. Speaker. Why deploy a UN observer mission now? If one looks carefully at the situation in the region, one quickly arrives at the conclusion that there will never be a perfect time to deploy a UN observer group.
In November, we applauded the Secretary General's initiative to deploy an advance party to Honduras as a potential catalyst to re-establish the political consensus in the region and as a means of stabilizing the situation there.
At that time we also indicated that we expected to continue to participate in the UN decision-making process throughout the subsequent phase-by-phase deployment into the Central American countries. Obviously, we have closely monitored the situation and we are prepared to commit both military observers and a helicopter unit of the Canadian Forces in this next phase.
For those who are concerned about the risks involved to our peacekeepers, let me remind you of what was said in the Bosley report: "The risks of involvement in Central America are considerable, but the risks of non-involvement or turning a blind eye to a genuine
February 9, 1990

appeal from the five, would be a failure of responsibility and of self-interest on Canada's part."
As I stated earlier, there is no perfect moment in which to deploy our peacekeepers and there are inherent risks in peacekeeping at any time. But in the case of Central America the level of risk is manageable and is justified by the importance we attach to the process of advancing peace in that region. If at any time we conclude that these risks are becoming unacceptable we will, obviously, reconsider the total situation and our role in it.
As our peacekeepers are certainly aware, they are continuing a long and proud tradition of members of the Canadian Forces in the name of peace throughout the world.
The steps toward peace in Central America have been slow and at times painful. But progress is being made, and progress will continue to be made.
The dispatch of our peackeeping forces to another region is a sign of Canada's willingness to help those who seek peace and security anywhere in the world.
I know that you, Mr. Speaker, will join with all members of the House in offering their best wishes and support to these Canadians who are serving the cause of peace and security around the world.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side obviously support this initiative. I do not have to tell the House or Canadians that it was the Hon. Lester Pearson who began the Canadian contribution, historic contribution, to peacekeeping with the Canadian peacekeeping force in Suez in 1956 which helped to resolve that crisis.
Indeed, Canada has a long and proud tradition in the world in peacekeeping, which this gesture now simply carries on.
However, I would say to the minister that I think Canada has to be careful in not sending mixed signals to the world. We find it ironic, for example, on this side that today we are sending a peacekeeping force to Central America and just recently we gave unconditional and unequivocal support to an armed invasion of Panama.
Routine Proceedings
Canada should not be for peace at one moment and war at the next. I think that that kind of signal strains Canada's credibility and does not do anything to enhance our reputation. We believe that Canada has to be careful in the kind of signal it sends to Central America. We believe that Canadians were disappointed with the government's support of the American invasion of Panama.
I would further say to the Minister that we also believe that while the monitoring of the situation in Central America is important, that perhaps considering the conflicts in places like El Salvador, for example, the mandate of the mission might be expanded and that that might be helpful.
There is another thing that I want to suggest to the minister, that we simply go further than the sending of missions. Perhaps there is a role for Canada in an expanded peacekeeping operation.
I want to remind him that we on this side, particularly the member for Eglinton-Lawrence and our members from Prince Edward Island, suggested to the government that perhaps Summerside become a base for the training of peacekeepers and for peacekeeping operations. We were disappointed the government did not support that suggestion. I put it forward again and ask the minister if he would reconsider on behalf of the people of Summer-side, and the people who serve there, Canada's expanded role in peacekeeping.
I would further point out to the minister that in the last budget new communications equipment for our soldiers was discontinued. If our forces are going to Central America and other places in the world, they need to be as well equipped as we can make them. I further ask the minister to reconsider the cancellation of the new communications equipment for our soldiers.
Basically, we in this party, as I am sure all Canadians, support this initiative by the government. We believe that is is an important contribution, a contribution that Canada should make.
I want to join with the minister in wishing our Canadian forces who go to Central America all good wishes for themselves and for a speedy recovery of the situation there.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Tlranscona):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the New Democratic Party to the minister's statement. Let me begin by saying that we join with the rest of the House in support of the Canadian forces personnel going to Central America

February 9, 1990
Routine Proceedings
who are making their contribution on behalf of Canada to the peace process there.
I might also say as an aside that coming from Winnipeg I am aware with respect to another peacekeeping operation that the PPCLI, the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry, are about to embark on their third tour, I believe, of Cyprus. There will be a ceremony to mark that in Winnipeg next Tuesday, a ceremony which I am unable to make. That is why I want to mention it today. It points out one of the dangers of peacekeeping, namely, there are some situations in which we have been peacekeeping now for 25 years. We hope that will not be the case in Central America. We hope this will be part of a process that will reach some kind of happy conclusion in a much shorter time period than has been the case in Cyprus.
As the minister stated today, this most recent United Nations peace monitoring effort is not the beginning of Canadian efforts to bring peace to Central America. Members of Parliament, church workers, NGOs, and a great variety of Canadians have been involved over the years from all walks of life in Central America.
The government has chosen the course of promoting multilateralism with respect to solving the problem in Central America, in this case through the United Nations. We are all hopeful that approach will succeed.
As the hon. member for Labrador pointed out, there is an inconsistency in the extent to which the government promotes multilateralism on the one hand and yet when confronted with unilateral action, as it was in the case of the American invasion of Panama, it remained silent-in fact, it does not remain silent but approves of a unilateral action.
If you want to be wholly, shall we say, in favour of multilateralism, then one has to be consistent and be critical of unilateral actions when they appear as they did in the case of the American invasion of Panama. Yet the government took the wrong position on that.
It is a position which I think was implicitly, if not explicitly, criticized in the recent report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade where it stated with regard to Canada's membership in
the OAS that we had to get beyond this sort of unilateral action-the United States acting as a policeman according to its own ethics in Central America.
We should not take all that much comfort in this particular announcement. It is an important step along the road to peace, but there are many steps yet to be taken.
Indeed, appearing before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade in December, the director of the Peacekeeping Operations Directorate, Colonel Don Ethell, pointed out that the ONUCA operation in Central America was a unique exercise in many ways.
I might say that I have had the opportunity to know Colonel Ethell and to travel with him in Central America when I was part of the Special Committee on the Peace Process in Central America. I would like to take this opportunity to compliment him on the work that he has done. He is certainly a very professional man and someone in whom we can all take a great deal of pride in his peacekeeping work.
ONUCA will be proceeding within the context of an agreement concluded between the five countries in the region which are not in direct conflict with each other. Colonel Ethell pointed out what he and the rest of the committee were all too aware of. The root of instability in Central America is not country-to-country fighting, it is civil unrest. It is what is happening within the countries.
The ONUCA team is not there to act as a negotiator. It is not there to act as a police force. Indeed, Colonel Ethell stated that the UN peacekeeping forces or observer missions are there to provide a UN presence, an international presence. They are there to provide stability so that the politicians and the diplomats can cany on with the peace process. They are not there to solve the political problems.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just a word or two on the political problem. This whole announcement begs the question: What is the government doing about the political problem?
February 9, 1990

Has this government approached the Bush administration and voiced the concerns of many Canadians about U.S. support for the Contras in Nicaragua? Has the government questioned the $1.4 million a day in military assistance to the ARENA government in El Salvador? Perhaps now that Canada will have a military presence in Central America through ONUCA the government will follow on this initiative and press the United States to stop interfering in the sovereignty of Nicaragua and El Salvador.
The United States has done everything in its power short of invasion to disrupt and discredit the election process in Nicaragua, for instance. I wonder what the reaction would be in Washington if this government, or any government, openly provided $9 million to the Democrats in an election year, as the U.S. has done for the anti-Sandinista coalition in Nicaragua.
In El Salvador, the recent FMLN offensive has proven that despite massive U.S. support of Salvadoran armed forces there will be no military solution to the decade old civil war. There has to be a political solution. Crucial to that political solution are the actions and the intent of the United States of America, and that is where Canada comes in. That is where we have a role as a friend of America to say: "You need to be playing your part in this peace process, and that means stop funding those who have no intention of having a political solution".
We welcome the announcement. We all wish our peacekeeping forces well. It is going to be a dangerous job. Helicoptering around Central America is not exactly something that I would wish on anybody. But that is what people in the Armed Forces are for. They know that when they go in. We commend them for their responsibilities in that area. We hope that they all return safely in a context that sees progress toward peace in Central America.



LITERACY

['Agreed.']
Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, a lot of people in Canada today have found a new lease on life. They are finally shedding a cloak of secrecy they have worn for years at school, work and home. These people face the future with a mixture of fear and optimism as they summon the courage to stand up and say, "No, I cannot read or write".
Routine Proceedings
Our fellow Canadians who lack literacy skills will be helped this year with more commitment and compassion than ever before. All around the world 1990 is being observed as International Literacy Year.

It is a year declared by the United Nations as a time for self-awareness, study, hard work, understanding, patience, and above all-hope.
For its part, the government of Canada has made a long-term commitment to the cause of literacy. Through the national literacy program, we have already given support to develop more than 400 literacy projets and activities in partnership with community organizations, volunteer associations, business and labour.
We also have agreements with every provincial and territorial government covering joint initiatives to promote literacy. Ours is clearly a cooperative approach to a major social challenge.

These innovative projects include the development of literacy materials, setting up learners' conferences, studying ways in which training may be made more accessible and promoting literacy in the workplace.
As well, other government departments have become closely involved in the literacy movement. For example, the Solicitor General supports a program which gives inmates the opportunity to complete an adult basic education program before their release.
The Canadian International Development Agency includes literacy as a key component in the success of its development programs.
The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission sponsors literacy efforts directed at enhancing the employability of workers and youth. Of course, these are only a few examples among others.
Canada's future economic competitiveness and social development will depend on the existence of a highly skilled and adaptable workplace and workforce. Greater reading and writing skills are going to be called for in every area of national life from technology to the social sector.
The government has taken a leadership role in addressing the challenge of literacy, but we cannot do it alone.

February 9, 1990
Routine Proceedings

We need the willing partnership of all Canadians from every sector of society-during 1990, international literacy year, and for all the years to come.
Business and labour, parents and teachers, as well as volunteers-all have an invaluable contribution to making our country a nation of enthusiastic readers, young and old.

Literacy is key to the Canada of tomorrow. It is our guarantee of future success. I am confident that by working together Canadians will be able to make the dream of a more literate Canada come to life for our children and their children,


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has proclaimed 1990 International Literacy Year.

This will be a time of increased awareness, study, hard work, understanding, patience and especially of hope.
The purpose of this proclamation, Mr. Speaker, is to make governments throughout the world aware of the need to address a matter that is important to us all.
The Secretary of State is to be commended for his speech, perhaps a bit brief but excellent nevertheless. I know the Secretary of State as a man of conscience and compassion, and I can only applaud those qualities.
During his speech, he mentioned that the Government of Canada had made a long-term commitment to literacy training. I may point out, Mr. Speaker,-

In September of 1988, the Mulroney government announced a $110 million grant for new literacy initiatives for the five years after 1988. I made a calculation and found that this works out to about $4 per year per student. I ask the government this. What kind of commitment is that?
Roughly, five million Canadians are functionally illiterate, unable to read, write, or compute at a level sufficient to let them participate fully in the Canadian
society. That is over 20 per cent of our population-one out of five Canadians.
The government's initiative is important, but is it enough? Will it continue past this year, the 1990 International Literacy Year, or are these just good words we have heard as a sort of short declaration?
The Canadian Business Task Force on Illiteracy has estimated that illiteracy costs Canadian business $4 billion a year and that the annual social cost of illiteracy could be as high as $10 billion.
I would like to refer to an article that appeared in this morning's The Globe and Mail. It states that Southam News in 1987 conducted a survey which discovered that Newfoundland alone, with its high rate of unemployment, faces further strain from layoffs in fish packaging plants. The survey revealed that 44 per cent of Newfoundland's adults were considered illiterate. That is quite a mouthful on the part of the Southam research. What will this government do to address this particular question?
I would like to finish by quoting-

-from a speech by the hon. member for Saint-Boniface (Mr. Duhamel) at the 42nd Convention of the Association canadienne d'education de langue frangaise, in Quebec City this summer. He said:
-that the general definition of illiteracy includes not only the illiterate as such but also the functionally illiterate.
He added:
-that illiteracy is not an isolated problem. It often occurs where there is poverty, hunger, excessive use of drugs and alcohol, violence and cultural alienation. To wipe out illiteracy, we also have to look at the following issues:	nutrition, child case and access to
transportation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the New Democratic Party to respond to the minister on the issue of International Literacy Year. I would like to speak as directly as possible to the minister because I know he listens to these comments.
In 1987 the Southam literacy survey found that 4.5 million Canadians over the age of 18 were functionally
February 9, 1990

illiterate. More disturbing was the news that the number of illiterate Canadians is expected to continue to rise by 100,000 per year.
The Canadian government must make commitments to all those who are overcoming their fear, stepping forward and asking for help. This commitment must be a guarantee of access to literacy programs within our communities across the country. We must provide longterm funding to groups and organizations delivering those programs.
Learners must be able to find a program which fits their needs. Literacy organizations across Canada are attempting to provide such programs from the John Howard Society's literacy program, which the minister mentioned, to the Ontario Federation of Labour's workplace literacy scheme called BEST. These programs are off and running. We should celebrate that.
However, the programs face constant underfunding. There is no doubt that if this government made longterm financial commitments, these literacy groups and organizations could devote all their energies to battling this serious problem rather than raising funds. It is a good investment too. Business and community groups realize that the cost of illiteracy in the workplace is extremely high. It affects workers, productivity and morale. Furthermore, it is estimated that the cost to the Canadian economy is $10 billion a year.
We have to do other things and I remind members opposite that it is inconsistent to put a tax, the GST, on books at the same time as tackling illiteracy. There are some positive things the government could do. It could provide child care for single parents so they can participate in literacy programs. There is initiative. It could work with the actors who now have an illiteracy program whereby they go to suburban malls and hold celebrity readings. I hope they come to Coquitlam in my riding; it is a perfect place for it. I hope the minister will support that program.
In this International Year of Literacy, Canada still remains a long way from addressing the causes which lead to a great number of Canadians growing up unable to read. There still exists the vicious cycle of poverty which can lead to inadequate education, meagre job opportunities, and continued poverty in the next generation.
Routine Proceedings
On a personal note, I would like to tell the minister that I had a fellow in my office recently in Coquitlam, British Columbia, who used to be in the key business but is now unemployed. He confessed to me that he could not read and was going back to school. He has a family and he needs help to support the family when he goes back to school. But it was wonderful to talk to that person. That is part of what we are trying to convey. I say to the minister that we are all in this together. Let us be positive and work together as Canadians to tackle illiteracy this year so that we become the best educated workforce and population in the world because that is the key to industrial success.



Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Mr. Speaker, I am obligated pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present four petitions to the House today. They have been certified correct as to form and content by the clerk of petitions. The signatories from my riding of Sarnia- Lambton call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will effectively protect the life of the prebom child without distinction as to stage of development.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of several hundred of petitioners, mostly from my riding and the riding of the Minister of National Defence, who call upon the Government of Canada to stop its actions relative to the goods and services tax and to put in place a tax which is fair to all Canadians.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions to the House. They are from the riding of Oshawa, which used to be represented by Ed Broadbent, the former leader of my party. It is now a vacant riding, but nevertheless, these people want to tell the House of Commons that they are against the government's goods and services tax.
The petitioners think there should be tax reform, that there should be a minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, that there should not be a goods and services tax on haircuts, fast foods, piano lessons and other non-luxury items and that the government should

February 9, 1990
Routine Proceedings
quit taxing Canadians, as they say, from the cradle to the grave.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition which I would like to table under the provisions of Standing Order 36.
This petition is signed by a number of Canadians who are upset with the GST, which stands for the goods and services tax, but which should stand for the grief and suffering tax. Those Canadians want tax reform and they also want the goods and services tax to be abolished, no matter what the rate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents from Deadman's Creek, Savona, Logan Lake, Lac Le Jeune, Cherry Creek and Red Lake.
These constituents are distressed that this government, in spite of the fact that 80 per cent of Canadians oppose this goods and services tax, continue to ram it through the Elouse of Commons. They point out that it is going to touch almost every aspect not only of their lives but of the lives of generations of Canadians to come. They feel that the government should listen to the people of Canada who are saying: "Do not proceed with this tax. Go back to the drawing board and essentially start all over."
They point out that this tax is unfair because it taxes all individuals, wealthy or poor, while our present tax system is biased in favour of the wealthy and the privileged. They also say: "Good grief, when you tax haircuts, diapers, coffins and all sorts of fast foods, piano lessons-all kinds of non-luxury items-it is an unfair tax." It is a regressive tax. It is unfair. It is biased against western Canadians as well, and for that reason they are saying: "Please, Government of Canada, go back to the drawing board and start all over."


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions signed by people from my former leader's constituency of Oshawa, as well as from surrounding communities of Ajax and Whitby.
These people, like millions of other Canadians, have recognized the government's goods and services tax for what it is, a tax grab on ordinary citizens which will drive up their cost of living and make an already unfair tax system even more unfair. Therefore, these people are
calling on us, as members of Parliament, to take seriously the democratic wish of the people of Canada, to send this tax back to the drawing board and come back with a tax system that will be fair to everybody and will not tax people who cannot afford to pay.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a number of petitions in the House today.
The first petitions are, as a previous member has indicated, in opposition to the goods and services tax. These petitioners are from all over my riding, from the Marigold district, Saanich, the Ganges, Victoria. They are all opposed to this tax. They point out in their petition that, while there is broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, this should not be interpreted as agreement for a massive tax grab and a regressive tax system. What these petitioners want is real reform of the tax system.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the second major petition that I have before the House today relates to another part of the world, the situation in El Salvador. There are nearly 500 signatures on this petition, once again from my riding.
It addresses many of the comments that were made by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona earlier today when he spoke about the situation there. We in Canada have a role to play in resolving that situation. We have to be much more forthright and purposeful in our statements to the United States and their role in giving military assistance to the repressive regime in El Salvador.
This petition refers directly to the incidents of the bombing of the civilian population and the murder of the Jesuits. It asks the Canadian government to utilize our offices to enhance Canada's role in the United Nations and in the OAS for the full protection of human rights and a peaceful resolution to the conflict in El Salvador.


Lynn Hunter: Finally, Mr. Speaker, one more brief petition on another very important subject and that is the clawback of the old age pensions. These people state their opposition to it and
February 9, 1990

ask that the government look again at that particular initiative.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians who are strongly opposed to the goods and services tax. This petition has been certified correct as to form and content.
I think that this particular petition is very timely. I say that because I was in Brandon, Manitoba this week and I listened to about 1,000 people who were strongly opposed to the GST. They find it repugnant; they find it regressive, and they find it will be a terrible burden on them if it is introduced on Januaiy 1, 1991.
What those people were saying in Brandon this week and what these people who signed this petition are saying is that the government should wake up, listen to Canadians and stop this tax. Do not go ahead with it. They feel that if the government would just listen to Canadians, who have sound arguments and strong views and make a lot of sense about this tax, the government would come to its senses, and say, "No more. We are not going ahead with this tax. We are going to scrap it and we are going to go back to the drawing board".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the hon. member who has presented a petition. What appears to be happening is that they are not simply presenting the petitions as they should be, but they are engaging in debate. I would just like to call that to the attention of the Chair and ask that the Chair relay to members the proper procedure, which is a very brief statement, not a debate.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, once again I am honoured to rise in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of the constituents of the ridings of Kent and Kent-Essex who wish to protect the lives of unborn children and who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will protect the preborn child, without distinction as to the stage of development.
Routine Proceedings GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present to this House a series of petitions signed by citizens from Windsor, Maidstone, Tecumseh, Essex, and a number of other communities, expressing their outrage against the goods and services tax which was debated here this week in Parliament and which the government forced through second reading by closure.
I rise today to present these petitions to show the government that people are still upset with this tax, this grab and steal tax, and we hope that the government will come to its senses and withdraw the legislation.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in this House to present a petition signed by almost 3,000 Canadians, about half of whom reside in the constituency of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in Edson and Hinton. These petitioners have one objective in addressing their remarks to this House and that is:
To cause the government to cease with the proposal which will
ship the tax burden onto ordinary Canadians through a regressive
consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by many concerned Canadians.
These petitioners strongly oppose the government's proposed goods and services tax because they feel it will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle-income Canadians. They call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty today to present a number of petitions, signed by concerned Canadians who are absolutely opposed to this government's goods and services tax, this attack on the wallets of the taxpayers of Canada.
They join over 600,000 other petitioners who have presented petitions through the Liberal members of Parliament to this Parliament, to tell this government that they do not support the goods and services tax. They urge the government to come to its senses as quickly as it can and to cancel this regressive tax.

February 9, 1990
Speaker's Ruling


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River. Their hon. member wanted me to present this petition today because of the seriousness of the issue. He wanted me to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, how heart-struck the petitioners of Kenora-Rainy river are that the government has still continued to propose this GST. They want to inform the government that they will not stand by and allow this government to propose this regressive tax.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from constituents on the goods and services tax.
Their main concern is that the imposition of the new GST will cause serious hardship to low and middle-income Canadians. This is on the basis that they spend about 90 per cent of their income on consumption items as opposed to those in the $50,000 income bracket who spend roughly 55 per cent on consumption goods. On that basis they feel it is going to hit them the hardest.
Also, the small businesses in the riding are concerned that the goods and services tax will probably put them out of business. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to firmly and immediately reject the goods and services tax.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I neglected when introducing the previous petitions to introduce this one because the wording is different. I would now present under Standing Order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I understand the member has already risen before on a petition. When that happens and a member has more than one petition, even though they may be on different subjects, the member should do all of them at the same time. Is there unanimous consent to allow the member to file a second petition?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ross Harvey: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you across the way. I will conduct myself accordingly in future.
These 27 petitioners from the city of Calgary are very direct in their presentation. The prayer in its entirety reads as follows:
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable Parliament may be pleased to reject this tax.
It is most unlikely that the good citizens of Calgary, or indeed the good citizens anywhere in this country, will be duped by the apparent opposition of the Liberal Party to the tax, knowing full well that it is the intention of the Liberals to allow the Tories to introduce the tax, to defeat them at the next election, and then to exploit the consequences of the introduction of that tax thereafter.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all the questions be allowed
to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Prior to resuming the question and comment period, the Chair is ready to make a ruling on the proposed amendment by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has reviewed carefully the amendment and has come to the conclusion that it is out of order for a number of reasons which relate to Sections 744 and 745 of Beauchesne, particularly that the amendment must relate strictly to the bill before the House.
February 9, 1990

In the Chair's opinion, paragraph 2 of the proposed amendment could relate to other bills and particularly to Bill C-45.
Also the proposed amendment does anticipate possible amendments in committee. For those reasons, the Chair must declare the amendment out of order.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I believe I am also the next speaker. But I wanted to comment on some of the statements made by the hon. member for Port Moody- Coquitlam.
I was concerned when I heard some of the comments. I stand here now, not as the energy critic, which I am not, but as a member of Parliament from Newfoundland. His comments cause me great concern. I was surprised and very disappointed when I heard the position he was taking. I presume he was speaking for his party when he said that he was opposed to this bill going ahead for second reading.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Shame on you!


Fred J. Mifflin: If that is not what the hon. member said, then that was the intent of the motion, although the motion has now been ruled out of order. I certainly got the opinion that there was less than enthusiastic support for this bill to go ahead.
I am very concerned about that for a number of reasons. I shall speak about the Hibernia project now. I recall very distinctly being in St. John's, Newfoundland. It was by accident that I was there on July 18, 1988, when the Prime Minister of this country came to Newfoundland. We had a very large and well-advertised meeting with the then Premier of Newfoundland, Brian Peckford, and there was great jubilation in Newfoundland.
The issue was, as much as these issues can be, non-political. Most and perhaps all Newfoundlanders rejoiced at the thought that there would be something around the comer other than the one industry that we have been working on for years and years-400 years plus.
I believe this is question and comment. I am going to ask you a question, but I had to lead up to the question. I have some time. I am also the next speaker, so you are going to have to hear a lot about this.
Government Orders
My concern is that on the principles espoused there was no concern for the number of jobs and opportunities that this will give Newfoundlanders, particularly at this time when the outlook is dismal. No matter how you look at the economy of Newfoundland, whether it is ACOA, regional funding, ERDAs, Bill C-21, funding for various projects, tourism, fishing, extension of the jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the bank, seal cull, whatever it is these days, the news is less than joyful. In fact, it is dismal. Hibernia has always been there as a hope, a ray of light at the end of the tunnel, at a time when, not only is the ray of light a bit dim but, in fact, you sometimes wonder whether there is a tunnel at all. I hear less than enthusiastic support from the hon. member. Yes, I am concerned and disappointed.
This project is not perfect; nothing in this world is perfect. I certainly strongly disagree and I am going to have to ask him precisely what he meant by the statement that fishing will always remain the one item that will keep Newfoundlanders alive. Surely we have to look at other things. We have to hold out some hope for the future, whether it is Hibernia or something else. Maybe tourism is a bit of a hope; we need to concern ourselves with this.
There was talk about feeding the beast. I am not sure which beast was being discussed but I was concerned that last June we ran into a problem with Hibernia simply because there was a problem with funding. We were looking at the plan by the consortia to build their so-called super modules and reduce the numbers from the 17 smaller ones for living quarters and production facilities atop the huge concrete base to five larger ones that would be differently structured.
I am concerned not just about the jobs of construction, which will be the initial jobs, the nuts and bolts of preparing the superstructure, but also about the follow-on jobs and whether there are 3,500 and 1,600. There is some debate over that right now. The fact of the matter is that these jobs are not nuts and bolts jobs, they are not mundane jobs, they are engineering skills, engineering skills in maintenance, in ballasting and reballasting, and these are the kind of skills that the Minister of Employment has been talking about and the things we are looking for.
I do not want to detract from some of the things I want to say later on, but I would like to ask the hon. member what precisely his concerns are with respect to why we

February 9, 1990
Government Orders
should not go ahead. Is he considering not only the immediate jobs that this is going to offer Newfoundlanders and, indeed, all Canadians since this is a Canadian project but also the advantages that are offered, not just by the jobs, but by the ray at the end of the tunnel, the morale boosting aspect of this? Does he not think that that outweighs all of the other concerns that he may have? I think it is also a question of risk analysis here and which of the two alternatives are the best or the least risky.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP are not against Hibernia. We are against this bill and we have made detailed comments against the bill, as I did in my speech.
As an outsider of Newfoundland-I come from the west coast of Canada-I am aware of and very sympathetic, as we all are, about the economic plight and the difficulties in Newfoundland. We want to hold out hope for Newfoundland but it should be real hope, should it not, and not false hope. We have seen in the past chocolate factories and cucumber factories. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments and politicians, in my view, have let the people of Newfoundland down with false hopes of pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. That is all I am saying, let us make sure it is real hope.
With respect, let me conclude with this. The ex-admiral said, "What about your criticisms of jobs"? Maybe we should go to the captain of the ship. We will go to Premier Clyde Wells. Here is what he said in interview with The Financial Post on October 2, 1989. He is a Liberal and the Premier of Newfoundland. The member said he is a good Liberal. That is right, he is a good Liberal. He said that the number of permanent jobs generated by this Hibernia project would be about the size of the workforce of two fish plants, and I quote:
The former government painted it as a saviour, it is not.
That was my position. What was the hon. member's position? He has taken a different position than Clyde Wells, the Liberal premier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception, I wish to inform the House that because of ministerial statements, Government Orders will be extended by 34 minutes. Therefore, Private Members' hour will begin at 2.34 this afternoon.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to comment on this bill. I was not going to go over any preliminaries, but in light of what I have heard this morning, I think it might be worth while to review for the members some of the things that have gone on with Hibernia, and perhaps to review some of the difficulties we have had in moving this project ahead.
I will start by commenting on the fact that we Newfoundlanders and most of us here in this House believed that the statement of principles that was signed on July 18, 1988, would go forward and indeed be approved on March 31 last year.
There was great disappointment that we ran into snags. This signature to the statement of principles was based on production going ahead in 1996. I understand that there has been a delay of at least one year. While that in itself is bad enough, we are concerned that at every turn, like on first reading, we had difficulties. In June 1989 we had concerns about the reduction in the number of modules that would be put on the gravity base structure and the consequent reduction of jobs.
Indeed, this is not a perfect set-up. It is not a perfect agreement. Certainly in the short time that I have been in the House I have not seen any perfect bill. This is why we go to committees and have the number of readings that we do.
I cannot impress upon this House the importance at this time in Newfoundland economic history for the Government of Canada, no matter which government is in power, to show that there is some concern and a will on the part of the Canadian government to do something that will assist eastern Canada, particularly Newfoundland.
The Hibernia oil field is located off the Grand Banks. For the information of the hon. member who talked about a couple of hundred miles, it is precisely 315 kilometres southeast of St. John's, Newfoundland. It is an elongated reservoir covering 20,000 acres. It has an estimated capacity of 525 billion barrels. The recovery of the oil will be through an offshore drilling rig that will have supports on the floor of the ocean with a platform above the water line.
February 9, 1990

This project is highly technical. I think it is safe to say it is on the cutting edge of technology. Some of the ideas are new. Some of them, if they cannot be considered revolutionary, are evolutionary in an uncertain sense. The plans have been refined at each turn of the clock. After a few turns of the clock, we ran into snags. That is to be expected.
I will accept the remarks attributed to the premier of Newfoundland, the Hon. Clyde Wells, that the jobs that would be engendered by this project would amount to the size of a couple of fish plants. As I said to the hon. member, a couple of fish plants would look pretty good right now. The fact of the matter is we have to start somewhere, even if there is a snag that comes up at every turn.
Yes, we are concerned about the environment, and yes we are concerned about toxic wastes. We are concerned about all these things, but in any project, any decision that I have had to make in recent life, nothing is clear-cut and dry. Everything is grey these days. You have to weigh the pros and the cons. Once I left school, one and one no longer equalled two. After leaving school, it is not quite one plus one equals two. It is sometimes three, and maybe 1.5.
This project has a tremendous future. It is a future that we have to concern ourselves with. This party supports this project for Canada, and especially Newfoundland.
There are some other principles that I received from our energy critic which I believe have direct application here.
The primary objective of our energy policy is to first and foremost gain the maximum economic benefit from the development of Canada's energy resources.
The second one is to ensure the security of Canada's energy supply. We are also concerned that we use energy in the most environmentally responsible way possible. Consistent with these three principles, we want to promote regional development consistent with economic reality.
It is estimated that oil from this project will be produced at 110 million barrels a day. It is not expected to flow until 1996-1997, depending on when the impediments to this bill are finally resolved and we get on with acting in a positive sense by approving the bill and giving it Royal Assent as soon as possible.
Government Orders
We are already a year behind the previous start-up schedule that was set in July 1988. It is imperative that we go ahead with this project as quickly as possible. It is expected to produce oil and there is no question that the oil is going to be higher priced. This is one of the great uncertainties. We can never say with any degree of confidence from month to month, even from week to week, what the price of oil is going to be. We all know that one wakes up in the morning without knowing what it is going to be. It is almost on a daily risk basis that we go forward with these projects.
There are some other down sides to this as well. There are some problems. I know that Premier Wells was speaking about his concern, one that I share, that perhaps we could have struck a better deal, that our royalties could have been increased and that maybe some of the tax concessions should not have been allowed. I do not want to get into that detail right now. I think those are the details we can get into after we examine it in committee and we look at some of the finer prints when we dot the i's and cross the r's.
The main concern we have now is with the statements of principles. We have to go forward with this now so that we can get into the detail. We can examine it in detail and make decisions and judgments amongst ourselves to come up with something that is reasonable. It probably will still be imperfect, but we are prepared to accept the imperfection of this kind of a deal.
We are dealing with the future. When you do not know for sure what the future is going to give you and what it is going to bring, you go on the best information you have at the time. The best information we have right now is that this is a worth-while project. It is a project that should go ahead and as soon as possible.
The statement of principles that has engendered a great deal of debate in this House engendered a great deal of debate in juxtaposition with some of the other principles that perhaps may be equally important in the future, but cannot be foreseen at this point in time. The statement of principles is something we have in front of us. We know what they are and we are dealing with them.
There are a number of statements of principle, but the one that I am going to concern myself about right now, in direct comparison to what the hon. member from Port Moody-Coquitlam had to say in his response, is the statement of principles calling for 3 million hours of employment to be created in Newfoundland during the four years of construction. Whether that is plus or minus

February 9, 1990
Government Orders
10 per cent, plus or minus 20 per cent, I am prepared to accept that as in the ballpark of what we are looking at.
The fact is that the oil companies changed the fundamental design and that complicates the situation. Anything that is changed invokes a complication and prevents them from carrying out this plan as had been previously agreed. The principles are not altered. Mr. Wells, the premier of Newfoundland, was quoted recently by The Globe and Mail in an article which I have as saying that the principles are not altered.
According to the article, he said: "We expect that they will ensure that there will take place in Newfoundland and in Canada as a whole work to the level that was agreed upon".
There are comments one might make here in the heat of of the battle or when anger sometimes flows, as is meant to happen in debate. Perhaps some statements one makes one regrets or would like to have said in a more positive sense. For all these statements, we have to look at this project in as positive a light as possible and I suggest, in as unpartisan a way as possible.
I on the one hand could not look at the negative aspects of this project attributed to the government and then, at the same time, stand on my feet and criticize the government for something that it is not doing.
This is an opportunity for the government to go forward with something that is potentially very helpful to Newfoundland and indeed to Canada. I would want my party to be seen as being very supportive of that initiative. Perhaps this is one of the rare times that we have gone forward in support of what the government plans to do. While we may have some difficulties with the technical details and with some of the wording of the statement of principles, I would be less than honest and forthright if I did not stand here and suggest that we move forward with it as soon as we can.
The economic benefit related to Newfoundland has to be considered beyond the millions of manhours that we talked about. Those benefits must also be considered in direct relationship with what the government claims to
be doing in the business of retraining people. I do not know what the bracket of the financing is going to be, and I do not think that has been actually worked out yet, but we know the gross figures. The project is going to cost $5.2 billion and there will be more money related to it later on. We know what the loan guarantees are and some of the most recent agreements.
Before I talk about the economic benefits in general, let me update the House about some of the most recent developments. Last June the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was somewhat concerned-and we shared his concern-about precisely how the new agreement would come out and how it would affect the Statement of Principles with respect to the restructuring and reducing the number of modules from 17.
While it is safe to say that the machinery hit a snag I am delighted that, according to my information, we are back on track again. It is my understanding that the federal and the Newfoundland governments have agreed on a new joint proposal to the private sector consortium in an effort to get this energy development project back on track.
Apparently the federal energy minister was quoted as having said that no new money would come from Ottawa, but that some extra cash, as he called it, might become available from the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund which, of course, has already been used. This is a $300 million account that was established in 1986, two years before the signing of the statement of principles, to help defray the cost of energy off the Newfoundland coast. About $235 million of that has already been earmarked of which $95 million was approved in 1988 as a part of this signing of this statement of principles for the Hibernia megaproject.
Apparently the $65 million left in the fund will be a factor in the upcoming negotiations with the oil consortia. Obviously this has to be part of the discussion. It is my understanding that Premier Wells has been meeting with the consortium members; that is Mobil Oil of Canada, Petro-Canada, Gulf Canada Resources and Chevron Canada Resources, all of Calgary, Perhaps we will hear more in the next two or three weeks on the specifics of the proposals.
February 9, 1990

Everybody has heard about the dismal situation that we now have in Atlantic Canada. I have two members with me now, the hon. member for Dartmouth and the hon. member for Malpeque. Everybody here has been aware of the crisis that we have had in Atlantic Canada.
We in Newfoundland-and I have to speak as a Newfoundlander now-do not like to have our hands out begging. Nobody likes to do that. We have had to resort to some pretty severe tactics in the last few years.
I remember growing up in Bonavista where my grandfather was a fisherman. I remember the meagre earnings of fishermen in those days. They lived simple lives, they lived happy lives, they ate healthy food and they had healthy habits. The situation, I regret to say some 45 or so years later, seems to have deteriorated from that of my memory.
I read a comment made by the commissioner of fisheries in Newfoundland about 100 years ago. The statements that he made 100 years ago are not too far removed from some of the statements that Dr. Harris made in his task force report on the fisheries. This is not meant as a criticism. These are facts and they cannot be disputed.
ACOA was reprofiled. Every week I get calls from disappointed people who perhaps are not aware of the rule changes. They believe that ACOA was meant to help them. They find stumbling blocks everywhere until they realize that there is not enough money there to launch their projects. I could cite 30 projects from one end of my riding to the other. I try to explain to these people that reprofiling means that there is less money. They understand but they are very disappointed.
There is less money for education and health. I am not going to harangue about the goods and services tax but it is not causing cheer in the hearts of men, women and children. Mr. Speaker, I know that you and I have had many discussions on Bill C-21, have sat in committee and listened to people. Whether you agree or disagree with the impact of the bill, the fact is there is a perception of what it will do to the unemployed in Newfoundland. Last year 79,000 people who drew unemployment insurance are going to be affected.
Government Orders
One study says that Newfoundlanders will lose the most. They will lose $2,540 on average. When you take out all the bipartisanship and all the things that perhaps are judgmental, the indisputable and relevant consideration is the morale of Atlantic Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I know about morale and I know that you know about morale. Morale is very subjective. It is difficult to measure it, but you know what it is when you are among those whose morale is affected. You can walk on to a ship and within five minutes know whether the morale is high or low. How do you know? I cannot explain it. I went through my riding from one end to the other in mid-January for the specific purpose of talking to people and sensing their morale. It was not good.
Apart from the economic benefits, the statement of principles, the details, the complicated fundings, the royalties, the income tax and everything else, there is one ray of hope.
People talk to me and ask: "What is the hope? What is ahead?". I do not turn and criticize the government and say: "Well, this government does not know what it is doing". That is not good for morale and I do not say that. Not all of the time, Mr. Speaker.
I do say that tourism in perhaps 50 years will be good for Newfoundland. I say that it will get off the ground some day, perhaps not in my time. And we always look at Hibernia. If anybody in this House does anything to cripple the principles involved and the idea of Hibernia, this is going to be not just another little nail in the coffin of morale, but there will be no more hope. All hope will be diminished. It is in that context that I speak here as a member of the Opposition and as a Newfoundlander to ask members, when they are considering this very important bill, to bear that in mind in their consideration of the bill.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the comments of my hon. colleague and, as always, he has been very eloquent in his presentation and he has been very true to his constituency and exceptionally true to his province, the great province of Newfoundland.
I got a flavour of the importance of the Hibernia project to Newfoundlanders and to Atlantic Canada. I would hope that those on all sides of this House and those who are watching this debate did the same. In Atlantic Canada, all too often there are too few opportu-

February 9, 1990
Government Orders
nities to diversify. In Newfoundland in particular, where we have primarily resource-based industries in the fishery, we have seen the fishery go into a tailspin and a state of collapse.
Everybody likes to talk about diversification and prospects for a bright future. Hibernia has been a flicker of light at the end of a very dark tunnel for Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians. There have been some worrisome delays in the past.
I am not here here today to blame or point a finger, but it worries me considerably that we have waited as long as we have to get the Hibernia project under way. It worries me considerably that at some point there was discussion about altering the type of platform and that perhaps the Canada benefits may not be as significant as what they absolutely must be in Newfoundland.
I ask my hon. colleague to expand a little further about the real necessity for maximization of Canada benefits not just as it affects material procurement, but actual jobs and the spin-off industries that could be created. I know many people say that it is pretty parochial to want to keep as much of the pie from development as one can in one's region when so many people, like those in Atlantic Canada, depend on the good graces of people in central Canada to shift their money and resources to help us out.
I ask my hon. colleague to expand on that so that people from all sides of the House and people watching this debate will have a better understanding as to why it is absolutely essential that the Hibernia project go forward, not just for energy self-sufficiency for Canada, but also for the benefits that could accrue to places like Newfoundland, which have waited for a long time to be fed a full plate in this Confederation.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Dartmouth for that question. I think it is a very pertinent and relevant question, one that is not difficult to address but hard to answer in the limited time that I am sure you will impose, as you are required to do, Mr. Speaker.
I want to review the initial feeling about jobs. As a backdrop to that, I am very proud of representing my constituency of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, which
is named after the three great bays on the east coast of Newfoundland. There is a lot of distinction in that riding.
Every member represents a distinct area of Canada. There is one distinction that I would rather not have. There is ohe distinction that my constituents would rather not have. In the 62 unemployment insurance regions in this country, my riding is in the region that has the second highest unemployment rate in Canada. Northern Manitoba is the highest, with an unemployment rate of 25.4 per cent. Bonavista-Trinity-Conception encompasses an area where the unemployment rate is over 20 per cent. That gives the backdrop against which I discussed the jobs.
I want to give an indication of what jobs mean in Newfoundland. When we were discussing free trade I remember being involved in a debate with one of my constituents and explaining to him that there is a chance that we would gain a certain number jobs and there was a risk that we might lose some. We did not know. He turned to me and said: "Mr. Mifflin, we can't afford to lose one job in Newfoundland. Not one job".
The last time I checked the figures, there were 79,000 in Newfoundland on unemployment insurance. That is a lot of people. That is almost the total number of people in my riding. I have 92,000 people in my riding. That is shocking.
In the statement of principles there was some anticipation of jobs. I will attribute these statistics to the companies because I think one might want to read something into that. Mobil Oil- they were the leader of the project consortium-said 14,500 person-years of direct Canadian employment would be created during the construction phase out of the total of 21,500 person-years required overall.
They went on to say that indirect and induced employment-that is second and third order jobs-were anticipated to increase the total employment impact for Canada to over 40,000 person-years of which almost 35,000 person-years of the project construction would result in Newfoundland. Thirty-five thousand person-years when one job means so much to so many people is indescribable. TTie impact is fantastic.
The production phase was anticipated to create 1,100 direct permanent jobs and 2,450 indirect permanent jobs for a total of 3,500 permanent jobs for the province of
February 9, 1990

Newfoundland. That was the original initial estimate and they will change, and they have changed.


Ross Harvey: They have gone down.


Fred J. Mifflin: They have gone down, indeed. I regret to say that. I agree with my hon. friend that they have gone down. That causes me and all Newfoundlanders concern. I hope it causes all Canadians some concern. We are paying good money for this and we want to get as much as we can out of it.


Mr. Barrett:: Do you believe the oil companies when they talk this way? What does that say about the oil companies?


Fred J. Mifflin: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca will recall that I referred to the oil company that actually mentioned these figures. I want to specifically attribute it to the oil companies. I could not do the arithmetic. I did not have the facts with me.
These are all kinds of jobs; they are highly technical jobs, good jobs, and they are jobs that would allow Newfoundlanders and Canadians to compete in other jobs once they are trained for this. The second, third and fourth derivatives of this job creation machine have a tremendous impact and a great potential that we should not minimize in this kind of discussion.
I would say to my hon. colleague from Dartmouth, we are kindred spirits. In fact, we all are when it comes to this. We know the problem in Atlantic Canada. One need only go to any organization, any group of people whether they are church people, fishermen, Liberals, Conservative, NDP and talk about this number of jobs, and you will come away a hero. You are a downright hero. When you talk about a 10 per cent reduction in the number of those jobs it is not as cheerful, but it is still there.
I think I have made my point. I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity. I have not spoken to Premier Wells recently on this subject, but I know he is generally in favour of the project. Of course he has some concerns, because it is estimated that we have had a 50 per cent reduction in these jobs. Who knows. It is a long way away. We are looking at production in 1996-1997.
Government Orders
The fact of the matter is we will have the jobs, we will have oil production. There are uncertainties and we have to be patient. But let us move ahead now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: There are only a few minutes left in the question and comment period. Guide yourselves accordingly.


Mr. Langlois:: Mr. Speaker, in responding to comments by the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, I simply want to say that like him, I was very surprised at the remarks made earlier by the hon. member for the NDP on Bill C-44 and the Hibernia project. I can inform the NDP member and the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception that the government is committed to Bill C-44 and to Hibernia. The Prime Minister will honour the undertaking he made to Newfoundland in 1988 regarding the Hibernia project. The Cabinet is also committed. Members on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, will, of course, unanimously support Bill C-44, because we realize this project is vitally important to Newfoundland and Eastern Canada.
The project will not only help us to maintain and preserve technology but also to develop new technologies and new types of jobs, and to offer young people in Eastern Canada some interesting opportunities. The hon. member may rest assured that on this side of the House we will be working very hard and very effectively to get Bill C-44 passed as soon as possible.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I have a piece of paper here that I have to make reference to. I thank the hon. member for that reassurance. I am sure that the morale of my constituents and indeed people from Atlantic Canada, having heard the assurance from the government side, will be raised just a little bit more today. That is not a bad thing for a Friday, after the kind of a dismal week that we have had.
We have just heard some comment on the job creation aspect of this matter. I have talked about the morale aspect of it. After all, we are going to produce oil. It might be expensive oil, but we are indeed going to produce oil. I never like to play off one group against the other, but yesterday in Question Period I heard mention-and I think it was attributed to the hon. minister

February 9, 1990
Government Orders
involved-that over the last five years or a similar period $21.7 billion was given in grants to farmers. I think that is tremendous.
I understand farmers are not eligible for unemployment insurance, but I use that only as a bench-mark to look at the $5.2 billion cost of the project. The oil companies are putting in $1.92 billion. Quite frankly I think they are getting a very good deal. Including federal grants for construction, the guaranteed loan by the federal government, the federal loan to help meet interest payments, the federal loan for contingency, the $95 million from the offshore development fund and perhaps even more, and the $11 million for the provincial offshore technical transfer fund, we are looking at $3,281 billion. That is an awful lot of money. After a couple of hundred dollars I stop visualizing what money is like.
That figure, if compared with $27 billion, is not a bad investment for the kinds of jobs we are looking at in eastern Canada where we are hungry, thirsty and crying out for jobs. I would only hope this will be considered sacred and outside budget cuts and that kind of thing. This is long-term thinking, a long-term project. We cannot afford to have hopes dashed at this time.
I would like to conclude my comments by once again thanking the hon. member from across the floor for his reassurance. I hope the government will continue to reassure us as we go through the procedure of finally getting this bill approved and under way.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see a new Speaker in the chair today. I will not make any reference to the member for Burlington, but if he were here today he would be proud of the speaker.
I want to start by saying that we should not place this project into an either /or situation. I want to make very clear to members from Newfoundland that it is the history of this country, if we have developed into an economic landscape, to see the wreckage of megaproject after megaproject that has been held out as the single hope for the people of a region to restore their economy.
It happens in British Columbia. It has happened in Alberta. It has happened on the prairies. It happens elsewhere in the regions but not so much in central Canada. I urge my good friend from Newfoundland not to get into the trap that this is the only ray of hope for his province and region. Let us understand that if he falls into that trap, it will become the case of consistent subsidies to large corporations that have walked out of this countiy time after time after time with huge profits and left economic wreckage in the region from which it comes.
Need I cite examples? The heavy water plan was the ray of hope, the morale booster. The people were let down and fibbed to. I do not say they were lied to, Mr. Speaker; they were fibbed to. When we signed British Columbia into Confederation, CPR said that it would keep up passenger service. It was given a 10-mile strip of land across this country. The CPR exploited it, made billions of dollars of profit, abandoned the rail traffic, and taxpayers had to pick it up. They were stuck again.
When I was a younger boy I used to believe it when companies, prestigious people in public life such as politicians, company executives or others, said: "Why, if you just give us a little help here we will create a fortune for this region. We will create jobs. We will do this wonderful thing. Just give us the money, the seed money." Then I heard about free enterprise and I was puzzled about it. Free enterprise, I thought, was the God-given right to lose money or make it. Every time there is a megaproject it is held out as if it is some kind of last hope or beacon. The people's hopes are built up and the large corporations have walked out of this country with the money time and time again.
Money is hard to come by. There is not a taxpayer in this country who does not have a sense of the importance of the Atlantic region. At this point my province is in a bit of an economic uplift. We would like to see some of our taxes go to help the poorer regions. That was our whole consensus in building this country as a confederation of nations. In good times we share with our neighbours; in bad times we expect our neighbours to share with us. No special deals, no favours, just a moral obligation as a nation. There is absolutely no resistance. There is a concern and a willingness to help the Atlantic region. I want to get that on the record clearly.
*
February 9, 1990

In that concern there is absolutely no desire to see the oil companies walk off with the vast amount of money that we are talking about. I have been there. I have seen how the oil companies work. I challenge the Minister of Finance to declare how much the oil companies pay in corporate income tax. In my province of British Columbia, when they were creaming off hundreds of millions of dollars selling natural gas, they did not pay one penny in corporate income tax.
When I was Minister of Finance in that province I exposed them and they took out big newspaper ads attacking me for being nasty and telling people about their private business. Do you know what I said to them? I told the oil companies to stuff it. I was sick and tired, as the leader of a government, seeing those oil companies consistently spread false information that they were good corporate citizens. They were not paying any damn money whatsoever in terms of corporate income tax, but they made a lot of money. They had depletion allowances, write-offs and everything else.
Let us go back to the problem in Newfoundland. I do not want anyone to be a tout or a leading light asking for money for oil companies, but the federal government is prepared to put up $3.8 billion. A little over $1 billion is a direct gift and the rest is in loan guarantees. Good, let's take the money; let's cut the oil companies out and sit down with the good people of Newfoundland and decide what we can do with $3 billion.
Money does not grow on trees. It seems to grow on trees for megaprojects. It seems to grow on trees for big corporations that do not pay their fair share. If the government says there is $3 billion available for Newfoundland, let Newfoundlanders sit down and decide how they can best use that money, not tie it into one huge megaproject that may be a Lorelei. My good friend, the member from Newfoundland, knows what a Lorelei is. The sailors of the past saw that little mermaid out there. They have been away from port, their morale is low, they have other needs and the Lorelei attracts them, and the crash comes.
We have had Loreleis on land in this country time and time again. This is another Lorelei. I want to tell you why it is another Lorelei. First, the premier of the province of Newfoundland, who is a good person, has emerged on the national scene in a dimension which I think has been absolutely positive. Regardless of comments made by
Government Orders
people for political purposes, the contribution made by the premier of Newfoundland, even though he is not of my party, has been an outstanding to nation building and a national debate. I want to go on record as saying that.
The premier of Newfoundland is a guy who tells it as it is. I like that. The premier of Newfoundland is like the former Tory premier with whom I worked, Frank Moores. He is another guy who told it as it was. We were the bookends of the country. Frank Moores fought for his province as a Tory in an outstanding manner and I was proud to know Frank Moores. I do not know Wells, but I am impressed.
I want to tell you what Wells said about this project. He is not going to fib to anybody. He is not going to hold out a Lorelei image. He is telling it the way it is.
Premier Clyde Wells recognized that there is a tremendous amount of public money invested for limited employment. In an interview on October 2, 1989, my birthday, in The Financial Post he said that the number of permanent jobs generated by Hibernia would be about the size of the workforce of two fish plants. He said: "The former government is painted as a saviour. It isn't".
My new good friend, the member from Newfoundland, has pointed out that two fish plants would be welcome in Newfoundland. I agree with him. Let us investigate and find out how much fish is being picked up by National Sea Food, which received federal government grants, in its two trawlers and sent to France to be processed while National Sea Food says: "Oh, my goodness, we don't have enough fish for our own work so we have to close in Canada".
Do you know what I say to that? I am a good living person. I try to be temperate in my language, but when I hear that claptrap from a company that received grants and hand-outs from the federal government to run its ships, moved that fish over to France and closed its plants in Canada, the first thing I would say is: "Look you guys, you got Canadian taxpayers' money. You are irresponsible in moving that fish to France. You give us back every single penny you got plus interest".
I know that it is a difficult problem in Newfoundland. We had the same problem in British Columbia. The buccaneers there have run that government through

February 9, 1990
Government Orders
various forms of Tory administrations, alliances, coalitions and all kinds of deals. It is the same thing.
We have heard not a peep out of this government. We have not heard it say: "Bring that fish back". All we hear is the ministers saying: "Oh, we don't not have enough fish". You are damned right you do not have enough fish. It is being sold in France in ships subsidized by the Canadian taxpayers. You do not hear a word about that, do you? Not a word. All the people in Newfoundland should know it. All the people in Canada should know it.
The same thing is going to happen with this project. I believe the suggestion that it is morale lifting and spreading the good light. However, the best way to be a morale lifter and spread the good light is to tell the people of the region that we have $3 billion and decide what we can best do for ourselves in an indigenous development of our economy and tell the oil companies they can wait on the outside until we decide.
Who did it best? The canny Scots. The canny Scots in Aberdeen were faced with the same deal, but they did not chase the first carrot that arrived. They knew the oil was not going rotten under the sea. It had been there for a long time and it could last a bit longer. The canny Scots have a great word. They say "nay" and then they start talking. I suggest the same approach on this deal: "Nay. Now we will do some talking."
What is in it for us? I want to remind my good friend that the government seems to be able to find money conveniently before elections. It talked about $12 billion for submarines. Do you remember that? Of course we knew it would have been a heck of a lot more. We know what the conventional needs for our armed forces are and our armed forces should get those conventional needs met, but that is a separate story. I represent a great naval base in my area and I am proud to do that.
They find this money for the oil companies and my first response is to give this money to the government and the people of Newfoundland and tell them: "Here is $3 billion, start going right now." Not make work projects so they get their 20 weeks in for unemployment insurance. That is the most insulting kind of development possible. Is that a morale lifter? Is that light at the end of the tunnel? Does that provide dignity and self-respect on a long-term basis? Not at all. The people
of Newfoundland deserve more and they deserve it in a way that makes sense, not as some kind of afterthought as a hand-out to the oil companies.


Herbert O. Sparrow: There are no hand-outs.


David Barrett: Let's talk about hand-outs to the oil companies. You represent the oil industry over there. You cannot even accept the fact that some people who wear turbans are Canadians. I find that disgraceful. I will not even deal with that.


Herbert O. Sparrow: I never said that in my life.


David Barrett: They have as much right to be in the mounted police as anyone else in this country, anyone else.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest.


Herbert O. Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who is speaking has accused me of being discriminatory and a racist in a particular area. I have never, ever stated in this House, or on the street, or in the public, anything that way. The hon. member is misleading this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: I would ask that if the hon. member made those remarks he withdraw them.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. member's word, as we must do in this House, but I read the petitions that she presented in the House.


Herbert O. Sparrow: I did not sign those petitions. I presented them on behalf of my constituents.


David Barrett: Ah, being hoisted on your petard. One can refuse to present petitions in this Chamber. Yes, Mr. Speaker, one can make their position clear. Do you or do you not demand the rights of people, regardless of their religious persuasion? Will you fight for those who wear a turban to be in the RCMP as well as every other Canadian? Will you do it or not?


Herbert O. Sparrow: That is totally irrelevant. I will not
discuss it.


David Barrett: Will you do it or not?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: Order, please. The comments of the hon. gentleman are not relevant to the debate. I would ask him to withdraw his racist comment, if that is, indeed, what he said.
February 9, 1990


David Barrett: Sir, I withdraw my comments, but I am able to reflect on what the member said herself. If I cannot do it here, then I can do it outside.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the sensitivity of this issue. The hon. member for Calgary Southwest accused my friend from Esquimau-Juan de Fuca of using the term "racist" in reference to her. I was in the Chamber and I believe that that was not a term used.


Herbert O. Sparrow: He indicated I was racist.


David Barrett: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: The point I want to make is that there is nothing to withdraw because unless you state the term-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: Order, please. The hon. gentleman from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has withdrawn the comment. I would ask him to continue the debate. There is exactly six minutes left in his debating time.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I was distracted and I responded to the distraction. That is now history in Hansard, but I do hope that people of any religious persuasion will be permitted to join any civil service capacity that is available in this great country of Canada. I just want to put my position on the record. I think it would be welcome for all minorities to have the same rights in this country.


Herbert O. Sparrow: Who is arguing with that?


David Barrett: I was not speaking to that member. Is she feeling guilty about something? I cannot understand her immediate response to this.


Herbert O. Sparrow: Oh, come off it.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, why is she constantly interrupting when I am not even addressing her?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member please address the bill before the House?


David Barrett: We will let it rest there, Mr. Speaker. I believe in religious freedom, and we will let it rest there.
I want to comment further on this whole question of a commitment to oil companies.


Herbert O. Sparrow: It's a commitment to the people of Newfoundland.
Government Orders


David Barrett: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a commitment to oil companies. If we want a commitment to the people of Newfoundland, put this money up for restructuring the economy in Newfoundland. Let me talk about-


Ross Harvey: There are far better ways to do it.


David Barrett: Yes, far better ways. Let me quote from an article published July 25 in The Financial Times. It is not exactly a newspaper that supports the New Democratic Party. I have never seen an editorial in it supporting us. Should they wish to support us, I would consider welcoming it.
However having said that, let me go on to this. This is an article written by the dean of the faculty of management of the University of Manitoba. He said: "As a regional development scheme the project may have some merit, but not in terms of capital cost per job. Energy is one of the world's most capital intensive industries and, accordingly, is a strikingly expansive vehicle with which to deliver regional employment. Temporary construction jobs in Newfoundland will carry a capital cost in excess of $500,000 per job".
It is hard to figure after a couple hundred bucks, as the member said, but $500,000 will employ a heck of a lot of people.
"Permanent production jobs will carry a capital cost of several million dollars per job. Granted, oil is there, but it would be difficult to find a more expensive way to deliver either oil or jobs in Newfoundland."
Who am I to question the author of this article? All I am suggesting is that if the government has $300 million to put up, put it up and let the oil companies put up their own money. I have seen too many giveaways in the history of this country already. This government is always talking about being frugal and being careful with taxpayers' money, cutting and slashing.
They are the guys who just one week ago gave Boeing another $160 million. They are paying them to take the company off their hands. What kind of business is that? What kind of business enterprise is that in front of farmers or fishermen, to tell them you have to take $160 million of taxpayers' money to pay off Boeing to buy the plant? Dumb-bell economics. It is not so dumb if you are paying the piper who calls the tune. The Tories have represented big business in this county since the incep-

February 9, 1990
Government Orders
tion of their party, and when it comes to welfare for big business, they find new ways to do it every day.
That is the record, Mr. Speaker. As a consequence of that record it is my intention to move an amendment, should I find the appropriate document in front of me. The amendment is seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East who is an outstanding colleague in this House, probably one of the most articulate spokespersons from western Canada and without a doubt the best representative from Alberta that this House presently has.
I have prepared this amendment with his advice and the help of the Clerk. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be not now read a second time, because:
(1)	granting the Project more than $1 billion without securing equivalent equity in the Project for the people of Canada is wrong in principle;
(2)	it fails to contain specific provisions which provide environmental protection measures in connection with the Project; and,
(3)	it fails to contain specific provisions which provide for the creation of job opportunities in relation to the Project".
I commend this amendment to you as soon as I affix my signature.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will take this proposed amendment under advisement and rule shortly on its admissibility.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I listened with rapt attention to the remarks of my hon. colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca whom I am sure the entire House will agree is one of its most eloquent spokespersons. He is indeed a fine gentleman in his own right, if I may say so.
However, in listening to those remarks I could not help but overhear as well certain uncharitable comments directed his way by other members of the House to the effect that because the NDP was opposed to this bill it was therefore opposed to Hibernia in principle and was therefore opposed to the creation of meaningful well paying jobs for the citizens of Atlantic Canada in general and of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular. I was
wondering if the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca might undertake to comment on the veracity and worthiness of those charges.


David Barrett: I am surprised and pleased that my colleague would give me this opportunity to share my opinion with him since I do not think the rest of the House is really interested in what I have to say. Should there be someone who is suffering from the lack of the ability to go to sleep, they too might be interested in my answer.
I am suggesting that if the government can find $3 billion for oil companies to subsidize this project it should get an equity position.


Herbert O. Sparrow: We got an equity position.


David Barrett: There is the voice again. There is the voice again coming out-


Herbert O. Sparrow: On the OSLO deal we got an equity position.


David Barrett: Far be it from me to interrupt the debate of the member who does not have the floor. Nonetheless, I must continue.


Ross Harvey: When there's a profit pigs will fly.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt this debate, but I happen to have the floor.
I want to point out that if we have equity we should get a share of the profit. All we are guaranteed is a loss. That group of free enterprisers out there astounds me. My poor father, who started off as a humble merchant selling fruits and vegetables, never got a subsidy from the government. Had he got a subsidy from the government, since he sold tomatoes that at some times were not exactly of the best quality, he would have allowed anybody giving him a subsidy to have an equity position. If the tomatoes went soft, they lost money and he lost money. However, if the tomatoes lasted long enough to sell to the customers, he made money and the person with the equity position made money. If it is good enough for my dear old dad, surely it is good enough for this government.


Herbert O. Sparrow: Tell us about ICBC in British Columbia.
February 9, 1990


David Barrett: Now I hear this voice saying something about the ICBC in British Columbia. Yes, the Socialists brought in ICBC in British Columbia and every succeeding government has kept it and taken credit for it.


Herbert O. Sparrow: The money they have lost. Come on.


David Barrett: Chirp, chirp, chirp. There is something wrong with the sound system. It has a strange feedback in this Chamber. I know it can be corrected or cranked down.
Furthermore, I want to pause and reflect on the challenge my good friend has presented to me by this question. Is this project a paternalistic approach to the indigenous people of that region?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Louis-Hebert, on a point of order.

The member has lost the floor for a minute. [Translation]


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I think the discriminatory attitude taken by the hon. member for the opposition when he made fun of the voice of the hon. member for Calgary Southwest was absolutely uncalled for. This reeks of discrimination, and I would like him to apologize.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I am the only one who has the floor. I cannot identify where interruptions are coming from. I mocked no one except the generic interruptions from that side. If a particular person feels offended by my generic comments, then I honour the rules of this House and withdraw.
However I would ask them, if they are going to interrupt, to please identify themselves by name so I am assured that I am not insulting them by person.
If I may continue on the point made by my colleague, it is indeed a desire of every member of this House to ensure that every region has the possibility of developing to its greatest potential. As a consequence of that I believe that if Hibernia should go it should go on the basis of its own merit, but we should not tie the economy
Government Orders
of one province to that project. What we should do is immediately spend the $3 billion inside that province on developing other projects that the people themselves are a part of planning.
That is the way to go. Trust people. Believe in people. Let them have the sense and the ability to develop their own destiny without having some outside massive handouts. That is my point.


Some hon. members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Edmonton East.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, if the amendment to the motion for second reading, moved by my colleague moments ago, is deemed to be in order, I would be very much desirous, as would other of my colleagues, of participating in the debate on that amendment.
I do not know what these calls for the question are at the moment. If there is no other person interested in taking part in the debate on the question for second reading, I would be delighted to move to the debate on the question of the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: After studying the matter, the Chair finds the amendment to be in order.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this reasoned and reasonable amendment which is asking that Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia development project, be not read a second time at this point, because of three very fundamental principles that are not adequately addressed in it.
The first principle is that there is not a securement of sufficient equity for the government in the project. We have set out in the amendment that granting the project more than $1 billion without securing equivalent equity is wrong in principle.
The amendment also suggests that the current legislation fails to contain specific provisions which provide for environmental protection measures in connection with the project. At a later point in my presentation, I want to outline in more detail why that factor is in itself so critically important to whether this project should or should not go ahead.

February 9, 1990
Government Orders
The last provision is also a very salient point. The current legislation fails to contain specific provisions which provide for the creation of job opportunities in relation to the project.
I would like to start by going to the last point first. I come from an area in British Columbia where, like my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, I have seen the cumulative economic impact, or lack thereof, of many of the megaproject developments which have gone on in our province. I speak of projects such as the Columbia River Power Treaty. In that measure a massive investment of taxpayers' money went into creating cheap power and cheap water for agricultural communities in Washington and Oregon, communities which are now competing with and keeping our agricultural communities out of the market.
Some of these projects are incredibly expensive. Let us look, for example, at the Northeast Coal project that was developed years ago. That project was developed under the British Columbia government of Bill Bennett. It involved millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars to develop the coal fields in the northeastern part of British Columbia.
To begin with, after investing all that money, they even put the hole in the wrong place. Millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars went into the creation of an energy project which saw very little return in terms of actual job creation. Certainly, there were jobs created. But when you look at the cost of capital investment necessary there was a million dollars of capital investment that was necessary to create one long-term job in the Northeast Coal fields.
Now, when we are competing with our Australian counterparts for the Japanese coal market, we find that the Northeast Coal project is not able to recover the costs that we were hoping it would be able to recover when the project was initially started. Millions of taxpayers' dollars have gone to create temporary jobs.
If you took $1 million of capital investment-and that is what it was to create one job in Northeast Coal-and you put that money into the community into, for example, the small business sector you could create 10 times the number of jobs that you could for one long-term job
in the capital intensive industry such as in the energy sector. Some $50,000 to $100,000 of capital investment will create jobs in the small business sector. It will also create ten times the economic spinoff in terms of job creation.
Yes, we believe in job creation and, like my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, I think all Canadians are vitally concerned about what is happening in our Atlantic provinces, in Newfoundland, with respect to the economic difficulties that they are involved in at this time. We want to help out. But I think all Canadians, as well as those residents in the Atlantic provinces, also want to make sure that we get the biggest bang for our buck. That certainly cannot be achieved in capital intensive projects such as we have seen with Northeast Coal in British Columbia or in Atlantic Canada with the Hibernia project.
We want to create the most jobs with the money that we do have available. That is why we oppose this bill. We believe it to be an inefficient means of job creation.
We oppose the bill because here we are utilizing federal money without really consulting the people in the communities about whether or not they have some better ideas about how that money should be put to use in creating jobs that will be around for a few years throughout their communities.
When this bill was first introduced on November 7, my New Democratic colleagues and I issued a series of conditions that we felt should be satisfied in order to win support for the project. My colleague from Edmonton East, who I think has so eloquently spoken on this issue a number of times, dealt extensively with these four conditions in his remarks of December 18.
What are those conditions? I would like to review them veiy briefly.
First, there should be no investment of public money without equivalent equity being held by the Crown. It is a fundamental tenet of economic development that there should be no give-aways of taxpayers' money, be it federal, provincial or otherwise. There should not be any give-aways of public money, unless there is an equity position for the government to be attained.
February 9, 1990

The Alberta government made sure it had equity in its Syncrude project. There is no essential equity of investment for Canadian taxpayers' dollars going into this Hibernia project.
The second principle which I think very important is that there should be guarantees in the agreements among the parties that the production costs will not be subsidized by the public purse now or in the future.
Third, the expenditures by the federal government on research, development and the commercialization of energy alternatives and conservation must be restored to a minimum of the $400 million budgeted for it in 1984.1 think all members of this House would agree that there are great opportunities for job creation in this field, small-scale, community-based projects for energy alternatives which will benefit ordinary people, not only in Newfoundland but throughout this country. This is a very important principle and, when we dive into these megaprojects of exploration opportunities for coal fields and oil fields, we sometimes neglect some of the alternative projects we could be developing.
A fourth important point is that concrete steps and guarantees must be put in place to minimize the environmental impacts of the Hibernia project, as well as any other energy project. This should include the assurance that, within the framework of reducing Canada's carbon dioxide emissions, which are the by-product of burning our fossil fuels, we should be reducing those emissions by at least 20 per cent by the year 2005 to combat the problem that we are experiencing even now. That problem is global warming due to the greenhouse effect caused by the increased concentration of carbon dioxide gases in our atmosphere.
This project is not going to help in that respect. Once again, we are tapping our resource of fossil fuels and utilizing fossil fuel products for our energy sources. It is high time that this government put its money where its mouth is in terms of taking on its supposed commitment to the exploration of energy alternatives, something which will utilize other fuel sources. For example, there is hydrogen which, when combined with oxygen in the process of combustion, produces a very simple by-product which is environmentally harmless-water. Those are the kinds of energy alternatives that we should be
Government Orders
exploring rather than simply blundering again into the utilization of our coal fields and oil reserves.
I think I speak for everybody in my caucus when I say that we take very seriously the recommendations made by the Brundtland Commission. The main thrust of the report of that commission was that any kind of economic development taking place has to go hand-in-hand with the need for sensitive environmental planning, a stewardship to ensure the kinds of economic development that we fund and pursue are in harmony with our environmental objectives.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that economics aside, the Hibernia project does not take that into consideration.
The environmental problems that we are running up against today in Canada and throughout the world are becoming increasingly critical. As I mentioned before, the greenhouse effect brought on in large measure by the use of our fossil fuels is having very significant impacts, on a global scale, on our climatic conditions. One of those conditions is the reduction in available sunlight in photosynthesis for aquatic plants. It is changing in a myriad of ways the whole balance in our biosphere and in the ecosystems throughout the world. The longer we continue to ignore those important problems the greater the ultimate crisis will become.
The points that my colleague from Edmonton brought before this House earlier are reasonable conditions for any energy project that is to be considered. The government could have pursued a bill on Hibernia that did satisfy these sensible and reasonable requests. But it chose not to do so. As a result the projects that have resulted will provide comparatively few jobs. I mentioned before a case where it took a million dollars of capital investment to create one job. When I say that that is not getting the biggest bang for the buck I think we would all agree with that.
Newfoundland needs real economic development. Hibernia could help with that. We do not have any argument in that regard. But that is not likely to happen with this current bill because many of the potential benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador have been squandered and ignored by this current piece of legislation.

Government Orders
I would like to deal with the other principles in the reasoned amendment before the House. However, before I do that I would like to outline or review a bit of the history of the Hibernia project.
It is a project that has been a dizzying roller-coaster of raised expectations and dashed hopes for our Atlantic friends. When the first major oil discovery was made in the Grand Banks back in 1979 the expectation was that Newfoundland would blossom to become what they called at that time the Norway of North America. Unfortunately, the first estimates of the amount of oil contained in the oil fields were soon proved to be much too optimistic, too high.
In 1979, it was estimated that the Hibernia fields contained about 1.8 billion barrels of oil. By 1985, the estimate was in fact much lower. The field is estimated to contain between 800 million and 900 million barrels- nothing to sneeze at but certainly not the great expectations that we had in 1979.
The most recent estimate with respect to the Hibernia reserves has lowered it to between just 500 million and 650 million barrels. We can see that it does not have the great potential we thought it had when the oil fields were discovered initially.
The estimates of the benefits from the project that would have been enjoyed by Newfoundlanders have similarly declined steadily. Initially, Newfoundlanders believed that the province owned this off-shore resource and that it would be used mainly to provide much-needed jobs to boost the Newfoundland economy.
This hope of exclusive provincial ownership and control was dashed by the rulings of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and the Supreme Court of Canada in 1983 and 1984. Basically, it was ruled that the federal government would have jurisdiction over this off-shore mineral resource.
The Atlantic Accord, a long-term agreement on the joint management of off-shore oil and gas development, was signed in 1985. But, as Newfoundlanders know only too well, the agreement does not change the simple fact that Hibernia will not in itself transform their provincial economy.
On top of the disappointing realization that Hibernia would not be the bonanza that was initially thought,
politicians have repeatedly used the promise of the project, quite frankly, for crass political purposes. They have repeatedly raised the hopes of the people of Newfoundland by making the big glitzy announcements, the deals, strangely enough either just before or during election campaigns. We all know how quickly promises evaporate once an election is over and done with. We all know how quickly those promises have evaporated in the past. You cannot blame people for being a bit reluctant to accept the promises this government has continued to make in terms of its commitment to some of its election goodies.
The project was announced once in 1979. It was announced again in 1982 and yet again in the 1988 federal election when the federal Conservatives made Hibernia an important plank in their Atlantic Canada platform. Each time the impression was given that a final deal was completed, that it was wrapped up, that it was in the bag, that it was just a matter of putting the bells and whistles on it, and this would mean great things for Newfoundland.
This is what the Prime Minister said at the time during a pre-election stop in St. John's, on July 18, 1988:
Hibernia has been the dream of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador for decades. Ibday, the dream has been realized.
In the midst of the last election campaign on October 6, 1988, the Prime Minister, once again, waxed lyrical about the project, as he is often wont to do. He said: "For me, Brian Mulroney, Hibernia meant a lot more than barrels of oil. Hibernia, to me, was about dignity. Hibernia is about the future, about jobs for our kids. It is about a new tomorrow".
For his part Trade Minister John Crosbie told more than 1,000 invited guests in St. John's that the announcement has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with simple justice. That was in 1988.
I am certain the government will try again somehow to blame the opposition for holding up Hibernia.
I will summarize by making it very, very clear that we in the New Democratic Party are not opposed to the Hibernia project. What we are opposed to is the fact that the federal dollars involved in creating Hibernia could better be spent on a community-by-community basis developing the kinds of projects that Newfoundlanders
February 9, 1990

themselves feel are the best means for economic development and job creation in their province.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, in the same context, but perhaps expanding it a bit, I was just wondering if the hon. member could comment on what the effect of this headlong rush into megaproject development, not only Hibernia, but across the country might be in light of the free trade agreement.
My understanding of the free trade agreement is that once we achieve a certain level of export to the United States that level of export then becomes the bottom line of what we have to make available to the Americans in perpetuity through the free trade agreement. For example, if 60 per cent of our production of oil or 50 per cent of our production of gas is committed to the Americans at a certain point in time, then from then on forward that will be the production level.
I found it very interesting when the member commented that we should make incremental kinds of investments in our energy future, including investments in conservation and so on which would benefit Newfoundland communities and all others. Might that not also be a more intelligent way to go about it, rather than at this time rush into a whole series of megaprojects, the bulk of which products go to export? That will place us in a position whereby our non-renewable hydrocarbons will be locked into an export pattern we will not be able to get out of.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member has posed a very salient question. It is also a very important question in terms of the impact of the free trade agreement on our energy resources.
There is no question that the free trade agreement as is signed and implemented today has far more to do with access to Canada's resources than it has to do with the reduction of tariff barriers. That is why we initially opposed the free trade agreement before it was implemented. That is why we continue to oppose it today.
The fact is that the FTA is really an attempt by our neighbour to the south to access our vital resources, our energy supplies, our electricity and hydro supplies, our water-in fact, the lifeblood of Canada.
Government Orders
The section of the agreement dealing with energy basically says that once contracts have been established for the provision of Canadian energy supplies to U.S. markets and once that trade has taken place, the federal government of Canada or a provincial government loses control of that resource. That is so because in times of energy crisis they can no longer cut back on exported supplies of that energy without cutting back an equivalent amount on our own domestic supplies. That is what is so wrong with that aspect of the trade agreement.
These megaprojects are exploring our resource base and opening up these resources, a major portion of which we know darn well will then be exported to our southern neighbours. Once we have established those export markets, if we have to cut back 10 per cent on our export supply, the free trade agreement says: "You can't cut back on 10 per cent of the export supply to the U.S. unless you cut back an equivalent amount in your own domestic consumption". That means we are losing control and the husbandry of our own natural resources.
In light of that, the development of these megaprojects has to be very seriously questioned indeed.


Mr. Worthy:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.
I have to say that I have enjoyed the debate today on government participation in megaprojects. It is debated in our small post offices in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. It is debated over office coffee urns, in our beer parlours and at our church socials. It is a subject that is very important to a lot of people in Canada. I do not know that there is anybody wise enough to give the ultimate answer.
The hon. member supports the motion to squash what is considered by the people of Newfoundland to be their opportunity. They want the Government of Canada to help them help themselves. It is easy for people to squash a project that is considered important by people on the other side of the country.
My question for the member is this. There are projects in British Columbia in which the federal government's presence and assistance is necessary. Would the hon. member be prepared to have the federal government also squash the gas line to Vancouver Island and the icebreaker that will be there to assist our shipbuilding industry in British Columbia?

February 9, 1990
Government Orders


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has missed a very vital point in my argument. The argument is not to squash the project. The argument is that if we go ahead with it we want some assurances that the federal government has equity in the project. We want some assurances that there are environmental impact assessments done with respect to the project. We want some assurances that the long-term interests of our energy supplies are secured before this project goes ahead.
We want to make sure that the $3.1 billion in investments is used by the people of Newfoundland rather than being squandered away by giving it to the multinational oil companies. We want to assess the rationale for using $1 million in capital investment to create one job, or whether perhaps it makes more sense to take that $3.1 billion and use it in other sectors of the economy where you are going to produce 10 to 50 times the number of jobs for every dollar you spend.
It is a matter of putting the bucks where you are going to get the biggest bang for them. I think that that makes ultimate economic sense.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment on this amendment. When I look at a copy of it, it seems to me it is there simply to stall this bill. We would like to see the Hibernia bill go to committee. I think there are a lot of technical details in it. We want it to go to committee so we have the opportunity to hear witnesses and to make improvements in this legislation.
The NDP say that they want assurances. We also want assurances. This amendment shows that the NDP members are more concerned with technical details. I think the place to deal with these details is in committee and that is what we would like to recommend because we want to get on with this process which is advantageous to Atlantic Canada.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the member may wish to peruse the exact wording of the reasoned amendment. Nothing in this amendment can, in fact, be dealt with in committee. These amendments are far more than simply housekeeping measures and changes in wording. It changes, in fact, the principle of the legislation. What she calls technical details and housekeeping measures are about whether or not the Canadian taxpayer deserves the right of equity financing
in projects of this sort, or whether we are going to give $3.1 billion holus-bolus to multinational investments.
The amendment is concerned with whether or not there are adequate provisions for environmental safeguards in this project. Every Canadian citizen knows that the major concerns in this country-the major concern globally-are environmental issues. This government has itself given the commitment, at least it has paid lip service to the commitment, that all projects would receive an environmental assessment as to whether or not they should proceed. This is far more than simple housekeeping. The creation of jobs for people in Newfoundland is far more than a simple housekeeping measure.
Megaprojects are capital intensive. They do not create enough jobs for the amount of money spent. Our position is that perhaps there could be other mechanisms by which we get the biggest bang for the buck.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I had actually hoped to catch Your Honour's eye before now, because I wanted to say that I found the recitation of the history of the project that the hon. member was relating to the House a most interesting one. I was hoping that I could invite him to continue with that recitation in the time remaining so that all members might be further enlightened.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, you caught me unaware on that one. Because I had summarized somewhat it will take me half a second to go back to where I was before.
We talked about the historical aspect of Hibernia and the number of promises that have been made time and time again by this government in regard to the development of the project.
Let us have a look at what is actually in Bill C-44. In a nutshell, the bill is meant to give the federal government the statutory authority to enter into one or more legally binding agreements based on the statement of principles signed in July, 1988. It sets out how the federal government will spend money on the project.
Mr. Speaker, in the very brief time I have remaining I want to point out that we are talking about a great deal of money. We are talking about $1.04 billion toward capital costs, $1.66 billion in loan guarantees for capital projects, $.175 billion in loan guarantees for temporary financing; $.3 billion is a loan. No cap on the amount contributed as interest. $3,139 billion in taxpayers' money is a lot of money. Is it a wise use of that money?
February 9, 1990

That is all we are asking. Does the legislation that is before us set out a mechanism for the judicious use of federal taxpayers' money?
Let me emphasize once again that we do not oppose Hibernia in principle. We do oppose the fiscal arrangements that are set out in this piece of legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 2.34 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   EMPLOYMENT JOB-CREATION STRATEGIES
Raymond John Funk: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of ensuring that federal job-creation strategies emphasize job opportunities that extend beyond the industrial and commercial sectors and include the arts, culture, social and voluntary services, and community-based enterprises.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite appropriate that this private members' motion, which I am introducing comes before us on this particular day. It is a day on which we see the contrast of philosophies, with the government promoting, on the one hand, massive investments of billions of dollars in megaprojects. This money will, in large part, end up in the hands of large multinational corporations, for each dollar invested will yield very little in terms of job creation in a region of the country where such job creation is so badly needed. On the other hand, earlier today, we had the Minister of Employment make an announcement with regard to one of the government's major employment creation projects, the Challenge '90 project, which, through a series of smoke and mirrors, ends up being even less of a program than it was before. This program was very useful in communities from coast to coast, communities that every
Private Members' Business
one of us represent. I think it is very appropriate that we address this particular question, on the one hand, a community-based development philosophy and on the other a megaproject-big business type of philosophy.
One of the things that concerns me very much, as a member of this House and as a witness to what is happening to our communities, to our economy and to our country, is that this government seems to be lost in a dark ideological tunnel that seems to have no turns. I find it hard to comprehend why that should be true because, as I get to know members opposite better on a personal basis and work with them in committees and so on and discuss issues with them, I realize that in many ways the partisan differences between us tend to blur when it comes to concern about our communities and interest in local projects and the kind of things that we support from day to day as members of Parliament.
Therefore, it seems incongruous to me that these same members then end up voting and supporting a point of view in a series of legislative initiatives that fly in the face of the kind of work they do and take a great interest in as individual members.
I have come to the conclusion that the government opposite is much less than the sum of its parts. I think there are three basic issues inherent in the question we are addressing today. One is a very fundamental problem with the values this government lives by and which it promotes as being those that Canadians should emulate. It is very much a bottom line orientation towards life, an orientation that says that if you are not part of big business, if you are not the rat race, if your goals are not to get ahead as fast as you can economically, if you are not prepared to get there and elbow your way through different kinds of economic competitive environments, then you do not have a place in society. If you are not turned on by the vision of capital flowing back and forth through capital markets around the world day and night, if you do not follow the stock market very closely, if these things are not of interest to you and if that is not where your life revolves then somehow or other you are a second-class citizen and this government does not really have a role to play in your life.

February 9, 1990
Private Members' Business
It seems especially ironic that the historic Conservative party should end up in that kind of a values vacuum. I had always seen the Conservative party partly that way because my constituency was represented by the late John Diefenbaker, and perhaps because the old British Tory tradition of conservatism respected community life, family life, and applauded local grassroots initiative.
Instead, what we see is a headlong rush into the materialistic type of big business-oriented philosophy that leaves our society not only socially much poorer, but in many ways, spiritually much poorer. Ultimately, it gets us on a environmental treadmill that we will not be able to get off. In fact, it holds within it its own seeds of destruction.
I might comment in that regard on what is happening in eastern Europe. My own family roots are in eastern European. My family was forced to leave the Soviet Union in 1927. If the bankers take our farm away in Saskatchewan, perhaps Mikhail Gorbachev might give our farm back in the Soviet Union, in view of the changes that are happening there.
Nevertheless, I have heard a lot of comments from people espousing neo-conservative, right wing ideas. But what is happening in eastern Europe is, in fact, a sudden conversion to a completely capitalist, free enterprise kind of thinking.
I think that is certainly part of the answer. I know that there people have been very frustrated, as our family was, with the inability of individuals and communities to make their own economic decisions. But there was also a structure evolving in that country that was oriented from the top down, where individuals and communities had no control.
I think that can happen in a private enterprise economy as it did in a communist economy. We are seeing in our country that people are feeling less and less in control of their lives. The values that are driving this culture, the same as they did there-it was called economic materialism-are giving rise to a right wing version of economic materialism that is just as destructive to individuals and communities as the communistic type of economic materialism was in eastern Europe.
Another problem with this government is that it recognizes only two-thirds of the economy and of that two-thirds, it only supports one-third. If you analyze the economy, it has three sectors, not two. There is a corporate business sector, a public sector basically evolving around different levels of government, and then there is a community sector which includes voluntary organizations. They, in turn, include organizations, such as small family-owned businesses, community development corporations and co-operatives; all the kinds of little grassroot local activities that people carry on in the economic sphere. I think that it is just as important, perhaps more important, to help people live in our communities as it is the big government and private sectors. This government has really lost sight of that in spite of the fact that it represents those same communities as I do.
I might also comment that if you look at the economic history of the country those sectors are the ones that are durable in tough times and are the ones that have endured.
The other problem is that this government is proceeding without a full employment policy. The interest rate policies of the Bank of Canada under its Governor, John Crow, make it very clear that fighting inflation by creating exorbitantly high interest rates is much more of a priority to this government than full employment. In fact, the government does not even talk about full employment. It becomes quite clear that the corporate agenda is to force wages down, which it thinks it has to do in order to compete economically in the world, requires high unemployment. In that way people will not make higher wage demands and develop expectations that this government does not want ordinary Canadians to be able to realize. If you look at the successful economies of the world that are competing successfully and are making progress, the economies of western Europe, the economies of Japan and so on, you will see that those economies have very focused emphasis on full employment and on ensuring that everybody has a role to play in the economy.
In fact I have heard it argued that one of the reasons we are having so much trouble financing our social programs and one of the reasons the country is continually clawing back and cutting and making it more and more difficult for a lot of these social programs to survive is because social programs have not been tied to
February 9, 1990

a full employment program. Surely a full employment program is the most successful social program you can have for a great number of people.
I started by mentioning the Challenge program that was introduced today and I would like to return to that as an example of what I am talking about. This program, at least in a limited way, gives young people some opportunity to get experience in the job market. It also gives local communities a source of funding to get some local projects completed and to do interesting things that benefit the communities. But what did we see happen today? There was an announcement, which on the face of it has some merit, about the stay-in-school program. There was a big announcement that it was funded to the tune of $296 million. In much smaller print was the fact that that $296 million was spread over five years and in fact amounted to $60 million a year.
But where did that money come from? The money came out of what is called the SEED program. We have $60 million going toward staying in school this year. We have a loss in the SEED program which was the program available to post-secondary education students. $41.8 million was taken out of that program in the same year-a 35 per cent cut. All that has happened is that high school students are getting some support to stay in school at the expense of university students who will now have to take even bigger student loans, or find jobs in a very tough job market and pay back student loans at exorbitant rates of interest. That is hardly progress.
In the La Ronge region of my constituency, when last year ended, the Challenge Program had applications for $1.2 million of funding, while only $247,000 of funding was available. This left many very frustrated community groups that were not able to complete their projects and a lot of frustrated students. I have talked to many other members who said it was also true in their constituencies. It turned out to be a program that in many ways perhaps turned out doing more harm than good. This is in a constituency where only 23.15 per cent of the people between 15 and 65 are listed as working. In other words, it is a constituency with 77 per cent unemployment, according to Statistics Canada.
I would also like to make some proposals, as I did in my motion, as to how the government might come to terms with its very short-sighted and incomplete approach to job creation.
Private Members' Business
I think what has happened in Quebec has given us a fine example of how encouragement for the arts and culture not only benefits arts and culture and the people who are interested in pursuing those but has also given a real boost to that province as a whole. I am thinking of the self-confidence, not only in the cultural and nationalistic sense that we see arising in the province of Quebec but also of the success in entrepreneurial business areas. It comes from the fact that Quebecers have been able to develop a sense of themselves of which they are proud. I think that comes very much from the support for arts and culture that has happened in that province.
On the other hand what do we see in English Canada? Lately we have seen the CBC cuts which were only the latest in a whole series of cuts to the CBC. I know that a lot of those were designed to trim fat in head office and one thing or another but it also has become very clear at least in my province that a very valuable children's program, Switchback, was cut. That program was produced in Regina and provided employment for local artists and producers and it was the only alternative for children in Saskatchewan to the type of video shows and game shows the commercial networks provide. Part of the CBC cut was the Switchback program. There is also a real threat to the small remote stations that tie the remote communities in this country together.
In my riding we have Emma Lake Art Camp, which is an internationally renowned centre. It is a gathering spot and training ground for artists. For many years it has been struggling to survive as a teaching institution and as a place on the map.
We have local native singers and dancers who cannot get funding to answer an invitation to make a European tour, even though they were judged good enough to perform at the opening of the Museum of Civilization last spring.
A French cultural centre is being proposed which is being bucked by the provincial government and given only lukewarm attention by the federal government. When I looked at the CIC figures, only two out of 294 jobs listed at the local manpower office are in the recreational and cultural areas.
What we have seen is a shift, in accordance with the same value structure, of support for the arts from public institutions to the corporate sector. What that means is,

February 9, 1990
Private Members' Business
first of all, the kind of arts that are supported are those that the corporate sector chooses as being sympathetic to its way of thinking. Second, it perpetrates the centralization of artistic activity of which both public and private institutions are guilty. The big corporations that can afford to fund arts and culture are centred in the big cities and that is where they invest their money. Therefore, the hinterlands of Canada, the small communities, do not benefit. The cultural life of the hinterlands of Canada is stagnating as a result.
A second aspect is the voluntary and social service sectors in this country. Through those sectors, 175,000 people are employed full-time 200,000 man years of voluntary time are donated through the voluntary and social service agency networks. There are all kinds of social needs that need to be met. There are all kinds of people out there who would like to meet them. There are all kinds of studies that say this is a cost-effective way to spend money in terms of return to the economy and multiplier effects in communities and so on. But yet, what do we see? We see large cuts in transfer payments that funded those kinds of programs at that level. We saw a 15 per cent cut in Secretary of State programs last year federally. We are warned of even bigger cuts this year. We saw cuts to the ODA programs.
Again, local initiatives are being left begging, while megaprojects and big business get their way with this government.
The last point I would like to raise is that of community based enterprises. This country has a proud history of development of co-operatives and community development organizations. We are renowned world-wide for this ability. People come here to do research on how to start local grassroots enterprises. But when we see the programs coming out of this government like the CAED program and the aboriginal economic program, when you look at our regional development programs, WDO, look at community futures, when you look at all of these programs, community development organizations and co-operatives take a seat so far back that you cannot even see them from the front. I know that many people who work with these programs are very frustrated by the fact that guidelines are written in such a way that these kind of locally based initiatives find it very difficult, first
of all, to make it through all the hoops and the feasibility studies that it takes to get money.
Second, so often the criteria involved make it impossible for them to access this money. Again, we have a situation where those who really do not need the money can get it, and those who do need the money cannot.
The last point I would like to raise is the whole question of the environment. There is a new employment for local communities opening up in the environmental area; monitoring the environment, cleaning up the mess we made before; participating in local energy development programs. The kind of things that all of us recognize are the wave of the future and would operate best on a local community basis.
In closing, I would like to call on this government to do three things. One is recognize that a third community based sector does exist in this country and does deserve support.
Second, the third sector is the most cost effective, the most positive way to develop local communities and, in fact, to develop the economy. Third, I would like the government to recognize that life is more than being part of the international, big business rat race. I would like members of this government to support this motion and to make the point that we do recognize the value of community life. We do recognize that locally based initiatives are worth supporting.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to what my hon. friend said. I think that the late great John Diefenbaker would not be ashamed of him at all. I think he has done his homework. Mr. Diefenbaker would not agree entirely with his ideological point of view, but I think he would respect the work that the hon. member put into his thoughts and into his speech.
As the hon. member appreciates what I am about to say, he will find himself returning to his natural roots of conservativism. Perhaps even his riding will some day under his leadership do the same. I would invite the hon. member some day to come with me into the bosom of the Department of Communications where, just the other day, I spent several hours discussing cultural initiatives in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. I recognize the centralist tendency that he alludes to. It is one that I have been concerned about as well. I can assure him that there are those of us in government who
February 9, 1990

are working to combat that natural tendency of a system such as ours seems to have built into it.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy introduced in September, 1985 focuses on training and development in the Canadian labour market through the six programs created by the strategy. Many organizations and individuals in the cultural sector have benefited from the opportunity to develop their skills and enjoy newly created employment possibilities. There is no question that the cultural sector is of great importance socially and economically in the life of our country. It is the fourth leading creator of employment. Our cultural industries, including broadcasting, directly employ more than 185,000 Canadian and are one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy.
In terms of social significance, our nation's creators have won international recognition and secured our reputation as a vibrant, creative and vital people. Artists form the cornerstone of our distinct identity as Canadians. As the Minister of Communications so aptly noted in outlining the status of the artist's initiative recently before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture a society without artists is a society without identity.

The Canadian Jobs Strategy acknowledges the cultural sector's contribution to our society. Interested members of the cultural community can apply for assistance offered under any of the following programs included in the Strategy: Skill Investment, Job Entry, Job Development, Skill Shortages, Innovations, Community Futures and summer employment programs for young people.
Employment and Immigration Canada gives a broad definition of the cultural sector which includes visual arts, literature, interpretative arts, heritage activities including museums, art galleries, archives and libraries, and our cultural industries including radio and television, film, video, sound recording and editing.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that the broad range of activities that can be supported by the Canadian Jobs Strategy reflects a sincere and substantial commit-
Private Members' Business
ment by the government to Canada's cultural development.
I would like to mention some specific initiatives that are now a possibility in the cultural sector, through the financial support of the Jobs Strategy.
Skill Investment provides assistance in training workers affected by technological or market change. They are helped to re-train or acquire new skills.

In Alberta, a sound production company is developing the music engineering and studio technical skills of employees under the small business training option.
In-Prince Edward Island, an art gallery intern at the Confederation Centre for the Arts was able to attend a three-week Banff School of Management program with assistance toward tuition and transportation.
In Ontario, an association representing workers in the Canadian film industry, including self-employed workers, is developing a training trust fund with Employment and Immigration Canada which will enable its members to upgrade various technical skills.
The objective of the Job Entry Program is to assist youth and women having difficulty making the transition from school or home to the labour market. A project in Thunder Bay for youth from small communities who have an interest in the arts is providing training in arts management and entrepreneurial skills, along with practical experience in arts organizations.
In Fredericton, New Brunswick, 20 women have been trained to become archivists. Some projects have provided training and work experience for people wanting to be library assistants and apprentice theatre managers. Other projects are developing skills in broadcast sales, marketing and journalism.
Through another Canadian Jobs Strategy initiative, the Job Development Program, people have been hired to work on projects to develop the management, production, technical or curatorial skills which will qualify them for long-term positions. For example, the Aerospace Museum of Calgary is training eight individuals to repair and rebuild three World War II aircraft and set up an aviation library.

February 9, 1990
Private Members' Business
In Sioux Lookout, three native people are being trained for work in the media. Dance companies, theatre companies, orchestras, art galleries, cultural centres and libraries are among the many other organizations benefiting from this imaginative enterprise.
The Skill Shortages Program provides assistance when employers are unable to find workers with occupational skills which have been designated, nationally or regionally, as being in short supply.
With funding from the Skill Shortages Program, the Canadian Opera Company is managing a three year training program for opera singers, fund raising consultants and technical personnel. People are being trained in several other artistic and administrative occupations in regions where shortages exist.
Prince Edward Island, arts administration and video production skills are being developed by an art gallery, arts centre and video production company.
In Alberta and Nova Scotia, arts administrators and stage managers have been trained.
Another component of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, the Labour Markets Innovations Program, is designed to assist individuals and groups to develop and implement innovative responses to particular market situations. Participation is open to groups or individuals anywhere in Canada.
Examples of innovations projects are the Dancer Transition Center, which assists professional dancers to move from active performance into a second career; the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television's national apprenticeship program for young Canadian film makers; the Festival of New Canadian Plays, being developed by Alberta theatre projects, which aims to demonstrate to potential corporate investors the viability and importance of Canadian plays; and a Musical Performance and Communication Project designed to improve employment prospects for musicians.
These programs represent a substantial investment in our future by the Government of Canada. They are providing the training which the talented men and women in our cultural sector need to improve their skills.
They also enable young people to enter demanding professions which today call for a high level of training and expertise.
Earlier this year, the government announced that it intended to build on the success achieved by the Canadian Jobs Strategy. A commitment was made to maintain annual funding for the strategy at the present level of $1.8 billion. In addition, with the announcement of a new labour force development strategy, and the reallocation of $1.3 billion in unemployment insurance expenditures, the sum of $800 million was committed to assist in upgrading the skills of the labour force. These additional funds offer new opportunities for the cultural sector.
The art of promoting our culture and unique identity should not fall on the shoulders of the Minister of Communications alone. It is the responsibility of all of us who take pride in calling ourselves Canadians.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just read out an impressive list. I find that a little sad because it is easy to take select examples and say we are doing good things. The government does have some good programs.
What is missing, obviously, is an overall view of where our economy and society is going with a comprehensive meshing of policies. We on this side of this House have expressed our concerns about the Labour Force Development Strategy and various other elements of economic policies of the government because they do not seem to be leading anywhere.
I want to discuss the problems as I see them in the context of this motion before the House today. This morning's announcement by the Minister of Employment and Immigration typified the lack of fundamental understanding on the part of the government of some of the problems the country faces, businesses face and some of the problems our young people face. It is reflective also of the unwillingness of the government to commit the resources in order to invest in the future of the economy and the people of Canada in the most productive way for our economic future.
First, the minister takes money from the summer jobs program for young people, money which helps with their
February 9, 1990

education and is vital to our economy. She then puts it into programs to keep young people in high school.
While it is extremely crucial that our young people stay in school and get the kind of education they need, there is no recognition by the government of why young people drop out of school. There is one fundamental factor. If you grow up in a poor household in Canada you are four times as likely to drop out of high school before you have the education you need.
That indicates to me is in fact that poverty is a fundamental cause of school dropouts. It does not make sense to take money from one group of people who are pursuing their education to give it to others so that they will stay in school without recognizing the reason they are dropping out of school is poverty. At the same time, it is cutting back the kinds of transfer payments to the provinces that ultimately deal with the fundamental problem of poverty which keeps people dropping out of school. It just does not make any sense. It is patchwork at its worst.
One-fifth of money allocated to keeping young people in school is going to go to the information programs, which is propaganda about what a wonderful job the government is doing and which provides healthy contracts for friends of the government. That is not what our young people need.
I want to talk about the Community Development Initiatives. I think it is a great benefit when one comes into this House to have been in touch with what happens in communities, with the dynamics of communities and the strengths of communities. I had this experience through nine years in municipal government, as have many of my colleagues in the House. This experience allows one to know the strength of communities and to bring into play all the resources of a community to resolve problems such as high unemployment, untrained people, poverty in our communities, and to put all those strengths to work to create solutions which will work because they are developed by the people of a community who know their needs best.
We see elements in the government's current programs that not only do not support it, but militate against that happening. We see a requirement that somebody be
Private Members' Business
out of work for six months and on unemployment insurance before they can get into training programs. That only allows people six months to sink further and further into the concept that they cannot do anything for themselves, that they are incompetent and incapable. When they finally enter a training program with those attitudes, reinforced by six months of unemployment, it is no wonder they do not do as well as they might.
This year several programs in my own community were held up for up to a year because the government, instead of trying to put back in money that it has taken out of training programs and job creation programs, was waiting for the provinces to come up with the money. Programs that were under way and staffed had to close for a year while the government made up its mind whether it was or it was not going to fund them.
Resources continue to be depleted to those programs. Now we are turning to the unemployed and asking them to give up money required for food and shelter for then-families, to give up that money which is essential in order to pay for training and make up for the cuts the government has made over the last number of years.
The Challenge '90 program was cut back last year and it is getting cut back again. What was the effect of that?
The effect of that in my own riding and, I am sure across the country, was that extremely worth-while projects were cut. Many of these programs were operated by volunteer organizations which created jobs for young people and gave them a sense of commitment to their community and a stake in their community. These were programs that helped young children in poverty to have a worth-while summer experience, to feel that they were were worth while so maybe they will grow up and stay in school instead of dropping out.
Voluntary organizations produce up to 10 times the value of the dollars we put into them. That is not true of money we put into businesses. Often we are just paying for an employee the business would have hired in any case. Voluntary organizations can give a young person or anybody a work experience that involves them in their community, that gives them a commitment to then-community and makes them see that education is rele-

February 9, 1990
Private Members' Business
vant, that it has concrete results for society and for their own neighbours and friends.
These are the sorts of programs that we should be funding and which are especially important now when cut-backs to voluntary organizations are rampant and when volunteers are not able to function. There are still volunteers, but they still need paper to mail things out and still need the ability of staff people to support the their efforts. When those are missing we are losing a lot of the value of our voluntary organizations.
I want to expand the discussion because it really is a bigger question than job development, job-creation projects or training projects. It is a question of those much larger multibillion dollar programs that the government has, theoretically, to support employment and job creation in this country. But again today we see unemployment on the rise.
Let us consider the billions of dollars that go out through the Economic Development Corporation to support trade and employment in this country. Are these really the most valuable ways in which to use those dollars? We have seen in recent months serious reasons to question the way in which the Federal Business Development Bank theoretically helps with business development and job creation. It seems to have forgotten that its role is business development, not building development. These are examples of wrong policy directions.
On the other hand, we can look at other more positive directions, other things that are perhaps more worthwhile initiatives for us to invest in. We know that housing and housing renovation has a nine-to-one spinoff in terms of job creation for every dollar invested in it. We know that municipal infrastructure, roads, sewers and water, not only serve the health and safety of Canadians and reduces environmental damage through transportation, but also have a veiy healthy spinoff rate in terms of jobs per dollar invested.
We know that arts and culture, dollar for dollar, is the most labour intensive employment in the country. That is obviously a good way to invest our money if all we are interested in is in job creation, and yet we have the additional benefits of an enrichment of our social and cultural life. Again, instead of support of those industries which naturally produce jobs without any artificial infusion, we see the reduction of funds.
I want to reiterate that the official opposition has a very strong belief in the role of the individual in society and the importance of government supporting and creating an environment where each individual can develop his or her own talents, contribute to society and benefit from that contribution. We simply believe that there must be a comprehensive review of the whole scope of job creation, investment in employment, investment in corporations, and investment in education.
While the motion is a worth-while one, it is only one part of what we need to be looking at as a society. What is good for us as a society is also what is good for job creation and for our economy.
.(1515)


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I understand and respect the hon. member's interest in the Canadian job creation strategies and training opportunities. I appreciate the member's concern about finding ways to increase participation in our economy, especially by those Canadians who live in small communities and who work in our arts and culture sectors or social and voluntary services. My hon. colleagues will address these particular issues.
I share the hon. member's desire to build a strong and competitive Canada, through the creation of jobs. I would like to remind him that this government is not a stand pat government. We have always recognized the folly of complacency. We have repeatedly pointed out that if Canada ever adopted a passive approach to job training in this highly competitive world, that strategy would serve as an invitation for disaster.
We have repeatedly warned that the demands of a constantly changing and interdependent global economy must never be underestimated. We have always maintained that the failure to preserve a competitive workforce would have dire consequences for Canada's economic prospects. That is why we have dedicated more dollars to job training and skill enhancement than any government in the history of Canada. That is why we have replaced the hodgepodge of job-creation schemes with a comprehensive plan designed to prepare the Canadian workforce for the challenges of the 21st century.
This government is not in the business of cobbling together short-term make-work projects. That was the traditional approach to job creation.
February 9, 1990

While the quick-fix has at times provided monetary comfort, the relief experienced has too often proven ephemeral and fleeting. Instead, we have adopted a different long-term strategy, a strategy that addresses unemployment and labour market dislocations with an eye to establishing prolonged stability.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that if he carefully examines our programs and policies, he will quickly see that the training we provide is relevant to local conditions and he will find that our training efforts are designed to produce permanent jobs that are in demand now and will be in the future.
I am proud to state unequivocally that the federal government has provided consistent leadership in helping Canadians prepare for the labour market of the 1990s. In September 1985 we launched the Canadian Jobs Strategy after intensive consultation with the provinces, business and labour. Since then this strategy has helped more than 400,000 people each year receive the training they need for tomorrow's jobs.
Unlike previous programs, the Canadian Jobs Strategy is decentralized, relying on people who understand local conditions to come up with solutions that best suit their needs. It places an emphasis on co-operation with the private sector at the local level and offers a mix of tools and programs that has provided a unique and integrated approach to the labour market.
Within the Canadian Jobs Strategy, there is the necessary flexibility and range of activities to allow the government to address the specific needs of the sector identified in this motion: community based enterprises, the arts and culture sector, social and voluntary services.
To point to the arts sector by way of example, there is room within the CJS to support the Dance Transition Centre and a musical performance program. Best of all, CJS has an excellent record in helping those who are on the margins of the labour force and who are most in need. Because of this, I can assure my colleague that our work through the Canadian Jobs Strategy will continue.
Although we recognize the importance of maintaining the income support benefits of the unemployment insurance program, we are still moving toward more active
Private Members' Business
programs of skill development and relevant career training. For example, with Bill C-21 we propose to make the unemployment insurance system more flexible and to use UI moneys to help claimants get back to work faster. That is what Canadians want most.
Last spring we announced a Labour Force Development Strategy that builds on CJS and places a major emphasis on skill development and employment training. The Labour Force Development Strategy is a comprehensive, wide-ranging formula for improving the function of Canada's labour force, and it contains measures geared specifically to help communities found in areas such as the one the hon. member represents.
These measures include strengthening the Community Futures Program and the Industrial Adjustment Service, or IAS. Both programs will receive additional financing under the Labour Force Development Strategy. Community Futures, for example, will see its 1990-1991 budget increase by $50 million to $198 million, while the Industrial Adjustment Service allocation is being doubled from $15 million to $30 million.
I would like to point out that IAS, the Industrial Adjustment Service, has inspired countries from all over the globe. Recently a delegation from Hungary visited Employment and Immigration Canada's headquarters to learn more directly how IAS operates. The Americans have also turned to us for guidance. They searched the world for an effective, industrial adjustment program, and the one they finally settled on was ours.
Once again, in human resource development, we are leading the way, but the task of building a labour force of tomorrow is not ours alone. It also involves the efforts and the co-operation of business, industry and labour. All these major sectors must be willing to make a major investment in Canadian workers if we are to remain relevant in the international economic arena.
Canadian workers are well aware of the importance of training in today's economy. In 1988, Decima did a survey and found that half the respondents said that they would reduce their wage demands in return for additional training.

February 9, 1990
Private Members' Business
In conclusion, our challenge is to address this desire to learn and upgrade skills. I believe that the Labour Force Development Strategy will meet this challenge. It is instituting an unprecedented level of co-operation among business, labour and the government in the interests of building a competitive and relevant labour force. We want everyone to take advantage of the many new opportunities that the Labour Force Development Strategy offers. I am confident Canada will grow and prosper in the next century because of the commitment that we and our partners are ready to make today.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to talk on this topic today.
I was interested in the motion that the hon. member from Prince Albert-Churchill River proposed. I have to say that I was disappointed that he did not spend as much time talking about culture and the arts as I expected. He diverted quite a bit into the whole political spectrum of megaprojects and other forms of economic assistance to the various communities and regions of our country.
I can divert, for a couple of seconds, by indicating that it is not a matter of making choices between megaprojects for Newfoundland or any other region, but in place of municipal programs it is a matter of a wise and judicious balance between the two. The regions of Canada have legitimate aspirations whether it is us in British Columbia, the people from the good province of Saskatchewan with their aspirations, or the people from the maritimes with their real needs now and their aspirations.
What the member was alluding to was the current bill and the plans the government has to try to provide assistance to that region's aspirations, and I think quite legitimately. Any government that does not consider the needs and the wants of the regions of Canada is one that is going to be in trouble. Equally, of course, the aspirations of the communities of this country must be considered. The area I represent, Cariboo-Chilcotin, is comprised of many of these small communities. It is essential that we as a government and as members of parliament keep in mind what those aspirations are and make sure that we balance the dollars, our time and our attention with those needs.
Obviously government cannot provide everything for everybody. Somebody in my riding said the other day that it is only children and socialists who feel that we can have all of the goodies and not pay the price. Obviously, if we want the goodies we have to pay the price. Government, especially government in these times, is a body that has to make very difficult choices. All we can do is hope we are making wise choices and decisions, all of which must be fiscally responsible.
But heaven protect any government or any member of parliament who, in his eagerness to establish the economic base that is necessary, forgets that we have to be fed and clothed before we can really enjoy an art show, watch a presentation in a theatre or enjoy a hockey game. The government must spend the predominance of its time ensuring that the basic economic strength of our communities and our regions is solid and strong, that the people are working and that their basic needs are met.
Once they are met and we ignore for any length of time whatsoever the needs of the cultural and artistic communities or the interest in their communities, we do so at our peril. I made a mistake in one meeting with a constituent who I hope will become a very good friend. She felt that I was not paying due attention to her interest area which was the arts. She is a very artistic lady and spends untold hours daily and weekly in supporting the artistic endeavours of her community.
She took me on and did so quite properly, to make sure I understood that the needs of that community were real and, more important, that job opportunities, vacancies and potential in those areas were real. I have to admit that I had not given attention to it prior to that meeting. Since then I have been astounded by the many opportunities that exist, the economic incentives and push that the arts and culture communities perform in the Canadian economy. Listening to the debate today I have gained a perspective of several other members in this area.
What we are talking about in the arts and culture community are more than 185,000 people currently working there. They make their living in the performing arts, theatre, music, opera, dance and the visual arts. One that is very important to my area of the country is the heritage sector. Quite often we do not think of this as being one of the cultural artistic areas but it is. It is
February 9, 1990

composed of our museums, galleries, archives and libraries.
Then there is the high-tech sector. Of course high tech is very in at the present time and, despite the added emphasis now on television, we cannot forget the radio to which a person my age has spent so many hours listening. It is still an effective medium, not only for broadcasters but in particular for the performances of music and artistic expression.
There are many people in my Chilcotin wilderness who use their battery radios to tune in to the only station where they can get their dose of arts and culture, or after their basic needs have been satisfied through the CBC air waves and the many fine programs that are put on over the radio and on television.
Another area that is fairly important to the Cariboo- Chilcotin is that of crafts. It is one that I have not heard mentioned here today, but to our aboriginal peoples it is one that is going to become more and more important. It will be important for the government to make sure that we give full consideration to and understand the potential of this area. It is not just in their carving and their art. There is a huge market developing now for the art work.
On a recent trip to Asia, I noticed that business people who have an appreciation for art were commenting on how in at least the larger cities of Asia they were starting to show a greater appreciation for the aboriginal art from Canada, as well as from the United States. They now have carvings and jewellery that are not only beautiful but are creating a meaningful livelihood for so many of the artists who can communicate through that medium. We are seeing more and more of their native dancing and their native theatres. I am sure that form of participation and development in our native aboriginal communities will continue to be a major factor in the arts and culture of Canada.
Private Members' Business
Arts and culture are not just in the big cities, even though we tend to think of seeing ballet in the major cities and symphony orchestras perform principally in the major cities. The small communities of Canada are also recipients of the efforts of the people who work in arts and culture.
On one of my recent trips home-actually it was in Quesnel-there was a visiting group from Montreal, a fine francophone group of musicians, world-renowned percussionists who were performing for the people of the Quesnel area. This was in the Cariboo, the hinterland of Canada. One of the artists was commenting on it. He said: "All of the world-renowned artists play in Paris, in New York, in Montreal, in Hong Kong, all of the major centres". He singled us out in Quesnel and said: "We feel unique because very few of those world-renowned artists have played in Quesnel." We did appreciate it in Quesnel, and one of the benefits that the Government of Canada is able to provide to the small communities is to assist in such endeavours.
On a closing note, I will add that in small towns and big towns in Canada 13.5 million people have been participating in the arts and cultural community. There are more funds brought in from people watching the arts than the total for professional hockey, professional football, as well as baseball.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but we will not be able to hear what the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins) has to say on this topic.
The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 3.35 p.m., this House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. on Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 12,1990