1990-05-10

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


[Stage Direction]
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS-Til IRTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections which, in effect, waives the fees and recommends to the House that consideration be given to a bill that is now before the House, namely, a petition of the Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company. It waives the late filing of the petition and waives the fees in respect of that bill.
The report of the committee was approved by all parties. If there is unanimous consent, I would move concurrence in this report later this day.
I am pleased to table the report on behalf of the committee.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirty-ninth report of the Striking Committee. With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this day.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the thirty-ninth report of the Striking Committee, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, presented to this House earlier this day, be concurred in.

May 10, 1990
Routine Proceedings


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I am rising pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present yet another batch of petitions from Victoria against the goods and services tax.
We have already had thousands of signatures on petitions urging the rejection of this tax, and here are some more. The tide has not yet ceased. The people of Victoria, in overwhelming numbers, are asking the government to back off this unfair tax and to reform the tax system in a much fairer way than is presently proposed.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition with several hundred names of Canadian war veterans who belong to the Royal Canadian Legion branches in Blind River and Espanola, Ontario. They complain that the government has reduced homekeeping services to veterans and substantially increased the cost of long-term care.
They point out that veterans have already given a great service to the country and call on the House of Commons and Parliament of Canada to reject these budget measures that deprive veterans of proper services and increase their financial hardship.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise in the House today to present petitions signed by Canadians who are opposed to the goods and services tax.
These petitions were circulated by residents who ask taxpayers to join them in a demonstration on Parliament Hill at noon on Saturday, May 12, to show that Canadians are opposed to the goods and services tax proposed by the government.
To all those who do not speak French, Madam Speaker-

I would like to extend the same invitation; twelve o'clock, Saturday, Parliament Hill.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty, in accordance with Standing Order 36, to present a petition from residents of Toronto; Ottawa; Woodstock, New Brunswick; Saint John; Willowdale and Scarborough, Ontario; and Burnaby, B.C.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to join with the Assembly of First Nations and the Innu of Labrador to demand that the Canadian government end all NATO-NORAD low-level flight training in Canada and oppose the establishment of NATO operations in Canada, including the proposed tactical fighter and weapons training base at Goose Bay.
They ask that Parliament redirect Canada's NATO and NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and livelihood, and promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to table a petition, certified correct as to form and content, from members and friends of Branch 83 of the Royal Canadian Legion in Florence, Nova Scotia.
There are 100 signatures, and in part the petition states that the Government of Canada has introduced changes that will reduce homekeeping services to veterans and substantially increase the cost of long-term care.
Whereas the veterans have already given service to this country and should not be targeted by these measures, the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject those budget measures that deprive veterans of proper services and increase their financial hardship.
May 10, 1990


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Madam Speaker,
I have the honour to present a petition bearing 50 signatures. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to stop wasting our tax dollars and to reject the proposed goods and services tax. I fully support that position.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I, too, have a petition which I wish to present to the House. It is signed by people mainly from the Hull, Vanier, and Ottawa areas.
These people call upon Parliament to stop wasting the tax dollars and to reject the goods and services tax. They also invite people to a rally this Saturday.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, following in the footsteps of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are opposed to the government's goods and services tax, today I wish to present another petition signed by Canadians who strenuously object to this tax and who want to come here next Saturday, May 12, to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with a government that wants to saddle Canadians with a new tax that will be regressive and very costly.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton - Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present several petitions on behalf of my constituents showing the wide range of their dissatisfaction with the government.
Perhaps the first one I should present is on behalf of the veterans of Canada who fought for their country. They are objecting to the measures in the last budget that will place additional hardships on them by depriving them of proper services and increasing their financial hardship.


Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, I have some other petitions from the farmers of Lambton-Middlesex, from Oil Springs, Petrolia, Both-well, Alvinston, Camlachie and Wyoming, and even some from my colleague's riding of Kent.
Routine Proceedings
The petitioners all object to the very high and injurious interest rates that are being imposed upon Canada and the farmers of Canada. They want the government to reinstate the fuel tax rebate and the interest free provisions of the advance payment for crops, to provide fair and equal market access for Canadian farm commodities, and to introduce agricultural policies that will encourage agricultural development in Canada.


Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, I also have some other petitions to present. They are signed by various people from across my great riding. They are calling on the government to re-evaluate and upgrade the VIA Rail service cuts that took place across the country on January 1.


Ralph Ferguson: Finally, I have petitions from across the riding as well. The petitioners state that the federal government wants to impose on Canadians a new 7 per cent goods and services tax. They point out that this new tax will apply to books, magazines, newspapers, et cetera.
They point out, quite rightly, that this is the first time this would have been done since Confederation. The petitioners call on the government to exempt Canada's books, magazines and newspapers from the proposed goods and services tax.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise in the House today to present petitions signed by Canadians who are opposed to the goods and services tax.
These petitions were circulated by residents who ask taxpayers to join them in a demonstration on Parliament Hill at noon on Saturday, May 12, to show that Canadians object to the goods and services tax proposed by the government.

I have several hundred signatures of people involved in and concerned about the whole area of reading. They have brought to our attention that Canada has seen fit, since Confederation and without hiatus, to apply a zero rate of tax to magazines, books and newspapers which are now proposed to be included in the GST. They feel that the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is

May 10, 1990
Routine Proceedings
a comer-stone of democracy, culture, and education, and that a literary and productive society will be negatively affected by the GST application.
Therefore, the petitioners have asked the House to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status of the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.
Last, Madam Speaker, also in the interest of the concern around the GST, and perhaps joining us on Saturday on the Hill in the demonstration, will be people who are involved in occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social services, speech language pathology and audiology outside of public institutions.
They call upon Parliament not to impose the goods and services tax on any health care services, whether delivered in public institutions or in the community.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am tabling today a petition from Chibougamau concerning the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas. This community is without question an isolated area, and that is why your petitioners object to the recommendations in the Brunelle report.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured once again to rise in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, with a petition signed by constituents of Ottawa Centre.
The petition states: "If our tax dollars were spent wisely instead of being foolishly wasted, we would not have to be taxed to death. The Canadian government does not need more money from the taxpayers. It needs conscientious, responsible representatives that diligently manage the public purse and reject the proposed goods and services tax".
They will hold a rally this Saturday on the Hill.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Madam Speaker, I, too, have in my hands a petition signed by
scores of Manitobans, including many from the riding of Winnipeg St. James. This petition in effect excoriates the goods and services tax. It lists a number of reasons showing just how pernicious this tax is.
The petitioners ask Parliament, once again, and particularly the government, to withdraw the tax because it will not be in the best interest of the Canadian economy.
I am aware of the rules, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate your umbrage, so I will not tell anyone that there is a rally this Saturday at noon.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, with a petition signed by a number of people from the Ottawa area.
These people see the goods and services tax that is making its way through the legislative process as the last straw in a series of tax measures that has made the tax system increasingly unfair. They call on the government to withdraw that measure and introduce fairness to the tax system. They, too, plan to be at the rally on Saturday that is not being mentioned with respect to these petitions.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, I, too, am pleased to stand here this morning, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by many Canadians who are opposed to the GST.
These petitions have been circulated by citizens who are calling on taxpayers to join them at a rally on Parliament Hill on Saturday, May 12.1 would personally like to invite the people of Nepean, my city, who are opposed to this tax to join me on Parliament Hill at noon this Saturday to demonstrate our opposition to the GST.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to present petitions signed by Canadians who oppose the goods and services tax.
These petitions were circulated by people who ask taxpayers to join them for a rally on Parliament Hill at noon on Saturday, May 12 to show that Canadians are opposed to the government's proposed goods and services tax.
May 10, 1990


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present some petitions today. One relates to the goods and services tax.
The people of the country again petition the government opposite to come to its senses and withdraw this goods and services tax before it causes some harm to the economy of Canada. Again, they ask that we participate in the rally on Saturday at noon.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I also have petitions from veterans in my riding of Kenora-Rainy River who ask the government not to impose the added costs for home care services for veterans, thereby substantially increasing costs of longterm care.
These ladies and gentlemen, who are veterans of the wars in which Canada took part, ask the government not to put this burden on them. They feel they have paid their dues and that it is time for Canada to pay them back.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the Chair to rule favourably on my request for an emergency debate concerning the farm crisis, particularly in my own province of Saskatchewan.
I recognize that several of my colleagues in the last few of days have made the same request of the Chair. They have very eloquently and forcefully put forward the position of the farmers who are faced with decreases in
Routine Proceedings
the initial grain prices. Interest rates have increased and various other costs such as transportation costs have risen. There is a real crisis facing farmers today.
There is a new factor that has occurred in the last 24 hours. The Minister of Agriculture and the Premier of Saskatchewan have met. They reported, smiling, when they left the meeting, how happy they were that they had had successful discussions and so forth. Yet, no announcement is planned to be made.
The farmers in my home district and in the province of Saskatchewan in general need to know right away what the situation will be. They have to make decisions yesterday, today, and tomorrow on what their future will be.
Therefore, I ask the Chair to call upon Parliament to debate this issue, to stop this phoney war between the federal and provincial government, and to act so that my constituents and other farmers in Saskatchewan will be able to make their living and put the seed in the ground this year.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to thank the hon. member for his very eloquent plea.
We have studied this request very carefully and still feel that at this time it would not be appropriate to grant this request for an emergency debate. Maybe at some later date.
*
*
Translation]



ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
May 10, 1990 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Gerard V. J. La Forest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, May 10, 1990, at 3.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General

May 10, 1990
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Daniel Nault: That this House condemn the government for its lack of
commitment to northern Canada and for its failure to treat
northerners fairly and equitably as demonstrated by:
(1)	its lack of commitment to economic diversification;
(2)	deserting northern Ontario by slashing VIA Rail services;
(3)	abandoning all northerners with its regressive unemployment insurance legislation;
(4)	planning the cancellation of the northern residents deduction for isolated areas;
(5)	imposing a 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber;
(6)	cancelling the mining depletion allowance and flow-through share benefits for mining exploration;
(7)	imposing a goods and services tax; and
(8)	failing to implement adequate adjustment programs for single industry towns.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I have two matters. As a result of discussions among the parties I believe there is a disposition on the part of the House to continue to sit through the lunch hour today from 1 p.m. until 2 p.m. I believe that that would be accomplished by unanimous consent at this time rather than by a motion for extension of hours. 1 would ask for that concurrence now.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, in light of the co-operation demonstrated in this House yesterday when we were able to do a similar thing to expedite government business, we are more than happy to co-operate, with the assurance, of course, that there would be no dilatory motions, quorum calls, or other disruptive procedures.


Mr. Angus:: Madam Speaker, there has been consultation and we are quite prepared to support the proposal.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I may say that of course there will not be a quorum call by the opposition on an opposition day. It is the government that normally does that. They forget that opposition days are in fact on government business.
The other matter I wanted to raise concerns the length of speeches. We have a number of members who are interested in debating this motion today. Rather than have 20-minute speeches on our side, we would request that each of the speakers on our side be limited to 10 minutes with five minutes for questions and comments. That will apply throughout the day. If members of the other parties wish to do the same we have no problem with it but I am simply indicating our intentions and asking for the consent of the House to proceed in that fashion.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I have no problem with the Liberal party splitting their time. I believe that our speakers will take their full 20 minutes, but perhaps as in the past, we could indicate at the beginning of our speeches the length of time we are going to take. I do not think there will be any problem that way.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, of course we will co-operate with the Liberal request to split the time. We have no problem with that at all. We may well look at it ourselves later in the day but certainly our lead speaker will want to take the full time. We will indicate our intention to the Chair and the House at a later time during the day.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I see that there is unanimous consent. The Chair is of the understanding that speeches of Liberal party members would all be 10-minutes. With other parties, I would appreciate being told the length of each speech as it would allow me to make things easier for the different speakers by telling them when there is a minute or two left, and allowing them to complete their interventions.
I will now recognize the hon. member for Kenora- Rainy River.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to discuss business that relates to northern Canada. It is a topic that is very dear to my heart. Not too long ago on a supply day, we on this side of the House debated the regional development programs and the effect the lack of those programs has had on northern Ontario and northern Canada and also the parts of Canada not considered to be in the mainstream of Canadian society.
May 10, 1990

I would like to talk today about the problems created by the government in northern Canada and specifically northern Ontario, which I know the best. As is said in the motion in front of us, there are many issues created by government that have affected northern Canada and northern Ontario.
I do not want to re-read the motion because I think it speaks for itself. It concerns the reduction in unemployment insurance, the cuts to VIA Rail to the mainline that ran through northern Ontario, the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber and the cancellation of the mining depletion allowances which has basically made the flow-through share mechanism useless. Finally, and possibly most severe to us, will be the imposition of the goods and services tax in the near future. These issues have been debated in the House already so I would like to talk about a few other issues in the time allotted to me.
There are two issues that we have not talked about, but I have had correspondence with ministers opposite trying to rectify them because of their direct effect to northerners and specifically, to single industry towns. One of those issues is Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. For those who are not familiar with this particular corporation, it has a mandate to help Canadians receive affordable housing.
CMHC has a policy concerning high-risk communities which relates specifically to mining communities in northern Ontario. Not too long ago I wrote the Minister of Housing to tell him of the particular problems this policy is creating in communities like Pickle Lake, Ignace and more than likely in the future, Red Lake and Golden. This policy does is not allow individuals in these communities, when a mine is in the process of being closed, to purchase a home without guarantees from the mine itself. There are a few problems with this. Because of northern Ontario's need to diversify its economy, it has gone to great lengths, with help from the government, to put in programs to entice businesses to move to these communities where these mines are in the process of shutting down. We come to the problem, Madam Speaker.
I have a letter from the community of Ignace and it concerns its housing shortage. Can you imagine a com-
Supply
munity sending a letter to its member of Parliament and to CMHC telling us that they have a housing shortage when, at the same time, they are telling us that a large mine is shutting down. All the houses that were built by the mine are for sale. It does not sound possible but it is a fact.
I would like like to read a few lines from this letter which outlines the situation. Ignace has a housing shortage and the letter goes on to say:
Due to industry shifts, there is a local demand for housing. The Mine has stabilized operations at 236 employees and requires all of its available housing to attract skilled personnel for the continued operation of Lyon Lake. With the closure of Camp 418 of Canadian Pacific Forest Products, between 20 and 30 employees will be looking to relocate to Ignace. Furthermore, Original Log Cabins is scheduling a spring move from Pine River, Manitoba to Ignace and will need accommodation for approximately 10 employees-
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation General Policy on Underwriting for Ignace is destroying our potential to stabilize our economy and ultimately compromises CMHC investments made. Stable sectors within the Ignace economy are unable to secure new employees because housing is not available. This policy is encouraging Noranda and the township to walk away from housing opportunities and cease proactive economic development activities until such time as Lyon Lake closes and all the homes can be dumped on the market.
It goes on and on.
I brought this situation to the attention of the Minister of Housing not too long ago. I would like to read part of what the minister said in response. The crux of the letter, that goes on and on is this: "CMHC officials will continue to monitor the economic situation of Ignace on a regular basis to ensure that this policy does not create any hardship in the community."
I find this totally unacceptable. That is the reason why these supply days are so very important to members on this side of the House. We have particular programs and situations implemented by the Government of Canada that have affected the regions we represent. We bring them to the attention of the government and the answer is simply: "There is nothing wrong."
Let us consider the mining communities. We know that once a mine is opened eventually it will be shut. Communities are now getting more involved in trying to diversify their economies before the mine shuts down completely. As is known in mining communities, there is a cutback of employees before the magic day takes place.

May 10, 1990
Supply
Here we have a community that is working as hard as it possibly can to diversify its industry, and what do we hear from the government? It states that the policy is perfectly acceptable. Wait until the mine shuts down, and it will simply dump homes on the market. Basically, it will put the housing and real estate market right down to the lowest level where it possibly can be, and in essence, it will probably put that community and those individuals in a bankrupt position. That is totally unacceptable.
At this time, I would also like to talk a little bit about another situation that I brought to the attention of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I see that the new minister is here, which is good but even though this does not relate to him I hope he will take this very seriously.
In northern Ontario, we have many isolated reserves. The minister is very well aware of that. Not too long ago, we wrote and simply said that we must diversify the economies of those communities. In my riding, there are roughly 10,000 individuals who are isolated and have no access by road to the outside world. What takes place in those communities is that everything is flown in, except in a few key areas which have winter roads which are run on ice and very difficult to maintain.
I have written to the minister on numerous occasions and stated that I thought it was a great waste of the taxpayers' dollars to continue in the long term to fly equipment and material north to the different communities. I said that it would be to the benefit of Canada, the taxpayers and the communities themselves to look at getting involved in road building for these communities, whether they are winter roads or permanent roads.
The minister's answer is simply that government policy states that the only time they build a winter road for these reserves is when they put in funds for these roads when they have a capital project under way. I say to the minister and to Canadians who are listening that in the long run that particular policy is costing us a lot of money. If we were to look at the road system and its effects, we would see that in the long run it would be to the benefit of all taxpayers.
I see that my time is almost up. I say to the minister and the government that we have to look at these problems seriously and the effects they will have on northern Ontario and northern Canada. Because it
comes from opposition members, the government cannot just not accept them. It must look at them a little more seriously. I hope that the government will look at these two problems I have mentioned today because they are very legitimate and important concerns that we have.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As hon. members know, I do not like to interrupt and cut an hon. member off in the middle of a sentence. If members want to split the time, they should be a little more careful because when I give the sign for one minute or two minutes, then the time is over. I would appreciate it and it would be fair for everyone.
Questions or comments, the hon. member for Algoma.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River on his speech today. He really got down to some of the specific problems that face his riding. As critic for Indian affairs and aboriginal peoples, he has been especially concerned with the problems of housing and the maintenance of reserves.
I would ask the member to comment briefly on one item in the motion before the House today that concerns the export tax on softwood lumber. There has been a general problem in northern Ontario since the imposition of the export tax on softwood lumber. That industry has become very run down.
About the same time or very shortly after the tax was imposed, the Canadian dollar rose from 73 cents or 74 cents to about 85 cents, which really imposed a second tax of 15 per cent. At the same time, regulations were brought into play which disadvantaged northern Ontario with regard to competition with British Columbia for softwood lumber sales in the United States. I know that in northeastern Ontario the combination of these three factors have had a devastating impact on that whole industry which provides a lot of employment.
It has forced a number of companies to sell out to other companies which do not necessarily have the same social and community concerns as the smaller operators had. I thought it would be useful to hear from the member about the impact on northwestern Ontario because both areas of northern Ontario are very dependent on resource industries, especially mining and forestry. I would like to know the kinds of problems faced in
May 10, 1990

northwestern Ontario with the imposition of the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber several years ago.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that you are trying to keep us on time with our 10 minutes. I know it is always difficult to bring forward the many problems that we all have in that short time.
I thank my colleague for the question as it relates to the export tax on softwood lumber. That particular tax has created many problems for northern Ontario. Specifically, in my riding it has caused two sawmills to shut down and a third to scale down its production considerably. These are problems, as I related in my opening remarks, that will occur when we, as northerners, are given a particular policy of the government to follow, and then as members of Parliament have to try to live with that.
We have asked the government about this on numerous occasions and have been told by the Minister of Forestry that he tried to get into a negotiation type mode with the United States to look at changing this 15 per cent export tax because of the changes in the dollar and the situation that created.
Once the goods and services tax comes into effect and that 7 per cent tax is tacked on to the 15 per cent export tax, even more problems will be created because it is a long way to ship those goods to market. If that continues, we will price ourselves right out of the market.
I say to the government to be very careful when it puts those types of programs in place because of the types of situations that will occur. They will definitely affect us. To add insult to injury, there are the cuts to UI. Because of the effects of cuts in the industry, we again have to look for unemployment because there is nowhere else to work. I suggest the government has to look at all these in one context.
Supply


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this motion before us today. Although it deals with all northern areas of Canada, it is of special concern and interest to those of us from northern Ontario. It covers the whole range of perceived problems we face because of government changes, both in the economy of northern Ontario and in government policy, this past couple of years.
The removal of VIA Rail service in northern Ontario, which we believe will be completely wiped out within the next couple of years, is especially distressing to communities dependent on rail service.
The tightening of the UI program is difficult for those industries that operate on a seasonal basis. The loss of the northern residents deduction for income tax purposes will be a real blow to those communities, not in the area I represent, but in the far north. We have discussed the 15 per cent export tax and the loss of the mine depletion allowance as listed here. This is a very important item.
I want to speak primarily to that item today because of the problem we face in the communities of Elliot Lake, Blind River and the north shore area of the Algoma District. During the past three months we have had the announcement that some 2,000 miners will be laid off in the next 12 months in the town of Elliot Lake with a population of 16,000, and another 5,000 in the area along the north shore, including Blind River. That is a tremendous blow. I want to deal with some of the details surrounding this lay-off and with the loss of the earned depletion allowance and flow-through shares.
The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources says that if we are going to have mines coming on stream in the next 10 or 12 years, whether it is in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec or other parts of our country such as Yukon or the Northwest Territories, we have to invest money now in exploration and development.
The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources says that we should be investing something like $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion a year now. It is not that every dollar will be successful in that regard, but if you are going to have mines coming on stream in 10 or 12 years time, you have to make the investment now. Unfortunately, in the last two or three years we have lost those major programs. We lost CEIP in the last budget. We lost the flowthrough shares and mine depletion allowance arrangements along with capital gain arrangements in the last two or three years. The result is that the amount of exploration and development dollars being spent in this industry next year will be of the order of $400 million.

May 10, 1990
Supply
That is being spent by Inco, Falconbridge and the senior mines. That means we are going to have about one-third the number of dollars being spent which our own Department of Energy, Mines and Resources say is necessary. This is extremely bad news for northern Ontario because we know that down the road, at the turn of the century, there simply will not be those new mines coming on stream. The dollars are not being spent now and under the present regime will not be spent in the years ahead. It is extremely bad news. It has to be changed. We have depended for the last five or six years on the junior mining companies, traded mostly on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, to provide the $800 million or $900 million exploration and development dollars.
The Minister of Finance has given the commitment to the Prospectors and Developers Association that he will review this matter. I know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, if he believes his department, will want to see that happen. It is terribly urgent in the long run.
I want to talk briefly about the challenge facing us in communities like Elliot Lake, Blind River and the north shore area. Our challenge over the next 12 months and the next few years is to try to make those adjustments to maintain the viability of these communities. A lot of responsibility will fall both to the federal government and provincial governments.
The mining companies have a responsibility as well to assist in developing procedures and activities to assist their employees. I believe they have a responsibility for lump sum funds to assist mining communities in these massive capital expenditures for municipal infrastructure. I believe that should be done. A great deal of responsibility will lie with the federal, provincial and municipal governments to the extent that they are capable of doing that.
Clearly, we need money immediately for manpower mobility and job search. We face the loss of 450 jobs by August. We hope the additional loss of another 1,600 jobs will not take place until a year from now, in April or May of 1991. In fact, it may take place in August or September of this year. If that happens then the amount of money needed will be several times that being sought now by the Community Futures group.
There is a need for money for manpower mobility, job search and retraining programs. We have requested the Department of Transport and the Minister of Transport to develop and improve airport facilities. That is one alternative for the creation of employment. The idea of itinerant mining service, such as used in Rabbit Lake and Saskatoon in Saskatchewan, could be used in communities in northeastern Ontario such as Detour-du-Lac and other communities where new mines will be coming onstream.
I believe programs like the FedNor program are very beneficial in creating small expansions or development of new industry. That program is simply not adequate to deal with the massive restructuring which will have to take place in communities facing massive lay-offs. Much of this is in areas of provincial jurisdiction, so it is very important that we develop them and have programs such as ERDA and economic and regional development agreements where two levels of government can combine to put forward major industrial adjustments.
We did this a few years ago in the forest products industry where we had to restructure it to bring it up to proper environmental standards in order to create the productivity and ability to compete. That is the kind of massive industrial adjustment program we need.
I simply call on the government to be extremely co-operative and to take its responsibility seriously during the next 12 months and in the years ahead to provide industrial adjustment programs and capital intensive assistance mechanisms to ensure that communities like Elliot Lake, which are facing the loss of something like one-half to two-thirds of their labour force, can make that adjustment and continue to be viable communities, even if slightly smaller, so that their community life will continue and families will survive.
Mir. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre): Madam Speaker, I had the honour to be in parts of northern Ontario with my colleague from Nepean on a task force that looked into infrastructures in the area. We will be reporting back to our caucus fairly soon on our findings.
One of the things that we noticed on the positive side is that northern Ontario is one of the most beautiful land masses in our country. It is one of the finest areas that
May 10, 1990

tourists can visit to look at the beauty of the rivers and lakes, as well as the mountains and valleys.
The unfortunate thing that we noticed is that there is absolutely no way that you can get to certain parts of northern Ontario because of the lack of roads, as the hon. member just mentioned.
What also astonished us was the fact that in many of those areas there are no sewage facilities. People still have to use huts.
We were informed while we were there by the mayors and reeves in the area that large numbers of youth, once they finish high school or primary level, are moving down to major cities like Toronto, Ottawa or other areas to finish their graduate studies and not returning to their homes. We are seeing a depletion in terms of the human resources that exist there.
One could suggest that this is an excellent opportunity for the government to move in and provide northerners with the tools they need, that is access to main roads. I cannot see anything wrong with the request that the government move and move fairly quickly on this issue. I would like to commend hon. members for their comments.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Ottawa Centre for his comments. One of the thrusts of municipalities in this area is the creation and improvement of transportation facilities. I have already mentioned the improvement and the requests that we have in for navigation aids to the Minister of Transport. It is urgent and important that he make a decision on that very soon.
The second area relates to road infrastructure. In the next four or five years we expect that a decision will be made by Ontario Hydro to build an electrical generating plant in the area of Dean Lake, just west of Blind River, which will involve the expenditure of some $8 billion or $10 billion over a 10-year period for an electrical generating centre.
One of the things which will be needed is a better road, transportation facilities, to that centre to accommodate workers coming from Elliot Lake and Blind River-the whole north shore area. One cannot bring in
3,000	or 4,000 construction workers and all the required infrastructure without having good transportation units
Supply
and transportation corridors. At this time we have only the Trans-Canada Highway, which is a two-lane road that will not have the needed capacity.
Co-operation between the two senior levels of government in transportation might be part of a major ERDA agreement.
The second area mentioned by the hon. member was the provision of municipal infrastructure. If we lose one-half or two-thirds of our labour force in Elliot Lake in the mining industry, which is a primary employment area, we will lose it in the area of secondary jobs as well, not to mention the service area. I think the mining companies have a responsibility to assist in the large financial obligations that the municipalities take on for municipal infrastructure for sewer and water when a mining company shuts down its operation and moves out. It seems to me it has a responsibility to provide some of the lump sum assistance in those circumstances so that the remaining population is not left with that financial obligation.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River for presenting a motion to the House today which allows many of us, members of government and opposition, to discuss issues of concern to the north and not just to bemoan some of the problems, as they have been described, but also to talk about the tremendous positive progress that Progressive Conservative government has been making in the north since we first took office in 1984.
In fact this progress reflects a legacy of commitment to northern Canada which goes right back to the earliest times of Confederation, but it was certainly reflected in the policies of the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker as Prime Minister of Canada who pioneered the roads to resources concept together with the former hon. member from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain who was the minister responsible in those days and who, I might add, had as his parliamentary assistant as he travelled the north the present Prime Minister of Canada.
There is a legacy here of a sustained commitment to northern Canada by successive Progressive Conservative governments because we have always held a vision for the future of the north. That vision sees the north as a place where Canadians, those who live in the north

May 10, 1990
Supply
whether indigenous or non-indigenous, can find their future.
Other governments over the years have had the Ottawa attitude toward the north as a place to be exploited by southerners to add to the tax revenue base of the federal government, but that certainly has not been the approach that successive Progressive Conservative governments have taken.
That is why I am honoured to participate in this debate as the minister responsible not only for the needs of our Inuit and Indian people but also of all northerners, especially in the areas north of 60.
I point out that other members on the governments side, parliamentary secretaries and my colleague, the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, will be participating in this debate. In contrast to some of the negative aspects of the motion before the House, we will be putting forward very forcefully the strong, positive record of this government in dealing with the problems of northern people.
I heard, for example, the hon. member for Algoma indicate that the motion referred to a whole range of perceived problems. I recognize that it is the role of the opposition to talk about perceived problems, to criticize, but I think we would all welcome some positive, complimentary observations on the tremendous record that this government has achieved over the past several years.
Since my appointment several weeks ago to my present responsibilities I have been travelling extensively throughout northern Canada visiting many communities, listening to and speaking with northerners and indeed making some significant progress on a number of important northern issues which I wish to describe during my comments here today.
Since 1984 there has been a dramatic positive change north of 60. I am pleased to be able to continue to assist in facilitating additional beneficial improvements.
We are changing priorities. That is why this government is not so popular at the present time. We are doing things differently for the betterment of our children and the future of Canada. We are not afraid of criticism when we know that we are doing the right things, that we
are on the right track. We are replacing old, antiquated programs and initiatives which have not worked with new improved ways of doing things to the benefit of Canadians and in the present context to the benefit of northern Canadians.
I just want to give a few indications of the progress that has been made in the period since this government was elected. It is interesting to note that incomes north of 60 in the two territories have increased by 10 per cent in the period from 1985 to 1988 in the Northwest Territories and by 30 per cent in Yukon. More significant, the Gross Domestic Product of the Northwest Territories has increased by 31 per cent over the period between 1984 and 1988. In Yukon the Gross Domestic Product has increased by 73 per cent.
These are significant indices of improvement in the Gross Domestic Product of northern communities. At a time when the economy in total has not grown nearly as rapidly we have seen a significant improvement in the economic output of those northern regions.
To reinforce those statistics, I want to point out that the commitment of the federal government since 1984 to providing assistance by way of transfer payments to the northern territorial governments has virtually doubled. When we came to office the commitment was something less than $500 million annually. It is now approaching $1 billion annually. That is a 100 per cent increase in the commitment that this government makes to the needs of northern people.
That has been reflected in a virtual doubling of the per capita assistance the federal government is rendering to the people of the north. It is being targeted, in particular, to certain areas of special need, as the mining and forestry industries change, as environmental issues take on a greater significance, and as comprehensive land claims are settled with finality for all time.
For the past three years our government's policies and programs for the north have been shaped and guided by what is called "the northern political and economic framework". It was my predecessor, now the Minister of National Defence, who took this new policy framework to cabinet, had it approved and announced it in 1987, in
May 10, 1990

order to create a consistency and a continuity to all our efforts in northern Canada, in order to develop the north more effectively in a sound and orderly fashion.
This northern political and economic framework has four main elements. The first is to continue the transfer of programs and responsibilities to the territorial governments.
The second is to settle once and for all a piece of unfinished business, that is, the comprehensive claims of northern Indian and Inuit people.
Third, this program is designed to facilitate environmentally sustainable economic development in our north by encouraging the diversification and the strengthening of northern economies.
Finally, this policy framework reinforces Canada's ability to administer effectively Arctic lands and waters, all of which adds to the strengthening of Canada's sovereignty in the north.
These are our strategic priorities for northern Canada. I am happy today to be able to report more specifically on substantial progress we have been making on a number of these fronts.
In just the past few weeks Canadians have witnessed the conclusion of final agreements with the Council of Yukon Indians and the Dene-Metis of the Western Arctic.
Just a week ago I was proud to be present in Igoolik in the eastern Arctic when we signed the agreement in principle with the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut, an agreement with the Inuit people long forgotten in terms of our obligation as a nation toward their needs, and now reflected in the signing of this important agreement in principle which will lead to a final agreement within 18 months of great benefit to the some 18,000 Inuit people of the eastern Arctic.
In the conclusion and signing of the agreement with the Council of Yukon Indians, which conveyed to the Yukon Indian people some $248 million in the form of cash settlement and 41,000 square kilometres of land in exchange for their giving up of their claims and stated rights to the balance of the Yukon Territory, we have seen the ability to bring certainty and predictability to the planning and development of the northern economic and social needs of Yukoners, both native and non-native.
That is why on April 1, on Parliament Hill, there was a great celebration upon the signing of this final agreement. The thing that I wanted to comment on is the
Supply
happiness, the joy, the sense of peace and positive optimism that accompanied the conclusion of that important agreement. After many years of negotiations, of aspiration by the Yukon Indians stretching back to 1905, this government did the right thing. We finished a piece of unfinished business which will be of tremendous benefit to that important western part of the Canadian north.
Three weeks ago we did the same thing in Yellowknife by concluding a final agreement which must now be ratified over the next few months by the Dene-Metis people. It is an agreement which involves a compensation fund of $500 million to the Dene-Metis people of the Mackenzie Valley and the western Arctic, and a
181,000	square kilometre granting of land title to the Dene-Metis people in exchange for their commitment and generosity to Canada in enabling us to complete this historic agreement.
All told, these significant agreements in northern Canada represent the final recognition of the fact that our indigenous people were here and occupied these northern lands long before the European settlers, the whalers and sailors and those who came to these shores to populate and occupy the land that we now know as Canada.
This unfinished business has been concluded by this government, bringing possible potential prosperity, stability and a very strong voice and role for northern indigenous peoples in the important political and administrative decisions to be made as we pursue orderly development of these northern parts of Canada.
That is why at all these occasions when I have met with the chiefs, elders and leaders of these communities, there has been a great sense of relief, elation and hopeful positive expectation-genuine joy-which I sensed on the part of northern people. This government and I in particular are proud to have done these fellow Canadians great justice.
These agreements in total represent a settlement amount of some $1.3 billion and the confirmation of land ownership to the Dene and Metis Indian and Inuit peoples of the north of an area almost equal to the total area of the country of France. They involve management understandings in regard to economic development in the areas of energy, forestry, mining, indigenous enterprises such as trapping, hunting and fishing, in business development, transportation and tourism promotion.

May 10, 1990
Supply
These agreements therefore all bode well for the future strength and security of northern peoples.
Since 1984, our government has also been committed to the steady transfer of provincial-type responsibilities to both Yukon and Northwest territorial governments. Our policy has been to pursue this goal, working in close co-operation with the territorial governments and at a pace with which they feel comfortable while ensuring that we continue to deliver programs in a manner fully commensurate with our existing and traditional responsibilities.
A general memorandum of understanding to guide the transfer of these programs was worked out with the government of Yukon in 1988. We expect to reach a similar understanding soon with the Northwest Territories, hopefully within the present fiscal year.
I and many of my colleagues in the federal Cabinet, including many former ministers of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, travel regularly to the northern territorial governments to meet with their leadership. In fact we continue to work in our respective jurisdictions on the orderly devolution of responsibility so that the northern territories are developing the capacity to manage their responsibilities in a sense of the full meaning of provincial status.
Good progress has been made in transferring intraterritorial highways. In fact only this week we have announced with finality the conclusion of an agreement wherein the government of the Northwest Territories will manage highways within the Northwest Territories.
I myself in my former capacity as Minister of Fisheries concluded an agreement to devolve freshwater fisheries to the Government of Yukon.
A number of other transfers are already in place and further will be negotiated and completed during the year ahead.
These will include withdrawal of my department from the land titles field in both territories and transfer of the freshwater fisheries to the Northwest Territories government. Together with Transport Canada we have recently transferred responsibility for class B and C airports in
Yukon, and we expect to make a similar transfer this year to the Northwest Territorial government.
We also are negotiating health care transfers, especially in the Yukon at the present time. We hope to revive very soon negotiations toward an agreement in principle for the transfer of forestry management responsibilities to the Government of Yukon.
All these changes that have taken place in northern Canada in the past few years have been of positive benefit. None has been more significant than the rapid political devolution of provincial-like, province-like government authorities north of 60. My department will continue to lead this process of political devolution toward the day when both territories will have the full powers and authorities comparable to those of provinces to the south.
Broadening and strengthening the economic base of our northern territories is a major challenge facing northerners, northern governments and the federal government. We are looking for improved ways to develop stable, sustainable industries that can supplement and complement the non-renewable resource industry sector.
For the past several years the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has co-operated with the territories through a series of economic development agreements and sub-agreements. Our Northern Affairs Program is the regional economic development agency for northern Canada, in some ways comparable to the Western Economic Diversification Program and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, both of which were established by this government.
Our economic development agreement with Yukon expired last year, but we are extending funding in the present year. We will be renegotiating both with Yukon and the Northwest Territories a set of new economic development agreements when the Northwest Territories' agreements expire at the end of the present fiscal year.
Future economic development programming in the north will focus on priority areas for northern people, areas such as mineral development, environmental industries, arts and crafts, tourism and community planning. The development and the assistance that we can lend will concentrate as well on remote and underdevel-
May 10, 1990

oped communities and on sustainable development opportunities relating to the northern environment.
On an international level, the recent signing of the Canada-U.S.S.R. agreement on co-operation in the Arctic represents an historic step forward in co-operation with the vast Soviet territory on the other side of Arctic pole. This agreement as you know, Madam Speaker, was signed when the Prime Minister was present in Leningrad during the month of November. It has opened a new era in Canada-Soviet Arctic collaboration. It represents a major step forward in circumpolar collaboration. I look forward to serving as a joint chairman of the Canada-U.S.S.R. mixed commission as we implement the provisions of this agreement.
In the same vein, this government committed itself to the creation of the Canadian Polar Commission which will deal with the economic and social needs of indigenous people and all northern people. We will be bringing forward the legislation creating the Canadian Polar Commission, hopefully later this year for approval and support.
We are also taking the lead in my department for developing an Arctic environmental strategy. Important consultations jointly with the Minister of the Environment and other ministers are taking place throughout Canada as part of the public discussion of "The Green Plan" of my colleague, the Minister of the Environment. Meetings will be held during the month of June with ministers present in the northern communities of Canada from Whitehorse on the west to Iqaluit in the eastern Arctic.
I think it is unfortunate that the motion put forward by my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River is in a negative vein. There are many, many positive successes, achievements of this government, of all ministers working together in the spirit of previous Progressive Conservative governments and the vision of our leaders to bring true economic and social benefit, the same equality of opportunity and the quality of life to northern people that most of us enjoy here in the southern regions of Canada.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and the hon. member for giving us an opportunity to debate these very important
Supply
questions. I am sure hon. members will be looking forward to many other positive interventions as the day unfolds from my colleagues who do, indeed, speak positively about the tremendous bright future which faces northern Canadians under Progressive Conservative government.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on the agreement which has been struck concerning native land claims in parts of the far north.
I want to ask him more specifically about the land claim for the Manitoulin Island United Chiefs and Councillors land claim. On February 2 of this year an agreement was reached with First Nations of Manitoulin Island and the Ontario Government involving some 36,400 hectares of land and payment in value of $8.9 million in land claim.
During those difficult negotiations, which really reached a peak because of a court challenge by the First Nations of Manitoulin against the Province of Ontario, the federal government essentially took a position of observer status at those hearings. Yet there is a claim by the United Chiefs and Councillors, the First Nations of Manitoulin, against the federal government for the loss of the use of those lands for 128 years since the original treaties were signed in 1862.
In view of the progress that has been made on those land claims which involved right-of-way and unsold surrendered lands and so on, will the federal government's policy be similar to the agreement which was reached with the Dene and other groups in the Northwest Territories and Yukon? I am sure that eventually the federal government will end up in court with a claim by the First Nations of Manitoulin. Rather than go through all that litigation, which as sure as night follows day will occur, are the federal government and the minister willing to sit down and do the negotiations for the loss of the use of those 36,400 hectares of land during the last 128 years rather than go through the court challenge first and then be dragged kicking and screaming to the negotiation table?
Would the minister give us the general approach that he and the department would take in this specific claim for the loss of these lands over a century of time?

May 10, 1990
Supply


Thomas Edward Siddon: I thank the hon. member for Algoma for this question, which I know is extremely important to a group of his constituents, the First Nations of Manitou-lin Island.
In recent days, I have received some preliminary briefing on the status of this specific claim. I am not in a position to discuss details of any specific claim in the House. I can assure the hon. member that, in accordance with our policy on the negotiation of comprehensive and specific claims, all legal and historical factors bearing upon the federal government's position and, in this case, suggested obligation, will be examined thoroughly. We cannot resolve individual specific claims in isolation of a number factors relating to our comprehensive claims policy and the legal provisions of treaties and the extent to which they may or may not have been breached.
I certainly cannot indicate that I would personally intervene and do anything which bore a particular parallel to the comprehensive agreements which we have achieved in recent weeks, but I certainly will look seriously at the status of this claim on behalf of the hon. member for Algoma.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Through you, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech. It gives me an opportunity ask him questions that I otherwise would not have been able to.
I found the minister's speech very interesting in that he talked about much relief and elation over many of the progressive things that are happening. There are, however, some indications about the downside of northern development. Being the international year of literacy, from a Southam report and other indications, we know there is a rate of approximately 40 per cent illiteracy in the north. We have a very high drop-out rate in our schools. We also have a very high incidence of unemployment, in some areas almost as high as 90 per cent, because there are no economic development opportunities.
The minister also went on to speak about the land claims agreement signed with the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I have some very specific questions about that process.
Why did the federal government not change the comprehensive land claims policy to allow the negotiation of self-government at the same time as the negotiation of the land claims? That is a very big question for those two areas. In relation to that, does the minister believe that the inherent right to self-government should be entrenched in the Constitution?
Were there any taxation provisions made within the land claims agreement for corporations that will be developed and also for treaty Indians?
The minister also talked about a transfer of programs. It has been the experience that the transfer of programs has been severely hampered by the fact that the present level of funding for these programs is not perceived to be the same level that will be carried over along with the responsibility for those particular programs. I refer, particularly, to highways and airports.
In the Territories we have a severe problem with the standard of airport and airline safety, because we have communities that have airports that are essentially muskeg with gravel on it. That is not safe and it is not acceptable anywhere else in Canada. We rely almost solely on air transportation.
I would also like to know about the Polar Commission and his involvement in it. I know that the minister is the joint chairman of the Canada-USSR committee. Is the Polar Commission going to be a real Polar Commission? Is it going to be located in the Polar region? Is it going to be administered by Polar peoples? Is it going to be in an area that is a Polar region, or is it going to be in a central Canadian location like Ottawa or Quebec?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Western Arctic has a number of questions on her mind. Those questions are posed, I believe, in the context of general support for the initiatives that the government is taking in the western Arctic and in northern Canada.
Although the hon. member has not said so in the House, I believe that she is pleased with the conclusion of this historic agreement with the Dene-Metis people of the western Arctic. I certainly was led to believe by the hon. member that she did support the conclusion of this agreement.
May 10, 1990

There are many unanswered questions. I am not able in the time permitted me here today to answer those questions. I will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs next week. Other members and ministers, including my colleague, the Minister of State, will be here this afternoon and could perhaps elaborate on some of these questions.
Let me for a moment comment on this question of entrenching self-government. The comprehensive claims policy does not provide for the constitutional entrenchment of institutions of self-governments, because there has not yet been a constitutional consensus on that question at a constitutional conference attended by the premiers of the 10 provinces and the Prime Minister. With the successful conclusion of the Meech Lake Accord, which I trust the hon. member supports, we will be able to get on with dealing with those important constitutional questions, such as the definition for all time of aboriginal rights and not merely passing reference to aboriginal rights in the 1982 Constitution. It would be a true and serious discussion of the definition of entrenched self-government. Those are constitutional matters.
I am sure the hon. member and all members of the House want us to conclude this historic Meech Lake agreement with the Province of Quebec so that we can get on with making these important further steps of constitutional improvement on behalf of the aboriginal people of Canada.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate today. I compliment the member for Kenora- Rainy River for having given us this opportunity to discuss in the House issues and problems facing northern Canada. I would also like to say that I appreciated the comments of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Certainly, I do not want to give the impression that we live in a totally black and white world, and that there is not from time to time progress made on some fronts. However, the Minister drew attention to the fact that the government represents the tradition of the late John George Diefenbaker and his vision for northern Canada. I must say to him that I represent the constituency that the late John Diefenbaker represented and certainly the residents of that constituency do not feel that there is
Supply
the same type of commitment to northern development as this government's predecessors made so evident.
The minister dealt with some of the accomplishments of the government and the issues facing the Territories and the far northern regions of the country. But very often the areas that tend to be forgotten are the northern areas of the provinces. Very often, those are regions that are both out of sight and out of mind to both the provincial and federal governments. It is that type of region that I represent and that type of region that I would like to speak to in my remarks today.
Life has never been easy in many of these communities. They obviously face some of the most rigorous climates in the country. They have always suffered from isolation. There have often been boom-and-bust cycles going all the way back to the fur trade, then through the mining industry, the forestry industry, and the other industries that have grown up in the isolated areas of the country.
Very often these communities have felt, and rightly so, that they were victims of decisions made elsewhere, that the levers of power were not in their hands, and that, in fact, both politically and economically, they were very far from being able to control their own destiny, much more so than communities in southern Canada.
This whole phenomena of being left out of the decision-making process and the feeling of powerlessness has been accentuated and reinforced by the philosophy of the government, for which it makes no apologies. It is very much a bottom-line philosophy which says that big business can set the agenda for the country. Essentially, if something is in the interest of big business, if it serves the needs of the free flow of international capital, it is the government's job and responsibility essentially to get out of the way of any type of control over what happens to the big capital and the big dollar, and to leave the decisions affecting these communities to board-rooms-not necessarily even in the big metropolitan centres of our own country, but centres in the United States, Europe, Japan and other places.
Certainly, the free trade agreement moves us another step down that road. A whole shameful phenomenon of the government arguing that it needs to bring some fiscal sense to the country so that we do not perpetually pay such a high percentage of our tax dollar in interest charges is a legitimate argument. Nevertheless, the

May 10, 1990
Supply
government has repeatedly seen fit to make cuts to those who are the most vulnerable, who have the least ability to fight back, who are not going to be heard when the cuts happen them and whose protests often go ignored.
An example of this is the regional development programs. In western Canada, last year 16 agreements expired worth $310 million. This year another 10 regional development agreements expired worth $316 million. In Saskatchewan, alone, these agreements were worth $190 million.
The people of my constituency and I feel that in a particularly direct fashion because we have calculated that these agreements-the forestry agreement; the tourism agreement; the mineral development agreement; and the NEDSA agreement (the Northern Economic Development Subsidiary Agreement) in Saskatchewan-meant approximately 1,500 jobs every year in my constituency. This constituency has a very high unemployment rate and a rapidly growing labour force. Yet, this government has seen fit to go a whole year playing internal bureaucratic games trying to figure out who is responsible for regional development, be it sectoral ministers or regional development ministers. This constituency has been left high and dry for a whole year while 1,500 jobs were lost.
In the meantime, many valuable initiatives in forestry, tourism, and, particularly, community development in areas like the Clearwater region, northeast Saskatchewan, the La Ronge region and others, have been left to die on the vine. These were initiatives that people thought were going to continue.
We have seen huge cuts to the fur industry. We have seen cuts to the Native Communications Program. Missi-nipi Broadcasting, one of the prime vehicles of communication in northern Saskatchewan, had to go off the air for the whole month of April because of the budget cut that it experienced. The very valuable publications, Saskatchewan Indian and New Breed were also cut.
We have seen the whole gutting of the UI program. The UI program was never a particularly successful program in northern Canada for a number of reasons. First, it is very difficult to establish an unemployment rate through the mechanisms used by Statistics Canada.
Certainly, in the La Ronge region, which is the northern region of Saskatchewan, there is an official unemployment rate of 13 per cent to 15 per cent. That is hardly credible because the majority of those communities are experiencing unemployment rates of 50 per cent or 60 per cent, or even higher than that. Then we see an unemployment insurance program being brought in that is predicted by the government to cost this region of the country $4 million. However, by other estimates, it will cost $11 million in lost benefits, not taking into account the seasonal nature of employment. It will make it even more difficult for people to try to patch together a living from the different kinds of opportunities that come to them from time to time so they can remain living in their communities and take advantage of the opportunities that do offer themselves. The changes to the UI program are going to make that even more difficult.
The Northern Tax Benefit Program is now very much called into question by a task force which this government appointed. I might add, the task force was appointed before the election which raised people's expectations that all isolated communities that should be eligible for this program would be eligible for it. After the election, it recommended that of the 3,224 communities that were originally eligible for this particular benefit, only 423 be left eligible. In Saskatchewan, only 15 out of the 165 communities that were previously eligible for the northern tax benefit would remain eligible under these recommendations. This is totally unacceptable. Not only is the cost of living so much higher in these regions, as everybody knows, but it makes it even more difficult to develop a viable society, a society that has professionals, business people and people who are able to carry on the tasks that a modem economy in those regions requires.
We have seen cuts in the flow-through share program. In Flin Flon, Manitoba, there is a smelter that desperately needs upgrading to meet today's environmental standards, yet the financing for that smelter depends very much on new mineral deposits being found. The way those mineral deposits are going to be found is if the junior exploration companies, which are very dependent on these flow-through shares, are able to stay in business and continue their activities.
May 10, 1990

We have also seen the introduction of the goods and services tax. Again, we see this having a particularly negative impact on northern areas. In northern areas, the costs of many goods and services are sometimes as much as two or three times as high as in comparable southern communities, and incomes are certainly no higher. This will mean that the impact of the goods and services tax is felt by the region of the country which is least able to afford it. Given the high illiteracy rate and the fact that many people still rely on the traditional economy and are not registered under the income tax system, the tax credit, which the government claims is going to mitigate the impact of the goods and services tax, will not be available to many of these people.
We also see a desperate need for housing. Housing conditions in many communities are desperately overcrowded, contributing to family breakdown, to poor performance of children in schools, and to a sense that these communities are not able to enjoy the same standard of living and the same type of amenities that lead to a healthy and productive life.
What do we see from this government? On the one hand, we see a cut-back, and on the other hand, a study. Certainly, neither a cut-back nor a study will solve the problems of housing.
In closing, I would like to offer a few suggestions that I think the government should look at seriously. We need to look at the whole situation of northern development, not just in terms of business development, not just in terms of assisting business, but look at economic development as a whole. We need to take a comprehensive look at what it takes to develop a modem economy in the communities of northern Canada, with a focus on community development, some faith and assistance for the grassroots, and some assistance to build the kind of infrastructure that we need.
We need sectoral organizations that can organize the producers in the various renewable resource sectors. We need to require the banks to give some kind of banking service to the northern communities, because it is virtually impossible to run any kind of economy without access to a banking system. We also need a modern transportation and communications system.
Supply
We have to take our commitment to sustainable development seriously. If there is any one development that is going to assist the communities of northern Canada towards a brighter future, it is if southern Canadians and Canadians as a whole take the whole concept of sustainable development seriously. Two-thirds of the country lies within what is often referred to as northern Canada.
There should be community based monitoring of resources and the setting aside of 12 per cent of our land area, as the member for Skeena recommended, to make sure that we look after it. Not only will those areas be protected for the good of the ecosystem, but also so that people from around the world will see this as a place to visit and tourism will be enhanced. We should also make sure that we do not see continuing conflict between economic development and the environment.
All of these things depend very much on us taking sustainable development seriously and making sure that the communities in the north are an integral part of this development. It is their environment, after all, an environment many of them have lived in for thousands of years.
Without serious and significant movement towards native self-government and the settlement of native land claims, we are not going to see the type of development in northern Canada which all of us would want to see.
The largest growing sector of the population in this country is the native population and much of the native population of this country resides in northern communities.
The frustration is growing. Institutions need to develop to capitalize on the type of momentum and aspirations which have been developing in the native community over the last number of years, as well as the confidence that has been developing in their own institutions. Without a serious commitment to that whole evolution, the development of northern Canada is going nowhere.
The minister made reference to the fact that we need to pass the Meech Lake Agreement so that development toward self-government can occur. I would like to say to

May 10, 1990
Supply
the minister that the time is long overdue to recognize the whole thrust towards native self-government and the role of aboriginal people in this country.
Northerners have worked as hard as any Canadians to build this country. Northerners have the same hopes and aspirations for themselves and their communities as any other Canadians do. Northerners demand and deserve the same respect and sensitivity from their government as any Canadians do.
Therefore, I call on the government to see the world through the eyes of northerners, to stop letting its philosophy get in the way of what really needs doing in northern Canada, and help northerners make the contribution to the building of the Canada of the future that they want to make and which they can make.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague from Prince Albert-Churchill River that for some time, we have often heard members of his party speak in this House against flow-through shares because they claimed these shares were tax breaks or benefits for the wealthy and rich in society.
I well understand his interest in seeing an industry in his constituency develop, and mining exploration is important for that industry, but I am surprised to see him today ask the government to use tax incentives to encourage mining exploration and development when a while ago, he and some of his fellow members spoke against flow-through shares; they used opposition days to speak against them.
My other point, as a supplementary question, Madam Speaker, is to ask him to admit with me that in recent months, this government has made considerable efforts with the native peoples, the first nations, for self-government, and I would ask him to acknowledge that with me.


Raymond John Funk: I thank the member for his question. I was elected to this House in the fall of 1988. Therefore, I was not party to the debate with respect to flow-through shares before that time.
I do understand that this was an aspect of fiscal policy that my party did support in principle. Their opposition to particular aspects of it came with details of the
program that perhaps did permit tax advantages to accrue that in some cases may not have been warranted.
I would like to point out to the member, as perhaps he knows, that $3 billion of the $4.8 billion of mineral investment that occurred through the flow-through share program was spent by junior mining companies, not the major companies. Therefore, I think it is entirely consistent because these junior mining companies are the ones that create the most local employment and are very often headquartered in the northern communities rather than in the metropolitan areas of the country. Therefore, I do not think that it is an inconsistent position on the part of my party at all.
His second question dealt with the whole aspect of self-government and land claims. In my own constituency there are two outstanding claims. One that has been recognized is the claim by the Peter Ballantyne Band which is a huge land claim. The economic development of the whole northeast part of Saskatchewan depends very much on that claim being resolved.
Another land claim which has not been recognized but is being pressed by the La Ronge Indian Band has resulted in caveats being applied in the Candle Lake area of Saskatchewan. The band is using that mechanism to try and attract the attention of the government to something they have been pressing for for about 15 years. It has not got the attention of the government. Certainly it has the attention of the property holders in the region whose properties now have caveats attached to them. From the perspective of the Indian people of my constituency, they do not see movement toward self-government. They have not seen any kind of constitutional movement since the breakdown of the First Ministers' Conferences some years ago. If there is to be such a movement, certainly people would welcome it.
I would like to give credit to the appointment of a treaty commissioner in Saskatchewan. I do want to recognize that as something that has been welcome and I welcome it myself.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member for Prince AJbert-Churchill River talking about the need for co-operation between the two levels of government. It struck me that a lot of the agreements which took place in past years are ending up the same way as this year's whole fiasco on financial support to western farmers.
May 10, 1990

The government waited for three or four months after the demand by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the premier of the province for special funding, finally called in the provincial ministers and negotiated for a couple of days towards the end of March, getting very close to the start of the seeding period, and finally placed $500 million on the table but demanded that there be support from the provinces.
At the same time, the Minister of Finance brought in a budget which cut the transfer payments by $100 million or $200 million to these provinces, placing them in a financial position where they could not possibly match the federal government funding. One minister said: "Well, we really snookered those guys this time because they have not got the money to put up to match it". All the while, farmers are at a loss to get the funds that they need for seeding their crops this spring.
This morning, we see a headline in The Financial Post which states: "Prairie premiers won't match federal farm aid". It goes on to say that there is a common front by the western premiers. I wonder if the hon. member sees this as a technique to make the government look good, as it is attempting to do, while the provinces cannot possibly come up with their share of the money. All this time, the farmers are suffering. They do not have any money.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, certainly I can identify with the comments of the hon. member for Algoma. Not only do I represent northerners, but I represent farmers who are becoming very frustrated with this whole game of political arm wrestling that has been going on.
Indeed, I can also identify with the point he makes that the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces have a severe impact on northern areas of the country because those are under-serviced areas generally. Cuts in transfer payments means that the under-servicing will continue.
With respect to regional development programs, the government does not even look good. With respect to the farmers, the whole game perhaps is to make the government look good while, at the same time, not spending any money. This whole situation has to come to
Supply
a quick head because the small wonder is that the government is running 15 per cent in the public opinion polls. While this may make for good headlines and satisfy hon. members opposite in the House, the farm community and the northerners who are falling victim are not going to put up with this kind of thing much longer.
[Translation\


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Madam Speaker, I have some comments on the answer given by the hon. member who spoke for the New Democratic Party to the question asked by the Liberal member for Algoma concerning transfer payments and federal-provincial agreements that were steadily diminishing. I would also appreciate the hon. member's comments on the fact that from 1984 to 1988, the federal government, with the provinces, invested over $1.1 billion in forestry agreements, and that in 1988, after the election, the federal government renewed agreements with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and signed a Plan de I'Est with Quebec. Unlike the Liberals and the New Democrats, the federal government does not act unilaterally but prefers to negotiate with the provinces.
I may remind the hon. member, when he speaks about forestry and agriculture, that the provinces have at least as much responsibility as the federal government in this area and that the problems facing farmers can only be dealt with through co-operation, consultation and concrete funding.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Time for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Western Arctic.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I would very much like to take this opportunity to talk about a vibrant and enthusiastic part of Canada where we believe we can make a significant contribution to this great country, Canada.
Together, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories make up over one third of Canada. As you know, Madam Speaker, it is a land of startling beauty and diverse geography. Fewer than 80,000 people live in approxi-

May 10, 1990
Supply
mately 75 communities scattered over this vast part of Canada.
In the Northwest Territories, one third of the people are Dene and Metis, one third are Inuit and one third are non-native. All Dene and Metis communities are located inland along the major river and lake systems in the forested western portion of the territories. All Inuit communities are coastal, except for Baker Lake.
For thousands of years, native people in the Canadian Arctic lived a subsistence lifestyle depending upon fish and wildlife to provide food, clothing, tools and materials for shelter. As fur traders, miners and whalers moved north, life for native people began to change. Although adjustments to lifestyle continue, even today the primary foods for most northern Dene, Metis and Inuit families are still fish from the lakes, rivers and oceans, and meat from caribou, moose, seal, musk-ox and water fowl. Good hunting and fishing skills are respected by everyone and often influence the choice of a community leader. These are not just recreational items or activities. If it sounds like I am describing something which sounds unfamiliar, I probably am. Most Canadians have not been there but Canada's Arctic is what makes Canada unique.
With regard to Meech Lake, my constituents will know that as a member of the special committee to study Premier McKenna's proposed resolution, I am working diligently with my colleagues to ensure that northerners are not casualties of the 1987 Meech Lake Accord.
I want to express appreciation on behalf of Western Arctic residents to Premier McKenna of New Brunswick. His proposal stands in stark contrast to those who have treated the negative impact on the north as an acceptable level of damage in this round. When our Minister of Justice, Michael Ballantine, appeared before the special committee, he stated and I quote: "Premier McKenna has given us hope that our efforts to improve upon the Meech Lake Accord over the past three years have not been in vain."
Northerners complained about the alteration of the process for the creation of new provinces. The extension of provincial boundaries, the lack of territorial participation in the nomination of senators and Supreme Court judges and the exclusion of the territories from the whole consultative process leading to the Meech Lake
Accord are many of the concerns that the New Brunswick resolution addresses.
The Prime Minister failed to represent the northerners when we were excluded from the meeting in May 1987 and he has neglected to show any principle or fair leadership since. He did not recognize that, like Quebecers, northerners are eager to become full partners in the constitutional councils of this nation. The Prime Minister is wrong if he believes that Quebec wanted the two territories to become casualties in this national reconciliation with Quebec. The Northwest Territories is the only jurisdiction in Canada in which aboriginal peoples constitute a majority of the population. The elected representatives of the people of the Northwest Territories are trying to shape a tolerant society that will meet the distinct aspirations of Canadians in the northern third of Canada.
I am pleased to tell the members of this House that through a recent amendment to the NWT Official Languages Act, the legislative assembly has recognized the six major aboriginal languages as official languages of the Northwest Territories along with English and French. This is unique in Canada. In many ways northerners are showing leadership in their desire to try to understand one another. They are role models for all Canadians. There are 53 distinct and unique aboriginal languages indigenous to Canada, only three of which are not threatened and there are no provisions for these languages anywhere. Aboriginal peoples in the Northwest Territories have been striving to be full partners in Canada for a very long time. Recently, the Dene-Metis and Inuit initialled comprehensive claims packages which cover most of the territories. Now that outstanding comprehensive land claims in the north are finally being concluded, the people of the Northwest Territories are in a much better position to move toward provincial status in a way that respects the place of the distinct aboriginal cultures of the north.
Northerners goals for provincehood is also enhanced by the north's rich resources. Oil and gas reserves in the north could make Canada energy self-sufficient. The Government of the Northwest Territories is negotiating with the federal government a northern energy accord which would give the N.W.T. control and management of oil and gas rights, including the administration of oil and gas resource revenues such as royalties, bonus payments, rentals and licence fees. If the federal government would give Canadians some indication of its national energy
May 10, 1990

policy, then northerners and westerners could plan with more certainty the development of oil and gas resources. But we do not know whether the government is committed to frontier energy or east coast or tar sands.
In typical fashion, the government continues to play one region against the other. The federal government has to start recognizing what northern Canada can offer instead of trying to cripple our very existence. Government members must wake up to the fact that the nineties are here.
For decades, the Northwest Territories has been described as the last frontier, a part of this nation having great potential, but not yet fully integrated into the Canadian mainstream. I have tried to challenge this myth since I was elected to Parliament, but challenging the myths and perception about the frontier also means identifying how we could be affected, like any other region of this country, by forces which are sometimes beyond our control.
This means identifying how national initiatives, such as the GST, could undermine the encouraging economic climate we are currently experiencing and which is expected to continue into the future. In its current form, the introduction of the GST will mean that northerners will pay more taxes on almost all purchases. In total they will pay much more than residents of southern Canada who purchase similar baskets of goods and services.
An employee in the Northwest Territories earning $30,000 might have the purchasing power of an individual earning $20,000 in the south. The southern resident will receive the full benefit of a tax credit, but the northern resident will not because the credit will be phased out for families earning over $24,800 annually. The impact of the GST on business and industry in the north is disastrous.
I do not know if the economy of the north is strong enough to withstand another two or three years of the federal government's anti-regional development policies. The 59 communities scattered throughout the N.W.T. are located in an area comprising roughly one third of Canada's land mass and only six of them are
Supply
accessible on a year-round basis by the national road network.
Forty per cent of the population must rely entirely on air and marine transportation services for the movement of people and goods. Referring to the minister's speech, through you Madam Speaker, it has to be a consideration when these programs are developed or transferred. The distances between these communities are great and, combined with the small population in most of them, the result is that the costs of getting into and out of them are high, compared to southern Canada.
Employers are forced to maintain expensive stockpiles of materials and equipment to ensure continued operations. These conditions, coupled with the possibility of delayed access due to extreme weather, restrict the mobility of a large number of N.W.T. residents, limiting not only access to goods and services but also access to training and job opportunities.
The housing shortage is also critical in the Northwest Territories. The need and demand for public housing and subsidized home ownership is growing, far exceeding the supply available. Physical and systemic barriers to employment also exist. The lack of readily available day care facilities, adult training centres and public housing rental rate structures create disincentives to those on welfare and must be overcome. We have waited for six years for this government's child care program, but the Prime Minister cannot understand that six years is too long.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity. The north is a diverse region of this country. We have many aspects of our economy, of our constitutional development, of our social entity that we could speak to and go on forever, but I know my time is limited.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on a very good speech in the House of Commons as it relates to the difficulties of the far north.
I would like to ask my colleague a specific question relating to her remarks about Meech Lake. I would like to know her feelings and the feelings of people in the north relating to the creation of provinces, if Meech Lake goes through as is. I think that is something I have heard her speak of on numerous occasions. It would be

May 10, 1990
Supply
to the benefit of all of us to have her elaborate on that particular difficulty as it relates to that agreement.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, it is not so much what I as a member of Parliament feel but what my constituents and government representatives of the Northwest Territories have put forward to the joint standing committee of the Senate and the committee on which I sit to deal with the McKenna resolution.
The Northwest Territories want to revert to the pre-1982 arrangement for the creation of provinces, that is for the government to have the sole jurisdiction for the creation of provinces, which is how all the other provinces were created. This is what they want. This is what McKenna's recommendation is and what seems to be favourable. They feel anything outside that will freeze them out forever and negate any opportunity for them to become provinces in the future.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I have a short question for my hon. colleague. I too congratulate her on her presentation.
Based on her intimate knowledge of the north and the Dene people, I would like to ask a specific question regarding the Dene-Metis agreement signed recently. I have heard that the Dene people are very supportive of it. We have heard some positive comments, but I have not heard the member give her official position on it. I would appreciate her taking advantage of this opportunity to give us her position on the recent signed agreement.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I have absolutely no hesitation in making my position clear. I spoke with the Dene-Metis, before they set forth to initial the agreement, on my views regarding the agreement. I sat in the House when the Prime Minister indicated that he wanted me to thank the government for the Dene-Metis having initialled such a wonderful agreement.
My own official position is that the Dene-Metis have worked very hard for the last 16-odd years. I congratulate them because they had to go through a very difficult negotiation process. That process involved their affinity for the land, their lifestyle and the fact that they settled the land claims without dealing with one or two very crucial elements.
The Dene-Metis wanted to negotiate self-government while negotiating land claims, but because the land claims comprehensive policy was as it was and the government would not change it, they could not do that. Furthermore, the minister indicated there could not be the possibility of entrenching self-government in the Constitution until the first ministers were on board at a constitutional conference.
It has been a severe dilemma for the aboriginal peoples who have settled land claims not to have self-government. I have indicated to my people that they make the decisions and I support them whole-heartedly.


Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak today on the motion of my colleague who represents the riding of Kenora-Rainy River. I am pleased to speak on this motion because I think the government has to hear what the people are saying regarding its policies. That is exactly what I will try to do today.
The government's record with regard to the well-being of the northern region is shameful. As a member of Parliament representing a northern Ontario riding I am very concerned about the effects of recent legislation introduced by the government.
I am speaking more specifically about the Unemployment Insurance Act, Bill C-21, the VIA Rail cut-backs, and the effects of the goods and services tax especially as it relates to tourism in northern Ontario.
The proposed changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act will have an extremely negative impact on the poor and middle class in my riding of Nipissing as well as on the rest of the country and northern Ontario. It will also put a heavy burden on small business which makes up the majority of the economy in the north.
The government has targeted the average person and small business with a whopping new federal tax, one that it is now trying to sell to the public. How will the government ensure that the social safety nets are in place to protect people who bear the burden of unemployment this new tax will likely create? The government hits people with another blow, another unemployment insurance cut when they are already down.
At a time of expected inflation, economic slowdown and therefore anticipated unemployment, a responsible
May 10, 1990

government should be trying to ensure that its social safety nets are secure and something in which the people can have a sacred trust.
How does this government plan for the future of its citizens? It has done so through the eyes of the free traders who want to make sure that the government makes no contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. This government is proposing to stop contributing to the fund completely.
Its cutting of contributions will be substantial, about $2.9 billion this year, and it will leave the workers and business to pick up the shortfall. This will mean an increase in contributions by workers and employers. For small business which makes up the majority of the northern Ontario economy, it will put pressure on them when it comes time to expand. Can they really afford to hire anyone else? Can they afford the ever increasing rates of contributions.
We all know that those increased costs are passed on to the consumers whose net pay has just decreased through the higher deduction for unemployment insurance. This government's quest for a level playing field is going to end up ploughing under the workers and small businesses in northern Ontario.
The tourist industry which northern Ontario relies on cannot withstand more cost increases. We are already seeing the impact of this government's policy in this sector. The tourist industry is a large employer in the north. How will the workers survive on the reduced benefits that they must rely on with seasonal jobs?
The government looked at the unemployment insurance fund and saw a surplus last year. With its usual lack of foresight, instead of realizing that a surplus is necessary during economic growth so that funds will be there during a recession, it decided it was great time to pull out of the program altogether.
The government saw the surplus as a perfect excuse to walk away from its responsibility to the unemployed in this country. It could not leave it at just that. It would have been bad enough, but it was not enough for this government. No, it also had to increase the number of weeks needed to be eligible for benefits and then cut the length of time a person can collect.
In my riding of Nipissing a person would need 17 weeks of employment to receive about 24 weeks of
Supply
benefits if the legislation were in effect today. Even if a person has never collected before in his or her life, he or she is only eligible for 45 weeks of benefits. If the government is no longer going to give money to this program, then why on earth should it be deciding by itself how to change the program? Where is the input from employers and employees? Who will pay for the entire program?
Employers know that without unemployment insurance the local economy suffers. They know that people on unemployment insurance can at least afford to keep buying essentials and paying their bills. That will not be the case if they are forced on to welfare.
Tourism is one of the biggest hidden industries in the country, particularly in northern Ontario. It is an industry which contributes $24 billion to Canada's Gross National Product, which provides employment for 10 per cent of the country's workforce, and which is Canada's second largest earner of foreign exchange at $7 billion per year. It provides employment in all regions of Canada including summer employment for students and part-time employment and jobs for unskilled labour.
In the near north alone tourism generates $200 million annually and $1 billion across northern Ontario, yet through its policies the government continues to neglect this vital industry and places its existence in jeopardy.
In 1989 we experienced the unprecedented $3 billion balance of payments deficit in the travel account. To compound the problem, Canada's share of world tourism has been cut in half over the last decade. What is the government doing? It is making it even more difficult for our industry to compete effectively by adding an additional cost of at least 7 per cent.
Fifty per cent of travel in Canada as a whole and seventy-five per cent of travel in northern Ontario is a result of Canadians deciding to travel. Where is the incentive for our own citizens to travel in our own country when they can get more value for their money south of the border? With the exception of British Columbia, every province has experienced a net decline in tourism over the past year.
With the dismantling of defence industries around the world and the opening of the East Bloc tourism in the 1990s will rapidly become the world's largest industry. With its natural endowments and breathtaking scenery Canada is in an excellent position to expand its market

May 10, 1990
Supply
share. This could only happen if we offer good value at competitive prices and if we undertake more effective promotion. However tourism is highly price sensitive. There is no question that if the GST is introduced it will cripple this industry. What about more effective promotion, when the government slashes the budget for tourism from $35 million to $20 million at the same time as it provides about $30 million in aid to McDonnell-Douglas of Toronto? One has to question the priorities of the government.
Let us examine the effect of the GST on northern development. Northerners experience high prices for most consumer goods, and industries in the north incur higher costs due to higher transportation costs. With a 7 per cent GST added to transportation, how enticing does the government think it will be for business to set up shop in the north?
The cut-backs to VIA Rail are yet another example. Last year's cuts to VIA rail were a tremendous blow to the northern Ontario region. Thousands of VIA Rail workers lost their jobs and the effects on the economy were crippling. Transportation infrastructure in the north is absolutely essential for the development of its economy. How are northern towns and cities supposed to attract industries and tourists if we further reduce the transportation infrastructure?
The government advocates economic policies that are almost entirely based on the private sector as the driving force of the economy. We have news for the government: the economy in northern Ontario is suffering, and it does not need a kick in the vicinity especially where your back changes it name. That is what this government has done.
Traditionally Canada has always maintained a balance between the private and the pubic sector to keep its economy strong and vibrant. This principle is especially important in the poorer regions of Canada which are dependent on the government for their economic wellbeing.
Canada's northern region is no exception to that. Northern Ontario needs the implication of the government to develop itself to its full potential. A good transportation system is essential to achieve that. I urge
the government to reintroduce the VIA Rail routes which were cut and to reaffirm its commitment to the north. It is clear to all of us on this side of the House and to all the people of the north that the present policies of this government are extremely devastating to the north.
Why is this government not listening to the people who elected it? These people are asking the government to put policies in place which will assist them, but the government is proposing and advocating detrimental policies.
We need the VIA Rail service for a proper transportation infrastructure. We need a proper unemployment insurance system which will assist economic development in the north. We do not want the GST; it will only cause considerable hardship to our economy.
Finally, we want a strong commitment from this government for the well-being of the north. I do not think I can make myself clearer on these issues. I just hope that this message has been clearly understood by our present government. I thank you, Madam Speaker, and my colleague from northern Ontario for the opportunity to speak on this motion.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Nipissing, on his very extensive and detailed analysis of what is going on in the north. Particularly, as I think all my hon. colleagues will know, I feel very strongly about his words relative to VIA Rail. It is nice to see the parliamentary secretary here today to listen to these remarks about VIA Rail. I hope the government will heed the words of the hon. member.
One of the areas the member did not touch on which is something that is also very critical to northerners is the high interest rates and how they affect northern business. I thought it might be appropriate to ask the hon. member to elaborate and give us some insight on what the effects of high interest rates will be on northerners if these rates stay at the current level or increase in the coming months.


Bob Wood: have bogged down mainly because of the current high interest. The companies that are looking to come to northern Ontario are holding back and waiting for the interest rates to go down. Nipissing is probably one of the more active communities in northern Ontario in enticing business to come to that area. We have been fairly successful in utilizing a lot of the government programs and have been very successful in enticing new business to the North Bay and Nipissing areas. A lot of companies that want to come to northern Ontario are looking at expansion but are waiting out the interest rates and that is having a tremendously detrimentalaffect in northern Ontario.
The Canadian dollar is high and I think that the people who want to compete in the United States, now that the free trade agreement is here-we might not like it but we have to live with it-are waiting for the dollar to drop so they can compete under the free trade agreement and make money. We have lots of money but who can afford to borrow at the present rates?
The regional development program of the government seems to make it easier to move different departments in the area than to develop. We have many opportunities for development but with the high interest rates it is very difficult. In northern Ontario we would certainly appreciate the interest rates dropping so that we could become competitive with the rest of Canada.


Douglas Fee: Madam Speaker, I too, appreciate the comments from my hon. colleague opposite. I would like to put my question with regard to his comments on VIA Rail.
The number one problem in this country, I am told regularly by my constituents, is the state of the national deficit. They are concerned about spending. We all know that the average subsidy for every rider on VIA Rail was about $100 last year. We were spending over $600 million a year subsidizing VIA Rail. It is very comfortable sitting in the opposition criticizing the cut-backs in VIA Rail. I would like to know how much more the hon. member
Supply
was willing to subsidize VIA Rail before he would support a cut-back in the service.


Bob Wood: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. The VIA Rail cut-backs were devastating to northern Ontario and I think that although the people on this side of the House recognize the deficit, to cut off a service that is of really great help to northern Ontario is not the way to go about it, especially the way the government did.
It does have VIA Rail running through northern Ontario but, for some reason, it has it running through the northern portion of the province which has a population draw of roughly 50,000 to 60,000 people, instead of maintaining a route through North Bay, Sudbury and the Thunder Bay area which has a draw of roughly 400,000 people.
If the government is trying to provide a service to northern Ontario that would help expansion that, in my mind, is not the way to do it. The particular run that through northern Ontario that it cut was the third most efficient run of VIA Rail. According to some of the articles in the paper recently, VIA Rail was on track. According to many reports, it was just a matter of time before many of these runs that were cut would have become viable.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I rise to debate today the motion put forward by the hon. member for Keno-ra-Rainy River, who also is in regular attendance at the transport committee meetings. I am sure his seatmate was speaking about something dear to his heart. This government is committed to building a strong economy encouraged by incentive and opportunity, an economy which is competitive with the world's trading nations.
In order to fully achieve this goal we must create a solid base which will allow our economy to flourish in the coming years. Measures which seek to control the deficit and reduce the national debt are an essential element to this foundation for the future.
Equally, measures which seek to establish a sound fiscal framework to sustain continued economic development are essential to our purpose. These objectives are reflected in this government's commitment to a sound transportation policy. Transportation is and always will be at the heart of our nation's economy. This is why we

May 10, 1990
Supply
have undertaken to provide Canadians with a safe and efficient transportation sector. This commitment is the core upon which our policy of economic regulation reform was built.
Madam Speaker, I should indicate to you I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abitibi.
With the advent of the free trade agreement the role played by transportation in our economic development has become increasingly vital as we enter the next decade and the next century. A cost-effective transportation system is essential if Canada is to preserve and enhance its position in world trade. In order to meet this challenge we must make the best of each mode of transportation. We are not just talking about air, rail, marine, truck, and bus transportation, but the use of the automobile as a transportation mode, something with which Canadians have a love affair.
Continued subsidization of a mode of transportation which costs more and more and used less and less is not a sound investment in our future, particularly when that investment is being made with the Canadian taxpayers' money. That was exactly the situation we were facing with respect to our national rail passenger network.
VIA Rail subsidy rose to an unprecedented $641 million in 1988. This translates into a subsidy of $100 per passenger. We were asking all Canadians to pay this subsidy but only 3 per cent of the travelling public used this mode of transportation. Canadians have demonstrated their preference for other modes of transportation. With a market share of 84 per cent, the automobile is clearly the mode of choice.
Reducing the subsidies to VIA Rail was a difficult decision to make. We had a system that was expensive and inefficient. The government, however, does recognize that in a country as large and diverse as ours there are some truly isolated communities which do not have access to any other mode of transportation. In order to meet this need, nine routes in five provinces were maintained and continue to be subsidized. They are Winnipeg to Capreol, which can now be serviced by The Transcontinental; Jasper to Prince Rupert; The Pas to Lynn Lake; Wabowden to Churchill; Winnipeg to Churchill; Sudbury to White River; Montreal to Senneterre; Senneterre to Cochrane; and Montreal to Jonquiere.
Many other countries are making decisions concerning rail passenger services based on their unique demographic and economic realities. Our decision has to be considered in light of the fact that we have the second largest country in the world with one of the smallest populations. VIA service must be consistent with the realities of the density of the Quebec-Windsor corridor and also the different needs of Canada's regions.
Contrary to the wording of the motion before us today, I believe we have taken the necessary action to ensure the future of VIA as a national, affordable and sustainable rail passenger network. The combined public and private spending on transportation in Canada over the next 10 years can only be measured in hundreds of billions of dollars. Therefore, an effective consideration of such an integrated system required the government to establish a forum that would permit all Canadians to be heard in a thoughtful, comprehensive and forward looking manner.
The royal commission announced by the Prime Minister at the same time as the changes to VIA Rail, will inquire into and report on a national integrated inter-city passenger transportation system to meet the needs of Canada and Canadians well into the future.
The size and importance of our transportation system cannot be overstated. Its future development must lead to a system which will meet the challenges of the 21st century.
The royal commission was asked to inquire into and recommend solutions on the role of a national integrated inter-city passenger transportation system and its relationship to the entire transportation system, the structure of a suitable multi-modal transportation system demonstrating linkages, the potential for and constraints on achieving a national system and the appropriate financial arrangements to achieve such a system, taking into account the jurisdiction of all levels of government and the role of the private sector.
The commission will look ahead into the 21st century to advise the government on the needs of Canadians and on the relationship between the modes of transportation of the future. This royal commission, through its wide consultation and broad mandate, is expected to provide a clear action plan that will ensure that the transportation
May 10, 1990

links among Canada's regions are maintained and improved.
In making this announcement, the Prime Minister stressed the importance of taking into account the wide range of interests of Canadians and the respective roles of all levels of government and the private sector in the provision of inter-city services. He also emphasized the necessity to balance Canada's transportation needs with the government's policy of environmentally sustainable economic development.
The royal commission will examine Canada's unique social and democratic trends and look ahead to ways in which the transportation system must respond to meet the competing needs and demands of users, operators, employees and other interested parties. The commission is expected to provide Canadians with a blueprint for a comprehensive, co-ordinated passenger system to take us well into the 21st century.
All Canadians are aware that we must reduce the burden of the debt. Canadians have been asked to tighten their belts and VIA cannot be an exception.
This government has distinguished itself during the past four years through fiscal responsibility and judicious allocation of federal financial resources. When money is scarce, it has spent where it was most needed and most likely to produce results.
I invite members opposite and, indeed, all Canadians to look at the facts and to judge for themselves the validity of the fiscal realities under which we currently labour. If we have had to make difficult decisions, it is because in 1984 we inherited a legacy of debt, a legacy which I personally do not care to pass on to my children and to their children.
The difficult choices we have been forced to make have allowed us to reduce the growth of the deficit and bring the rate of inflation down to a more acceptable level. Responsible fiscal management combined with sound economic policies have paved the road to a rate of economic growth which rates among the highest in the industrialized world. As responsible Canadians we owe it to our children to leave them with every opportunity for development that we ourselves have enjoyed.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley
Supply
East, if he thinks so highly of the rail cutbacks, how he can justify that with what the Deputy Prime Minister said in the 1980s, particularly in 1984 and 1985 when he reinstated routes that had previously been cut. He also promised there would be new equipment for rail service in Canada, and by so doing raised expectations among the people. But he did not then provide the new equipment or give the reinstated routes and previously existing routes the opportunity to do any promotion of their own to increase rail passenger service. He summarily cut it out just a few short months ago.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I am not sure time will allow me to get into the whole framework of what the hon. member has brought before us.
However, we must remember that the government did not have the money which was going to be demanded for VIA to bring in new equipment. The government did replace the engine fleet. The orders have been placed and most have already been delivered. We are updating, I believe, some 200. Half of the fleet is being updated and brought in so that it is electrified and not steam-heated, as it is now. All these things are in concert with the role that VIA is being asked to fulfil in our country. In 1988 and 1989, it looked as if the utilization of the passenger train was going up. The revenues were going up. At the same time, expenses were going up at a higher rate than revenues. The line was getting further apart. That is why we have turned around and had to cut out a number of the routes.


Robert Daniel Nault: CN was gouging.


Ross Belsher: What do you mean, CN was gouging? CN was not gouging them.
The facts did not bespeak that when we saw CN's annual report last year. The hon. member opposite says the railway companies gouging them. There were incentives built into the contracts. If the on-time was maintained on the routes, there were premiums to be paid on the amount of utilization. Incentives were built in to make sure the companies would not stand in VIA's way in performing its role.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what my friend, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, had to say about cutting costs and so on.

May 10, 1990
Supply
I would just point out that during the last four or five years the deficit has doubled from $170 billion to about $350 billion today. I am not sure he is doing that great a job in that regard.
In northern Ontario-and we are talking about northern areas today-we got word of the cutting out of Air Canada service to all northeastern Ontario on a Monday. I think it was the Tuesday that we heard of cuts in Air Canada service to Timmins, Sudbury, North Bay, and the communities in between. Then, there were VIA Rail cuts. Our frustration is that, after the cuts, VIA Rail ends up servicing communities with some 20,000 or
30.000	people, whereas it was previously servicing some
300.000	or 400,000 people in Sudbury, Thunder Bay, and so on. The chances of success are really veiy limited. One can see the frustration people have with the cut-backs in transportation, as a regional development tool, made this past winter. The government has done a tremendous disservice to northern Ontario with these cut-backs.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A short comment from the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, the hon. member begins his remarks by talking about the debt. There was a $200 billion debt in 1984. It has cost $120 billion to service that debt. I talked about the slowing down of the rate of growth. That is the problem, but nobody on the other side of the House wants to admit it.


An hon. member:: That's the Liberals' problem.


Ross Belsher: Well, it is true. Those are the facts. They put their heads in the sand and-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments has now expired.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley East for letting me use his allotted time.
The goods and services tax will have a substantial, positive impact on all regions in this country, including the north, and more specifically, northern Ontario and northern Quebec.
The existing federal sales tax makes our products less competitive on foreign markets and favours imports over Canadian goods. This applies to northern Canada as well.
No fewer than 22,000 provisions and administrative arrangements have been required for a tax system that has only 75,000 taxpayers.
Furthermore, consumers have practically no way of knowing how much federal tax they pay when they purchase an item. Since the tax is applied at the manufacturing level, most Canadians don't even know they are paying the tax.
The federal sales tax is archaic and undermines the competitive potential of our economy. It must be replaced, and the federal government has made the requisite commitment.
The GST will differ from the existing federal sales tax in three respects.
First, the GST will apply to most goods and services, at a rate of 7 per cent. Because of its narrow base, the existing tax applies to only one-third of goods and services, at a rate that is normally 13.5 per cent.
Second, to collect the GST, only the value added to goods and services at each production and distribution stage will be taxed. Businesses will collect the tax on their sales to other businesses or to consumers, but they will obtain a full refund of the tax paid on their business purchases.
Third, the GST will be a visible tax. Its visibility consists basically in the fact that it will be applied at the retail level, to a very broad base and at a uniform rate.


Robert Daniel Nault: That isn't true!


Guy St-Julien: In this way, Canadians will know when they pay federal sales tax and at what rate.
Madam Speaker, the hon. member implies that the GST will increase the cost of goods, thus penalizing businesses located in the north, in northern Ontario and northern Quebec. In fact, northern businesses are now paying federal sales tax on a wide range of inputs, including fuel, vehicles, computers, office supplies, construction materials and communications. Even inputs that are exempt from the present tax contain tax components. Consequently, the existing federal sales tax adds substantially to business costs.

May 10, 1990

With the GST, businesses will be able to recover all federal tax paid on their inputs. All suppliers of goods and services who collect the GST on their sales will receive a credit for the tax paid on their inputs. The difference between the GST collected on their sales and the GST paid on their inputs will be paid to the federal government.
However, when the GST on purchases exceeds the GST on sales, the difference will be refunded to the business.
Merchants selling tax-free items such as basic groceries, prescription drugs, medical devices and goods and services for export will also be eligible for the input tax credit, even if they do not collect GST on their sales.
It is clear the GST will result in lower production costs, compared with the present system, and will improve productivity in all our regions, including the north.
It is often said that the positive economic impact of the GST will not be uniform across Canada, favouring Central Canada's manufacturing regions at the expense of other regions. In fact, the positive impact on the primary sector will be twice as substantial as on the manufacturing sector. We all know that the resource industry, including exports, is the mainstay of the economy of Canada's north, of northern Ontario and northern Quebec.
Long-term production gains for the primary sector as a result of sales tax reform will be 3.3 per cent, compared with 1.4 per cent for the manufacturing sector.
Furthermore, productivity in the transport and public services sector will increase 3.1 per cent, more than twice as much as the manufacturing sector.
The existing federal tax does not apply to manufacturers but to manufactured products. These are used everywhere in Canada, especially in those regions that are largely dependent on natural resources. In fact, the extraction and processing of raw materials involves to a considerable extent the use of equipment and construction materials. As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, these goods include substantial federal sales tax components, both directly and indirectly, thus increasing production costs and making companies less competitive.
Supply
The input tax credits will completely eliminate the federal sales tax on production and distribution. Buyers of equipment will see the cost of capital goods go down by about 4 per cent. This will result in increased production in northern areas, including northern Ontario, whose economy is heavily dependent on raw materials and exports.
The question of transportation costs has been raised many times. At present, the transport of goods is taxed indirectly since carriers pay tax on a large percentage of their inputs. These costs are reflected in the price of their services and ultimately in the retail prices charged to consumers. Under the GST, transport companies will claim the tax paid on their inputs and this will lower their operating costs.
Retailers and wholesalers will be better off because they in turn will benefit from the tax credit on inputs.
One of the most important features of the new tax is the GST credit, which is meant to protect Canadians on low and moderate incomes. Families whose annual income does not exceed $30,000 will pay less tax than they do now. Three quarters of families headed by a senior or a single parent will see their after-tax income increase once the GST is in place.
The GST credit is a simple and fair way to protect less fortunate Canadians. It helps those who need it most.
Madam Speaker, those who think the government is not committed to Northern communities are mistaken. The goods and services tax is fair and equitable because it will apply to all Canadians equally, taking account of their particular economic situation. This tax will bring the North considerable benefits, not only for businesses but also for individuals.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Abitibi a question relating to the goods and services tax, which he spent the majority of his speech talking about.
One aspect he did not elaborate on was that, once the goods and services tax comes into force, there will be a tax on services. This is something northern communities in an area like Abitibi, an area very similar to northern Ontario, have never had to deal with. The member would be well advised to explain to his constituents the

May 10, 1990
effect this new service tax will have on the tourism industry and the price of goods transported from southern regions.
The member seems to believe that there are hidden costs in the manufactured product. Once the MST is removed, it will be transferred to the consumer as a saving and the price of goods would not rise.
Would the member tell me if he feels that because there was no service tax before-and there will be when the GST comes into effect-that this will be an added cost to his constituents?
I give him the example of electricity. In our region this has already increased by 15 per cent. They believe the goods and services tax will have that affect on them, and they are getting prepared for that now.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, to follow up on the comment made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Nault), we know the situation is the same with Hydro-Quebec in Quebec. This utility raised the tax substantially. But Hydro-Quebec, in our province, forgot to pass on the benefit from the GST.
But I would like to say to him that if we impose a visible 7 per cent tax, why did the Liberals, who were in power for 20 years in Canada, never make the 13.5 per cent tax visible?


Mr. Duhamel:: It was 9 per cent five years ago, don't forget!


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to statements by members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton- York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, this is National Forest Week. It is not too much to say that in Canada the forests are the environment. Of course, we all know that no subject is more important to the world today than the environment, and in Canada, no subject is more important to the environment than our forests.
If the concept of sustainable development is ever going to be applied successfully in Canada, it must begin with our forests. To put it simply, at least in my view, we must start the process of sustainable development by placing the forest map of Canada on the table with all of the players present, then we must decide in advance what we all want to accomplish. We must determine what our forests can produce and sustain over time and space, and we must reconcile ourselves to a consensus with society's interest in the balance. Only in that fashion will we be able to find a vision for Canada's forests which is both attainable and sustainable.


PARENTS' RESOURCES INSTITUTE FOR DRUG EDUCATION
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, PRIDE is the acronym for Parents' Resources Institute for Drug Education. It was established in 1983 in Saskatoon as a response to the growing problem of illegal use of drugs in Canada.
It provides information, products and services for the fight against the inappropriate use of drugs. It is really a partnership among youth, their parents and teachers, as well as other professionals who have joined together to try to combat this growing menace.
It is supported by different organizations. For example, in my constituency, it is supported by school boards and schools. I note that the Norwood School Division, the St. Boniface School Division and the St. Vital School Division are supporters of PRIDE.
Right now between 1,500 and 2,500 young people and their supporters are in Winnipeg celebrating the sixth annual conference. This year's theme is "The 90s- Building a Drug-Free Canada".

Let us all work together for a healthy Canada by fighting drug addiction.


BURK'S FALLS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound - Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased and privileged to offer my heartiest congratulations to the village of Burk's Falls on the occasion of its centennial. The centennial of Burk's
May 10, 1990

Falls has a special meaning for me as I have proudly called that village my home for over 50 years.
Opening celebrations begin on Saturday, May 12. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge with many thanks the hard work of all the organizers responsible for planning theme events throughout the village. No doubt residents and visitors alike will be enticed into reflecting upon the proud heritage that has shaped the unique and wonderful village of Burk's Falls.
Our special guest of honour on that day will be His Honour, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.
I am confident that the next 100 years will be embraced with the same vigour and sense of community that has graced the first. I look forward with great anticipation to taking part in the year's festivities.
We are hoping many former residents will come back home for the July 1 homecoming.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives and Liberals continue to wage their turf war between the Commons and the Senate, tens of thousands of unemployed people continue to suffer the consequences.
Variable entrance legislation is necessary to balance the unemployment insurance coverage for those people who live in areas of high unemployment and to provide for them the benefits to which they are entitled.
Every day I get calls from people from all across Canada wanting to know why they are being penalized by these two parties when their families are without basic necessities because of this ping-pong game being played by the Parliament of Canada.
In the name of fairness and decency, I ask this government to withdraw Bill C-21 and to pass immediately the variable entrance legislation which the New Democratic Party has asked for since November of last year.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on October 15, 1988, the Prime Minister of Canada stated: "As long as I am Prime Minister social benefits, especially for the elderly, will be improved, not diminished."
He also said: "Let me say a special word to senior citizens here tonight. In the future Canada will be doing more, not less, for all of you."
Cutting moneys to the New Horizons Program is not doing more for Canadian seniors. We have not been successful here in this House in obtaining a firm answer from the minister responsible, nor has the Minister of National Health and Welfare been very co-operative in providing information on the subject of provincial allocation of New Horizons money and whether or not funds have been cut or perhaps shuffled.
Today I called the office of New Horizons to ascertain the provincial allocations. There has been a gag order placed on officials of that department not to provide information to members of Parliament.
In 1988, over 10 per cent of Canada's population was over the age of 65. By the year 2021 the number will have risen to 21 per cent. This government is not responding to the needs of our Canadian seniors. If anything, it is going behind their backs to cut the funding from such organizations as the New Horizons Program.


TRIBUTE TO JEAN-GUY LAPOINTE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, like many other Quebecers, Jean-Guy Lapointe is starting his golf season, but if you know that both his arms have been amputated, it takes on a whole new meaning.
Indeed, I could not help feel immense admiration when I saw Mr. Lapointe's photograph in Le Journal de Montreal of May 8. His golf equipment includes a breastplate or jacket surrounding his chest. Attached to it are an artificial wrist and a hook to hold the clubs. Mr. Lapointe's golf partners, in this case his wife Monique who has always supported him in his greatest desires, only have to put the clubs in his artificial limb.

May 10, 1990
This 51-year-old man was involved in an accident as a lineman nine years ago. A lover of sports before his accident, he has remained so and he now runs 20 kilometres a day. Ele intends to take part in his second marathon next fall in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pay special tribute to this man today for the example of courage he gives to us all as Canadians.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, since January, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his department have had a proposal from the inshore fishermen concerning the 1990 quota allocations in fishing areas 4X and 5, but they have taken no action on it. Nor has the minister responded to the repeated requests by fishermen and municipal officials to sit down with him and his predecessor to discuss the situation since the fishery closed last summer.
These fishermen have had very little chance to fish in the last year, and their frustration with the minister's inaction resulted in their occupying the Fisheries and Oceans office in Yarmouth on Tuesday.
If the minister does not act within the next few days, he and his officials will have to accept responsibility for what happens.
These people are tired of being told that the stocks on Georges Bank must be protected when they see the Americans landing record catches on Georges, the offshore freezer factory ships within our waters and the foreigners overfishing.
I call on the minister to meet with the premier, who said yesterday to these people that he had to have a meeting with the minister as soon as possible to discuss this urgent crisis in the fishery. I call on the minister to meet with the premier before next week.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia -Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, over the past months a number of strong public statements have called upon this government to demonstrate further prudence in its management and expenditures. Canadians recognize that we need greater symmetry between our fiscal policy and Canada's monetary policy. Both must be more supportive of the other.
It follows that further spending restraint can only be more supportive of the Bank of Canada's ongoing fight against inflation. These actions on the fiscal side, although often difficult, can only lead to much needed latitude for interest rates.
The task before us is to get on with it. The Auditor General and others have outlined opportunities for us to do so. I call upon all my colleagues to be more cognizant of the problems posed by government expenditures and to have an active interest or involvement in their reduction.
Our theme of the day should not be, "Crow must go", but rather, for the sake of our future economic growth, our theme should be, "Let's go with Crow".


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my voice with that of a delegation from International Solidarity for Democracy in Guyana who are here today to call on our government to review its economic recovery program for Guyana. The disbursements of the program's funds have led to unrefuted charges of misappropriation, misspending and abuse by Guyanese government officials to secure their positions. Human rights abuses are legion.
An angry United States has threatened to withdraw its contributions to the economic program. It is time that Canada too made aid conditional upon the correction of these abuses.
The Guyanese president still refuses to provide audited accounts of how aid moneys will be spent. Resentment and frustration is widespread among the general public and economic disarray is evident everywhere. Emigration is escalating.
Effective economic recovery can only take place with a change in direction at the top. I urge this government to insist on free, fair, internationally monitored and supervised elections as a pre-condition for aid.
May 10, 1990


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: The federal transport minister's version of the American war on drugs is an unwarranted attack on the fundamental right to privacy of 250,000 Canadians who work in the transport industry.
In a media conference here yesterday, the Seafarer's International Union launched a public campaign to persuade the minister and his government to drop their mass urine testing strategy. Having sent empty vials to all government MPs, the SIU is now urging their members and Canadians everywhere to send urine sample bottles to the minister. This could be called a "measured" response to the government's plan for drug testing, which has nothing to do with safety.
The real reason the government is pushing this policy is the American demand that we submit to their laws by January' 2, 1992. The Tory idea of rights and freedoms and public safety seems to be a plan to deregulate industry, but regulate people.
I call upon the minister to drop his plan for mass testing of working Canadians and move instead to deal with the real hazards to public safety in transport, such as short staffing and massive overtime among air traffic controllers and radio operators who have been screaming for years for government action on safety.
*1* ^ ^


NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, we are currently celebrating National Forest Week. The enormous contribution of pulp and paper, timber, wood panels and other wood products to our balance of trade is an impressive indication of the economic importance of Canadian forests. Indeed, our forests are the basis for our enviable economic position in the world marketplace.
The theme for National Forest Week is "Living Forests-Giving Forests". Our government's commitment to establishing a full-fledged Department of Forestry with a well-defined mandate is an indication of the importance accorded to the forest industry in Canada.


NATIONAL NURSES WEEK
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Nurses Week and, as in previous years, there will be an opportunity provided for members of Parliament to meet with members of the Canadian Nurses Association in the booth set up under the rotunda near the main entrance.
The more than 200,000 practising nurses in Canada are an integral part of the health care system and provide invaluable service in health care facilities, in the community and in the workplace. Their impressive contribution enhances the strength and effectiveness of our health care system.
The theme for National Nurses Week, May 7 to 12, is "Nurses and the Environment". This is certainly a most timely and appropriate emphasis on a subject of current global concern.
To pay tribute to the nurses of Canada for their unique contribution to the health of Canadians, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing National Nurses Week.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, recently 30,000 copies of a brochure entitled Today It's Canadian Pork were published through Agriculture Canada. The purpose of the brochure was to advertise the Canadian pork industry throughout the United States.
At the last minute the brochure was scrapped and burned because of industry protests over the photographs which showed an inferior product, a product portrayed as unappealing, unappetizing and hardly conducive to selling pork.
The costly mistake, $30,000 of taxpayers' money, is just one example of profligate government waste. This mistake could have been easily avoided had Agriculture Canada consulted with the pork industry at all steps of creating the brochure.
How often do costly and careless mistakes like this occur and how many departments condone this kind of needless waste? Proper consultation between government and industry must be the rule, not the exception, where public money is being spent.
Oral Questions FORESTRY

May 10, 1990


Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, the recent global warning conference held here in Ottawa has been a great reminder of the importance of the forest industry to the future of Canada and, indeed, the world.
Their message was clear. Scientific evidence points to a need for more extensive forestry research and funding falls far short of this urgent requirement.
The theme of National Forest Week this year is: Our Forests as a Resource. Last December, a two-year forestry resource management agreement was signed for Nova Scotia. This agreement lacks the long-term vision which is so necessary for this resource. If Nova Scotia is to improve its forest resource then forest management must be enhanced and private land owners must have universal access to improvement programs.
This agreement requires woodlot owners to contribute to the upkeep of their stands. As many cannot afford this, the result will be a mismanaged resource.
With the glaring example of the fisheries crisis in Atlantic Canada, let the goal of the newly formed Department of Forestry be to avoid the depletion of this valuable resource and ensure that the forests do not fall victim to poor management and remain the foundation which supports the economy of the Atlantic provinces.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In a leaked U.S. State Department telex we learned today that Canada has agreed to join forces with the Americans to block further progress in the fight against global warming in discussions that will take place at a conference in Bergen, Norway, later this week.
Yet last April, in response to President Bush's "go slow" approach on harmful carbon dioxide emissions, the minister said: "The price of inaction is too high-We have sufficient indications (of global warming) to implement whatever action we can now."
Why has Canada agreed with the United States to hold back in getting additional progress in the fight against global warming? Why is this government saying "yes" to the Americans and "no" to the environment?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I want to state clearly and firmly that there is absolutely no agreement between the United States and Canada to achieve these resolutions. There has been no commitment by Canada to the United States on this.
I want to repeat that, while in Washington, I made a commitment publicly which I would like to reconfirm today. There will be targets and schedules for the reduction of CO2 in The Green Plan.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, will the minister and his government support precise commitments to reduce carbon dioxide at the discussions in Bergen, Norway, taking place this week? Will he support efforts to get these commitments at Bergen this week? If he does not do that, is he not admitting that he has caved in to the Americans? I ask him today, again, to say "yes" to the environment and "no" to the Americans.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, there is an international process set up by different countries to achieve those commitments. The agenda was set up in Noordwijk a few months ago where all countries, Canada being in the the forefront of them, made the commitment once we are provided with the IPCC report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change next August. After the Geneva conference in November precise commitments will be made in terms of targets and schedules to achieve CO2 reductions. The Green Plan will reflect this when it is announced this fall.
We always say the same thing. It was never intended that commitments would be made on targets and schedules for CO2 reductions at the Bergen conference. It is a conference intended as a follow-up to the Brundtland commission to prepare for the 1992 Brazil conference
May 10, 1990

Oral Questions
where, I hope-and Canada is pushing very hard for this-a convention will be concluded to set up targets and schedules to reduce CO2 emissions.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister said last April, I repeat, "The price of inaction is too high-We have sufficient indications (of global warming) to implement whatever action we can now".
I ask the minister again why he is not willing to use the conference to carry out that commitment he made in Washington, and which he claims to be repeating now, to use that conference in Bergen to achieve progress with the other countries that want it in the fight against global warming.

I want to ask the minister a specific question. Who sets Canada's foreign policy on the environment: Ottawa or Washington?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if there is one area in which Canada has dissociated itself from certain U.S. undertakings, it is certainly the environment. We signed the declaration of The Hague, when the Americans did not. We signed the Basel agreement on the transportation of hazardous goods, but the Americans did not. We took the initiative on reducing acid rain, and we did so several years ago. The Americans are now following suit.


An hon. member:: The Liberals did nothing.


Lucien Bouchard: We have been active on many fronts. The Prime Minister was the first to announce that a convention must be signed in Brazil, in 1992, to set restrictions on CO2 emissions.
We have an independent policy, but at the same time we co-operate with other countries because realize that the environment demands international solutions.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the contracting practices of the government.
Yesterday, in sworn testimony before the Disciplinary Committee of the Quebec Order of Engineers, former Conservative MP Michel Gravel said that he had personally given to a former cabinet minister, namely Roch LaSalle, thousands of dollars representing the proceeds of a party at which businessmen had contributed $5,000 each.
Has the minister looked into this matter? Has he satisfied himself that the highest conduct of behaviour was observed by the then cabinet minister and by the Department of Public Works in the awarding of its contracts?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, the RCMP is now aware, of course, of the allegations that were made yesterday. I am informed that the RCMP is looking into the matter.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister. Aside from the RCMP inquiry which, according to the Solicitor General, is about to begin I have the following question for the Deputy Prime Minister: Is he now prepared to ask for a royal commission of inquiry on contracts awarded by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Supply and Services between 1984 and 1989, as I have been asking in this House for the past four years? Yes or no? If not, why not?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the hon. member would want a royal commission of inquiry when the Solicitor General has indicated that the RCMP has taken cognizance of the allegations that have been made and they are investigating. What more does the hon. member want?

May 10, 1990
Oral Questions THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of the Environment who is aware that global warming is probably the most serious threat we have ever faced. The minister knows that in Toronto in 1988, Canada, along with many other countries, adopted to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere by 20 per cent by 2005.
We know that the intergovernmental panel report will be out in August. We know that there is going to be a meeting in Geneva in November. What members of this Elouse and Canadians want to know in relation to the meeting that the minister is going to in Bergen is whether Canada will be moving on preliminary steps to stabilize the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. The progressive countries, the countries that are alert to the nature of this threat, are seeking consensus and the United States is seeking to break that consensus.
Will Canada be on the right side of this issue or the wrong side?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will have the pleasure of being in Bergen in good company. As a matter of fact, it will be my pleasure to be there with two hon. members of the opposition and we are very happy to welcome them. I invited them with us because I felt this is a non-partisan issue and we should not repeat the kind of debate being discussed here in foreign countries. I trust that we have the full support of those colleagues.
This conference, I repeat, was never meant to announce specific commitments by any government on the CO2 reduction issue. It is a conference in view of the Brazil conference in the following the Brundtland commission report.
This government has made a commitment that in The Green Plan this fall there will be the announcement of targets and schedules to reduce CO2 emissions.
There are two reasons for doing this. The first is that all the countries in the world have said that they need to be provided with the IPCC report, in August, before making commitments. Second, we Canadians have engaged in a broad consultation process to learn what
Canadians think and expect in regard to CO2 reduction measures. We will respect the process. We believe that we must respect Canadian opinion, support and consultation on this. When we are ready, and we have announced that it will be in the fall, we will announce the commitment.
So we will not be there to create expectations. We will be in Bergen to support the countries, in view of the Brazil convention, and for the implementation of overall sustainable development measures.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think most members of this House are now aware that the implications of greenhouse warming mean that some entire nations on this earth could disappear beneath the surfaces of the oceans. That is a fact and it has been represented by many scientists in world fora.
My question to the minister is a very simple one and he does not need to beat around the bush. We have lost two years since Toronto. It is two more years until Brazil. During that four-year period we could have done a great deal to reduce particularly the amount of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere.
Is the minister telling this House that while he is in Bergen on behalf of Canada he will support consensus for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions?


Lucien Bouchard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will support the consensus to reduce CO2 emissions and we will support what was established as the process in Nordvik a few months ago, the necessity of making precise commitments after all the countries are provided with the IPCC report.
Let us remind people that this report will be the end result of a very important and intense effort to gain scientific knowledge and reach conclusions on the extent of the phenomenon of global warming.
I think before issuing such threats as the disappearance of countries under the sea, my colleague should wait until he has the report. We know that there is some measure of scientific uncertainty. We Canadians feel that, while we are uncertain, we must subscribe to an insurance policy and announce during the fall precise commitments in terms of reduction of CO2, and we will be doing just that. I can tell you that we will be one of the few countries in the world to do that.
May 10, 1990


James Ross Fulton: My final supplementary question is for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. The minister has endorsed the Brundtland directive that full environmental assessments apply to both policy and projects in order to achieve sustainable development.
Can the minister assure this House that this will be fully honoured in the EARP legislation soon to be tabled in the House?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the government has made a commitment to present to Canadians a set of new measures to address those issues and to set up mechanisms to assess projects, policies and programs.
New measures are being drafted by the government and when they are ready, which will be very soon, certainly before the end of the session, we will announce what we have in mind and propose them to the country.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
In view of the fact that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has stated repeatedly that confidence in the Canadian dollar is one of the cornerstones of his monetary policy, and in view of the fact that representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and presidents of leading exporters in the pulp and paper industry and the mining industry are stating categorically that they need a reduction in the value of the Canadian dollar in order to survive, how can the Minister of Finance expect Canadians to be confident with the government's monetary policy when it is faced with such reservations by leading Canadian business leaders?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that these people are not saying anything other than what we are saying: the interest rates have to come down. Except, instead of believing in a rather magic or ill-defined solution as proposed by the opposition, we are using a monetary policy which is very clear, which is addressing the problem, and which will cause the pressures to come down in Canada. Then, with the inflationary pressures coming down, we will be able
Oral Questions
to lower the rate of interest and make sure that our economy continues to prosper.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. Since the Governor of the Bank of Canada says he is not at all sure when the situation will be such that he will be able to lower interest rates, could the Minister of State (Finance) perhaps tell Canadians when the government is going to realize that its monetary policy is creating a disaster situation for Canadian exporters?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member for Gloucester that inflation is the greatest threat to our exports, our economy and to progress in all our regions. He knows that perfectly well. We saw what happened under the Liberals, at the beginning of this decade, when we had interest rates in excess of 20 per cent and spiralling inflation. We don't want that to happen again. It is our policy, and we support the Governor of the Bank of Canada, whose policy is intended to take the steam out of an over heated economy that has been growing for six years and reduce the pressure, so that we can start a new period of growth in which our economy will make spectacular strides.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Finance.
An information flyer is going out to every household in the country, at taxpayer's expense I might add. Its purpose, we are told, is to give some straightforward answers about GST.
The flyer states that Canadians pay $700 a year in hidden taxes. It neglects to say that Canadians will be paying $400 more a year in taxes after the GST is imposed and that this tax will probably be hidden in most cases. Does the minister realize that this pamphlet is misleading Canadians?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, we would not print such a thing because it is not true. The tax reform we are introducing is excellent for

May 10, 1990
Oral Questions
the economy of Canada, particularly for the lower income family.
We have been receiving more than 250,000 calls-we simply believe our tax is getting to be more and more popular-asking us for information. We are providing it to Canadians, as the hon. member has indicated, but why should we go out of our way to tell things that are untrue? Families with incomes of below $30,000 will be better off after tax reform than they were before.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, the minister is right: the flyer does state that the GST credit protects modest income families, but studies by Global Economics have revealed that families with income under $30,000 a year will be worse off after the GST than they are now. Furthermore the tax credit is not fully indexed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Aha.


Diane Marleau: Does the minister not realize that this is misleading Canadians?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, whenever we discover whatever the policy of the Liberal Party is maybe we can send out a pamphlet on it to allow Canadians to see it.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Gilles Loiselle: We are beginning to realize that our colleagues across the floor are beginning to believe us. They say that maybe they are telling the truth but it is not indexed. Maybe in a couple of years it will be different. They are beginning to see the light.
Another thing that they seem to forget is that the reform by the removal of a hidden negative tax for an exporting country like Canada will inject into the economy $9 billion of new activity. This is a very good thing for medium income families.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the face of clear public evidence that Roch LaSalle, while he was Minister of Public Works, accepted money from contractors who were seeking his favour, the
Deputy Prime Minister has again today refused to have a full public inquiry into this matter. It was refused in 1986 and it was refused in 1989. The government has refused an inquiry into the Gravel affair, the Grise affair, and now the Roch LaSalle affair.
What is the government trying to hide?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated a few minutes ago, I believe in response to the same question, obviously the RCMP is aware of the allegations that were made yesterday. I am informed that the RCMP is looking into it.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has been aware of these allegations for a number of years, let alone a number of months. The question is: Why was Roch LaSalle not charged?


Mr. Speaker:: It may or may not be a question, but it is not an appropriate question to put to the government. The hon. member who is a lawyer knows perfectly well that the administration of justice is not conducted by cabinet ministers or the treasury bench deciding who should or should not be charged. The hon. member may have a question which is in order, but it will have to be corrected.


John F. Brewin: Will the government be prepared to hold a full public inquiry into the conduct of the administration of justice in the Roch LaSalle question and into the other issues that are undermining the confidence of the Canadian people in the administration of justice?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated twice, allegations were made yesterday. The RCMP is aware of those allegations and I am informed that it is looking into it.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Last year the minister described global warming as the most serious threat facing the world. He later added: "We cannot wait for all the answers because we may not get another chance to turn things around, the risks are that high."
May 10, 1990

Why is the government going across the country to talk with Canadians on The Green Plan while, we learned in yesterday's leaked memo, it is making secret back room deals that are reducing Canada's commitment to the environment?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to speak about that matter.
In the last week we have conducted 30 information sessions during the consultation process. Just this week in Winnipeg we had more than 500 persons attending one of the information sessions. This is not the full consultation process; this is one of the many information sessions we have had. We had 500 persons attend one of those 30 meetings. It means that Canadians are very willing to take part in the solution and that they will be intensely active in this very important consultation process we will launch in a few weeks from now.
What we are doing is democratic. What we are doing is strong for the environment, and it will provide the country with a very serious and profound action plan.


Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister.
The people are interested. Unfortunately The Green Plan is already weathering.
How can the minister on one hand be in the process of convincing Canadians nation-wide about the crucial importance of cleaning up the environment and taking action now to abandon efforts to combat global warming?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, let us be serious and responsible.
We all know there is a problem. Now we need to implement the solutions. The solutions will call for sacrifices. They will call for sharing the burden. Canadians must be part of that. We cannot deliver speeches or put questions like that in the House without thinking about the kinds of solutions that will have to be implemented.
We need very' important resources. We will need participation. We will need change of behaviour. This calls for the support of Canadians, and we will get it in coming weeks.
Oral Questions


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of Manuel Marin Gonzalez, Vice-President of European Communities and Commissioner for Fisheries and Overseas Development.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Ivan Carno-gursky, Secretary General of the Christian Democratic Movement of Slovakia and a delegation of parliamentarians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is fresh from his tete-a-tete with the Vice-President of European Communities and Commissioner for Fisheries and Overseas Development.
Are the Europeans finally beginning to comprehend the misery, the havoc that their piracy off Newfoundland is inflicting on our people and on our fish stocks? Are our fishermen and plant workers any better off as a result of this morning's meeting, or was Manuel Marin in the driver's seat again this morning, as usual?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member and members of the House will be pleased to know that our working session with Mr. Marin is not over. It will continue right after Question Period.
I think we can look forward to progress being made. As the hon. member ought to know, since Mr. Marin has taken his position at the European commission, we have seen the commission lower its quota. It is not to our liking, but we are still having discussions with the commission and I am optimistic that we can make some progress.

May 10, 1990
Oral Questions


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, they lowered their quota; they are only stealing four times as much as they are supposed to now.
I have a question for the Minister for International Trade.


An hon. member:: They are not stealing.


Roger Simmons: If they are stealing, I would have the guts to tell them in their presence.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.


Roger Simmons: I ask the Minister for International Trade who so far has come up empty handed every time he tries to beat some sense into the Prime Minister on this issue.
The Prime Minister meets with Mr. Marin later this evening. As the minister demanded of the Prime Minister that he finally stand up for those 100,000 fishermen and plant workers, does the minister fear as I do that once again the Prime Minister will see the meeting as a further opportunity to fabricate his international reputation on the-


Some hon. members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Albert- Churchill River.


AGRICULTURE
Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. We see reports today that the minister and the Premier of Saskatchewan left their supper meeting yesterday with smiles on their faces. The farmers on the Prairies are not smiling because they are still caught in the phoney war between the federal and the provincial governments with respect to this long promised money.
The minister has argued that the provinces have to get involved to get more money to farmers. On the other hand, the farmers need that money now. Therefore, I ask the minister at what point he will end this game of arm-wrestling between the federal and provincial governments and get some money to the farmers, even if he
has to go it alone? When will they see some real money? When will there be some money in the hands of farmers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member, it was not a supper meeting, it was a meeting that took place yesterday afternoon.
We talked about the short term assistance package. We also talked at great length about the need for a long term stabilization and safety net. This is the subject of a committee which has brought down a number of recommendations for consideration by the ministers. We will consider that report at our meeting on May 18.
The Premier of Saskatchewan would like to see the short term assistance program phased into a longer term stabilization and/or safety net, which would provide the kind of confidence and security for the future.
I took the opportunity to indicate to him that the representations we received really reflect the multi-faceted nature of the problem. Most of the representations we receive in our office indicate that drought is the most serious problem.
There are other problems with respect to debt, the input costs. Low prices is one of considerations, but not the top consideration. I also took the occasion to stress to the premier the need for provincial government co-operation in terms of the design of the program, the delivery of the program and cost sharing. I think it was a very productive meeting.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords -Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is aware that interest rate increases in the past two years alone have taken about $460 million out of the agricultural economy in western Canada.
Does the Minister of Agriculture not realize that this farm financial crisis is a result of reduced income and high debt, that he must release this $500 million that he has on the table immediately, if for no other reason than to make up for the losses suffered by the farm community caused by his government's high interest rate policy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true. We do have $500 million ready to be distributed. We want the support and assistance of the provinces to get as much money as we possibly can into the hands of the farmers. If the provinces were to match the $500 million that would
May 10, 1990

mean there could be $1 billion unleashed into the provincial economy.
I find it rather strange. If the hon. member is trying to defend the interests of the farmers, why does he not stand up with the federal Minister of Agriculture and try to lever the provinces into coming on board with this program so that we can get more money into the hands of the producers, and in a very timely fashion, because that is what is required. I urge the hon. member to support us in this cause.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is asking for co-operation to talk to the provinces.
Is he not aware that the Prairie provinces have already received substantial cut-backs in transfer payments from his government? The province of Manitoba received close to $100 million alone. Is he not aware that these governments have already made major additions to their agricultural budgets? Is he not aware that they are losing
10,000	to 15,000 people per year?
Is he not aware that these are poor provinces that do not have the necessary resources and it will require a major national effort to save the grain economy of western Canada? Is that not the reality of western Canada, and that all the government is trying to do right now is divide and conquer the Prairie provinces and stop the Prairie farmers from planting as they should do right now, this week, with proper resources?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that the hon. member defends the interests of western Canada. When he was a member of the government in office, he sat idly by and saw $5 billion annually extracted from the province of Alberta through the National Energy Program. He said nothing. He did absolutely nothing.
I indicated to the hon. member before, we have $500 million. That is the extent of our resources. We are simply asking the provinces to help us in terms of
Oral Questions
additional programs which would help in dealing with the income deficiency problem and/or with cash.
We have had very productive discussions with the province of Manitoba and with the other provinces as well. Yesterday the premier indicated that he wanted to have a meeting between myself and the three prairie ministers of agriculture. I am prepared to meet with them to see whether we can work out a satisfactory program. I remind him that the federal government's capacity to borrow is limited as well. We pay 35 cents of every taxpayer's dollar we receive to pay the interest on the debt that was left to us as a legacy of the Liberal government.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the case of-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister can carry this on when we hear the next question. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, and just by way of trying to help the minister with his history lessons, I was also the minister responsible for putting $3.6 billion into the prairie railway system to help our farmers move their commodities to market. It is something the hon. member was never able to do.
I want to come down to a simple reality. The minister says he has only $500 million. I want to know when he is going to give it to the farmers. Why is he waiting until it is too late for the farmers to plant? Why is he going to wait until it is too late for them to get the seeds in the ground? The farmers need their money now. The government is simply trying to play a divide and conquer game with the provinces. Will this minister change his tactics, change his formula and change his approach so the western grain economy will not go down the drain because of this government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have seen a bit of a flip-flop here, Mr. Speaker. A couple of days ago he asked me to put the $500 million into a contingency fund. Today he tells us to pay it out now with no strings attached. We want more

May 10, 1990
Oral Questions
than $500 million to be distributed. I invite the hon. member to help us in convincing the provinces that they should come onboard so the farmers can get more money and get it fast.


FORESTRY
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forestry. Given the forestry minister's responsibility to protect the interests of the forest sector, and given the disastrous effects on that industry of the government's high dollar policy, what measures is the minister taking to help ensure that the high dollar will be lowered or, at the very least, what measures is he proposing to offset the harmful effects of this policy on the forest sector?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the forest ministry has been equipped with a new forestry act, but it is not envisaged that this new act embrace the authority or jurisdiction over fiscal monetary matters.
I can tell the hon. member that we will continue to work closely in strategic partnerships with the provinces and the industry to make sure that through research, through the restoration and improvement of our timber stands, the industry can retain its health and dynamism.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
While the minister has admitted to us that he is unable to offer the forestry sector any relief for the high dollar value, could he at least tell us why the six Forest Resources Development Agreements have not yet been renegotiated? When will they be renegotiated? Why laugh at the industry and the provinces in such a way?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, some of the agreements have been negotiated and signed with the province of New Brunswick. The province of Nova Scotia has agreements. As to the other Atlantic provinces, some of the agreements are still in place.
Negotiations and discussions are continuing to get all the agreements throughout the country in place before they cause any disruption in the important task of
restoring and replenishing the areas of our forest land which has been overcut and not properly restocked.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
It concerns some straight-forward answers about the goods and services tax. I would like the minister to explain why the ad states that there is no impact on housing affordability when the government has already admitted that there will be an increase of $450 on a new home.
Other reliable organizations, particularly the Canadian Home Builders' Association, have documented that there will be an increase of at least $3,000.1 would like a straight-forward answer from the minister: Does he believe in truth in advertising?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, we say in this brochure what we have been saying from the start.
The impact of the GST on housing will not create an additional impediment to affordability, and this is the case. I could give the hon. member a lot of numbers. For example, the net effect on monthly mortgage payments on a typical house purchased in Halifax will $2 a month. The hon. member can tell me if this is really an impediment or incapacity to the affordability of houses.
In North Bay it will be $1 less, and in Regina it will be $4 more. This is the kind of impact we are talking about. The general impact will vary by about 1 per cent. This is not an impediment to the affordability of housing.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: At least the government has been consistent.
Again today, the Canadian Home Builders' Association has asked the government to disclose the detailed calculations on the GST and the price of new homes. Again the government has refused.
Will the minister explain why the public should believe his figures when he consistently refuses public disclosure? What is he trying to hide?
May 10, 1990


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, we are not hiding anything.
This has been discussed at length in the technical papers. Even in this House time and time again, the Minister of Finance indicated what effect the present manufacturers' sales tax has and what effect the reform will have. He said the difference between the two would be an over-all impact of about 1 per cent. It will vary from region to region, but on the whole these numbers are very precisely reported in the technical papers.
Certainly, it will not adversely affect the affordability of housing. That is nonsense.


PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKER ADJUSTMENT
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. The one elegibility requirement under the Program for Older Worker Adjustment is that, in cities with a population of 500 000 and over, at least 100 workers have been laid off. Does the minister know that 98 per cent of Canadian businesses have less than 100 employees? Will he review that discriminatory requirement which hurts small business workers living in cities with a population of 500 000 and over?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (Transports)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member from Saint-Leonard that the Program for Older Worker Adjustment is a joint program that has been negotiated with all the provinces in Canada. Its aim is to help workers 55 years old and older who are collectively laid off, their layoff having such an impact on the community that they have very little chance of relocating. I would also like to point out that the program meets those criteria as well as the objectives that led to its implementation.


Alfonso Gagliano: My question is directed to the same minister, Mr. Speaker.
My colleagues in the metropolitan region of the Quebec National Assembly have told me that the Quebec government is prepared to change these criteria.
Business of the House
Will the minister negotiate with the Quebec Minister of Labour so that workers in the metropolitan region of Montreal might have access to this program?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, discussions were held with our colleagues of all provincial governments before POWA legislation was drafted. If Quebec government officials are indeed prepared to negotiate, I wish they would do so directly with the minister rather than through the member for Saint-Leonard.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday the Speaker of the House- not the Speaker of the House but the government House leader-


Mr. Andre:: The next one.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: God help us!


Mr. Robichaud:: Don't get carried away!


Mrs. Maheu:: Don't overdo it!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The House leader usually gives us an indication concerning business for the coming days. I would ask him to tell us the House business for tomorrow, Monday and Tuesday next.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that tomorrow I will be calling Bill C-18, the bill to set up a department of multiculturalism for the completion of third reading, hopefully.
On Monday, I will be calling Bill C-65, the borrowing authority bill, for report stage. I will continue with it on Tuesday. Hopefully, we will be able to complete report stage and third reading in that time.
Either Wednesday or a day later in the week will probably be an allotted day.
I would like to have consideration of report stage and third reading of Bill C-57 which deals with integrated circuits.

May 10, 1990
Supply
As well, if returned from committee, I would like to deal with Bill C-34 which deals with the management centre for the public service.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I would not want to raise this issue every day, but once a week should do it.
Can the minister tell us if consultations to find a good Deputy Speaker-we have a good and even an excellent one, but he cannot take the chair-


Shirley Maheu: A female Deputy Speaker!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Can we rest assured that the government will act fairly soon on this so the House may have a Deputy Speaker, male or female?
[English ]


Harvie Andre: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are negotiations and discussions actively under way. I am pleased to report that an announcement will be made soon.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I, too, have a question for the hon. government House leader.
The Minister of Environment, in his remarks during Question Period, indicated that legislation would be forthcoming with regard to the environmental assessment review process.
Could the House leader advise the House, for scheduling purposes, when we might anticipate that legislation being tabled? Will it be next week, for example?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I am not able to give a precise answer to that question. It is certainly the intention of the government, as indicated by the Minister of the Environment, to have that legislation brought forward at least for first reading and consideration by this House and the public as soon as possible.
It is literally a question of drafting and getting it in shape for presentation in the House. That is going to be done as soon as possible. I cannot be more precise than that, I am sorry.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, just for further clarification, is it the House leader's understanding that the
legislation will be tabled before we break for the summer?


Harvie Andre: It depends on when we break for the summer, but, yes, it is hoped that that will occur before we break for the summer. Hopefully, the break for the summer will not be beyond the intended time, if you will. We are certainly looking to do it as soon as possible, and certainly before we do depart for our constituencies for the summer.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nault:
That this House condemn the government for its lack of commitment to northern Canada and for its failure to treat Northerners fairly and equitably as demonstrated by:
(1)	its lack of commitment to economic diversification;
(2)	deserting northern Ontario by slashing VIA Rail services;
(3)	abandoning all northerners with its regressive unemployment insurance legislation;
(4)	planning the cancellation of the northern residents deduction for isolated areas;
(5)	imposing a 15 percent export tax on softwood lumber;
(6)	cancelling the mining depletion allowance and flow-through share benefits for mining exploration;
(7)	imposing a goods and services tax; and
(8)	failing to implement adequate adjustment programs for single industry towns.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the hon. member for Sudbury.


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the motion of my party which states:
That this House condemn the government for its lack of commitment to northern Canada and for its failure to treat Northerners fairly and equitably-
I might add that with a motion such as this we could add all regions of the country that are not centrally located. Regions such as Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver seem to fare quite well.
May 10, 1990

We in northern Ontario suffer from a lack of proper transportation. VIA Rail services have been cut and we are all very much aware of that. This imposes great hardships on many communities in the north.
When the Conservatives came to power, they privatized Air Canada. As a result we now no longer have the benefits of Air Canada in any place in northern Ontario, except Thunder Bay. This means that we have lost some prestige. Some might say this took place because Air Canada was not making a profit in some areas. But I can tell you from my days on city and regional council in that area that we commissioned a study back in the early 1980s which proved to Air Canada that it did make a profit and it stayed on in the community.
With a lack of commitment to anything but privatization, Air Canada now feels that it does not have to worry about these markets. After all, we are captive market. We pay more and have less service, but there is very little we can do about it.
We have talked about the GST and the kinds of hardships that will be imposed on northern communities by it. Today, during Question Period, I spoke about a flyer and some straightforward answers about the goods and services lax. It mentions that in some instances consumers will have to bear the full brunt of the 7 per cent. It mentions dry-cleaning and movies, but the flyer neglects to mention that hydro and heating bills will bear the full brunt of the 7 per cent goods and services tax.
When one lives in a northern community, one's heating and lighting bills are high. The further north you go, the higher it is. There is no getting away from having to bear the full brunt of that goods and services tax. We have spoken with people from Ontario Hydro and the heating industries. There is very little manufacturers' sales tax buried in their rates now. There is no argument when these people say themselves that they are going to have to increase their fees because of the goods and services tax. They are sending out notices now stating that someone living in the north will have to pay far more because of this tax than someone living in the south.
Back in the fall, I asked a question of the Minister of Finance in which I explained that the goods and services tax will add a great burden on people in the northern and
Supply
more remote areas of the country because the cost of transportation will be taxed.
At that time, the minister was not completely aware of the effect of the cost of transportation on goods. He said that the merchants can claim a credit for the tax they pay on transportation. The fact of the matter is that the cost of transportation is included in the final price of the goods. The 7 per cent tax is added on to the final price of the goods. So, you do pay more if you live further away.
There is not only that, but your goods are less attractive. If you produce goods in the north, then you have to ship them. There is a higher transportation cost in the beginning to reach the larger markets. These people also have to bear the brunt of additional GST on a higher end result price. There is absolutely nothing in the GST that is of any use to people in Canada, especially not for people in northern Ontario and the more remote regions of the country.
There is no incentive for people to invest in some of the resource industries in the north. We have talked specifically about the cancellation of the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program. This was a form of subsidy for junior mining companies to go out and explore some of the sites in northern Ontario. The total amount of money now being spent on exploration has decreased, and decreased drastically. It will continue to decrease until only the large mining companies will be doing exploration. They will continue to do exploration. In 1987, we were benefiting from $1.2 billion in mining exploration. That figure will go down to about $400,000 by the year 1991.
We talk about retraining. We say people want to be retrained. Yes, they do want to be retrained, but they want to have a job to be retrained to. In a community such as Temagami there are the wood and mining industries. The wood industry is suffering greatly because of the 15 per cent surtax on softwood lumber. One of mining sites in Temagami was closed down just recently.
What do we say to the people of Temagami when we tell them we will retrain them? What are we going to retrain them to do if there are no jobs there? If we do not create incentives for people to create jobs in these areas, they are going to have to move. Do we tell a family: "Sell your house. Move to Toronto"? How can

May 10, 1990
Supply
they afford to buy a house or live in Toronto? These are very difficult choices that we must ask these people to make.
Furthermore, there are pressures in asking anyone to move to Toronto. There are pressures for social housing. It is not worth the incentive to move them to Toronto. It is far costlier to keep a person in Toronto than in an area where they have affordable housing.
The government has to change its mind-set. It has to decide that it has a commitment to northern Ontario, and to the regions of the country. It can do that, first, by enhancing diversification programs so that companies will be anxious to locate in these areas. Second, it can provide infrastructures such as transportation so that the goods that are produced in these areas can more readily reach the larger markets. That is absolutely essential. It is essential that all levels of government sit down together to map out some kind of plan. We cannot just say: "There is nothing we can do. Business will rule all." If business rules all, then there is no hope for anyone in this country. They will all move south.
I ask the government, please, to reconsider its stand. Any time there are any cut-backs in jobs at the federal level, offices in northern Ontario are closed. The Government says: "You can call Toronto or travel to Toronto, or you can travel to Ottawa". That is great if there are the facilities to travel and the money. But it does make the cost of doing business in northern Ontario much higher.
Just recently, Consumer and Corporate Affairs closed an office in Sudbury. All bankruptcies and trusteeships are now handled through a Toronto office and a Toronto number. This causes an additional aggravation which the people of northern Ontario do not deserve.
If there was any way possible to bring in some programs which would offer incentives for jobs to be created in northern Ontario, or in any of the other far-reaching regions of the country, then that would be the answer. Take the Atlantic provinces, for example, which are suffering. Thke some of the western provinces and their agriculture. There are problems there.
Perhaps the government will wake up and realize before it is too late that it has to consider seriously pushing Mr. John Crow into easing his high interest rate policy and letting the value of the Canadian dollar drop
somewhat to a more reasonable level. Then those exports which are vital to the northern communities would be allowed to trade at a reasonable profit and more jobs could be created.
I have to end my remarks now and say that, after this morning's meetings with Mr. Crow, I am not at all optimistic that Mr. Crow is going to consider reducing his pressure on high interest rates. I would think that Mr. Crow is watching the Toronto market and even the Toronto market is suffering because the manufacturers are shutting down in all these very important aspects of our economy.
I suggest that we condemn the government for its complete and total lack of action. It is not only a lack of action, but an action in reverse by cutting back programs to the regions. I ask that the government reconsider and give everyone a chance.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I wish to ask my colleague a question, after listening to her very enlightened remarks. She recognized the seriousness of the Conservative government's policies and the negative impact they have on the people living in the outlying regions of this country. These actions are really dividing us, not only rich and poor but also regionally. They are having a very negative effect on everyone.
When I travelled with the VIA Rail task force we were up in the Gaspe. I heard about the very serious problems that exist for the handicapped and for children in need of treatment who had to get to Montreal. I presume they would have to go to Toronto or other major centres if they come from other outlying districts. It is impossible to travel in comfort by bus, according to them, and I can understand that. Travel by car is often very difficult both in terms of the weather and in terms of the cost. Planes are very expensive, and I need not underscore that point.
What are people doing now that the services of VIA Rail have been cut? How are the needy, in terms of physical and mental health, seeking the kind of services that they require, let alone all the other aspects that you have looked at?


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. I want to say to my hon. colleague that I have a nephew who is severely disabled. He was explaining to
May 10, 1990

me the difficulties he has in taking a bus. It is absolutely impossible for him to take a bus to travel to Ottawa or Toronto. For him to get on an airplane now is also very difficult because the Air Ontario planes are much smaller. There is very little room. They need a certain number of days for an advance booking. It is quite a procedure. It is a very demeaning procedure also, which I think is the most difficult thing of all for him.
There is no real way for him to travel except for his parents to transfer him to the car and drive him to wherever he has to go. The problem with this nephew of mine is that he is now in his thirties and his parents are now in their sixties. It is becoming much more difficult for them to do this for him.
Train travel was the answer for him. When there is a severe medical problem there are air ambulances and the like. That of course applies across the province of Ontario. It is a provincial initiative used only in extreme cases where a person's health is in danger. The Government of Ontario through medicare will help cover the costs of that. So in that sense he is protected.
It is the more mundane acts of ordinary living that are very difficult for these people. The lack of adequate transportation does not enhance the situation. It is a detriment to them becoming more mobile and more self-sufficient as they should be.
I thank the hon. member for that comment.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on this opposition motion.
When we talk about condemning the government for its lack of commitment to northern Canada and for its failure to treat northerners fairly and equitably, I want to stress that we are talking about all regions of northern Canada.
I want to start by telling Canadians about an experience that I had two weeks ago when I was in Graven-hurst, Ontario. I was speaking with people at Gravenhurst High School. We were talking about the environment. They were telling me that just three weeks prior to my visit the sewage treatment plant in the town of Gravenhurst, an antiquated plant about which they had been worried for many years because it was out of date and which, with the influx of population, was under
Supply
stress, broke down and spilled 100,000 gallons of raw sewage into Lake Muskoka.
There may be some who do not realize this but the Lake Muskoka region is one of the most precious assets of this country. At first blush many people would not realize how serious this was for the whole community. Here is a community that depends on the purity of the clean water for that region. If that tourism feature breaks down, then there is absolutely nothing left in the region.
What I am sensing is that there is a general lack of commitment to address northern concerns. It is almost as if we are paranoid about the deficit. We are cutting all the time and refusing to be creative, or we are being penny wise and pound foolish. I am not just talking about the national governments, all governments are responsible here. Had that sewage treatment plant been replaced two to five years ago this incident never would have happened.
There is a litany of examples like this across northern Canada where I think we are really being negligent. Yes, it is important to be careful of the deficit and debt of this country, but I also think we have to be creative. One of the great features of northern Canada is its value in terms of tourism. As you know, Madam Speaker, tourism is the biggest job creator in this country. If we fracture the stability of our tourism industry in this country, then we are in serious trouble. That is going to add an even further difficulty to the national debt.
Sometimes when I see some of the small cuts that the government is making in its programs, I get a sense that it is really not thinking long term. For example, in the area of tourism promotion, there have been massive cut-backs by this government. This is an area in which we should not be cutting back. We should be increasing the dollars that we put into the promotion of tourism in this country. With the GST coming we are going to need a lot more tourism advertising to lure people here because the GST is going to be a massive disincentive. That tourism factor touches every northern region of this country.
In other northern parts of Canada we have concerns about the environment at James Bay. We also have the concerns of the Cree to consider.

May 10, 1990
Supply
The James Bay project is the largest man-made project in the history of the world. We have to make sure that not only the rights of the aboriginals but also environmental concerns are fully addressed. We must put the government on notice that we are not just going to let some kind of a quick assessment of the environmental problems create a rush on the Cree causing them to lay back letting the decision of the provincial government and the national government be the rule of the day.
We have seen time and time again where these rights and the environment have really been compromised. Fortunately, right now we seem to have a government which seems to be getting a sense that the people of Canada are absolutely dedicated to making sure that our government and all people in public office are committed to the environment. I say that in light of this government's Speeches from the Throne and its recent green plan. This is another area where we must keep the government on its toes.
The same problem exists in Barriere Lake where we have had to press hard to make sure that the rights of the Algonquins are protected.
As we move across to western Canada, we see problems in Athabaska and the Great Slave Lake where there is great concern that the effluents from the pulp and paper mills will be flowing into the north as well, something which affects the fishery and the life of the aboriginal peoples there.
We have a real litany of concerns in northern Canada. We have a government that is not being as sensitive as it should be. These are precious assets for Canada, for all of us and for our children into the next 20 or 30 years.
If we lose our commitment to these areas, there will be billions of dollars we are going to have to-



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, 1he Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-16, an Act to establish the Canadian Space Agency and to provide for other matters in relation to space. Chapter 13.
Bill S-11, an Act to restructure the Eastern Canada Synod of the Lutheran Church in America under the name of the Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada.
Bill S-13, an Act to amend an Act to incorporate the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 38, I must inform the House that the questions to be raised this evening at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan-Air Safety; the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre-Refugee Status.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nault:
That this House condemn the government for its lack of commitment to northern Canada and for its failure to treat northerners fairly and equitably as demonstrated by:
(1)	its lack of commitment to economic diversification;
(2)	deserting northern Ontario by slashing VIA Rail services;
(3)	abandoning all northerners with its regressive unemployment insurance legislation;
(4)	planning the cancellation of the northern residents deduction for isolated areas;
(5)	imposing a 15 percent export tax on softwood lumber;
(6)	cancelling the mining depletion allowance and flow-through share benefits for mining exploration;
May 10, 1990
[Stage Direction]
(7)	imposing a goods and services tax; and
(8)	failing to implement adequate adjustment programs for single industry towns.
Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, as I was saying earlier, the government seems to be really missing the assets that we have in northern Canada. As I mentioned before we broke for Royal Assent, the greatest job creator in this country is tourism; our environment in the north, our water, our resources, our aboriginal peoples, Canada's first environmentalists are resources and assets that we cannot treat lightly. We cannot take them for granted.
This government always seems to be retreating from its responsibility, whether it is unemployment insurance, VIA Rail or selling off Crown corporations. One day the government states that they are being sold off because they are not making money. Then Canada Post makes money, but it is going to be sold off. There is a total lack of consistency in terms of its financial planning.
I am concerned that our north, right across Canada, is going to be put into jeopardy. We on this side of the House are concerned. As my hon. colleague from Thunder Bay said earlier, it should not be that just because a city in the north is having difficulty that we shut it down and move everybody to Toronto or to Montreal. That is not the spirit that built this country. We are here for equality of rights and we are here for disadvantaged regions in every part of Canada. We should not allow this government to enshrine its principle of treating this country like a business, where if something does not make economic sense today it is shut down and things are shuffled around like they are pawns on a corporate chess board. That is not the way to run a nation. It is certainly not the way to run the north.
We on this side of the House condemn the government for its treatment of northern Canada.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, Earth Day was barely a week ago.

During the course of Earth Day, I had the occasion to meet a number of youth groups. I would say to my hon. colleague who comes from a large urban area like I do, you from Toronto and I from Montreal, that I was quite fascinated with these young people from an urban centre who were expressing serious concern. They wanted to
Supply
know: "Is it true, Mrs. Finestone, that the land mass that they are going to flood to meet Vermont, New Hampshire and New York's electricity needs is as big as France?" I said: "That is a very good question. I think so." They said: "But why are we doing that to our land? And is it true, Mrs. Finestone, that that is where the aboriginal peoples live? Did they not first come and settle this country? Are they not the first peoples of land? I understand that they have complained and they feel that their rights have been abridged."
The other part of the question, which they did not raise but on which I recall very heated arguments and exchanges in the House with the present Minister for International Trade, was with respect to water and the inclusion of water in the free trade agreement. We are all living with some concerns about the heat wave that is supposed to be coming, the desertification of our land, and the greenhouse effect. All these issues would indicate that we have to husband the waters of the north, take care in conservation and in planning and the directions we wish to go in terms of public policy.
I know that my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood ran a very important seminar this summer which came out with some important decisions with respect to the environment. Did you address some of the questions that the young people asked me on Earth Day? Did you look at the implications of water in the free trade agreement?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mount Royal for the question.
The very first time I spoke in this House I mentioned that I was absolutely paranoid about the section relating to water in the free trade deal. The Government of Canada has stated that water is not part of the free trade deal. However, I have listened to some of the best lawyers in this country and they say the exact opposite. In fact Clayton Yeutter has said on many an occasion that the real jewel in the free trade deal is that they have access to Canada's water.
As I suggested almost a year and a few months ago, if the Prime Minister of Canada were so confident that water was not part of the deal, it would seem very simple to put all of us at ease. He has a very good relationship with the President of the United States. He could say: "The people of Canada are concerned about water in the free trade deal. Could I please have, Mr. President, a one-page special protocol letter, which you and I will both sign, saying that water is in fact not a part of this

May 10, 1990
Supply
deal?" I have yet to hear a response from the government.
The real sleeper in the free trade deal, the thing that we must all keep our heads up for, is the section related to water.
As for your first question that your students put about the environmental concerns and the rights of the Cree, we have been studying this problem for years and years. There are legal minds on both sides of the issue. The Prime Minister's former principal secretary is now lobbying on behalf of the party going against the Cree. When heavy-hitters such as that are brought in, there must be some legitimate concern.
It is incumbent on each and every one of us on this side of the House to make sure that not only environmental concerns but aboriginal rights and the rights of the Cree are protected. We should not only be catering to Hydro Quebec and the eastern United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood was talking to the hon. member for Mount Royal through the Speaker, was he?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Absolutely. Pardon me, Madam Speaker. As time goes on I will get used to all the rules here.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, this morning when I saw the Orders of the Day, I noticed that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River had put forward a motion. It almost reminded me of a shot gun type of approach into which he figured he would throw everything. However, Madam Speaker, he missed one thing. I thought for sure he would have condemned the government because we had a lot of snow in northern Ontario this year.
I have been here since 1982. I had the opportunity to sit in opposition between 1982 and 1984. If you are a Liberal, you never have to say you are sorry and you never have to say you are wrong.
When a motion such as this one is brought forward, it gives me a great opportunity to show the difference between 1982 and 1984, 1984 up to the present, and
exactly what changes have been made in northern Ontario.
Members of the House and those who are listening to this debate should go back a touch and focus on what has happened, because sometimes we forget.
Unemployment climbed from 358,000 in 1968 to
1,384,000	in 1984. That is before we were in power.
We have been hearing a lot about the bank rate in Canada in the last number of days and weeks. In 1981 it climbed to 21.24 per cent. The chartered bank prime was 22.75 per cent. A five-year mortgage was 21.75 per cent. If you are are a Liberal member, you do not have to say you are sorry. That is what happened up until 1984.
Let me review a couple of other fundamental issues just so we get this debate down to where it should be. Spending in the federal government climbed from $12.3 billion in 1968 to $109 billion in 1984. That is an average of 14.6 per cent. The deficit climbed from $400 million in 1968 to $38.3 billion in 1984. That is 96-fold increase. The debt of this nation climbed from $18.1 billion to $199.1 billion, an increase of 1,000 per cent.
You would almost think on September 5, the day after the 1984 election, just like a mushroom, all of a sudden it is the Tories who caused the deficit in this country, that there was never a deficit up until September 5, 1984. The truth hurts, but I think Canadians really have to understand why this government has had to make the changes it has.
We heard in the House today about unemployment. Let me review a few comparisons. In 1984 the annual unemployment rate in north eastern Ontario was 14.9 per cent. The annual unemployment rate in 1989 was 8.1 per cent. In northwestern Ontario it was 9.7 per cent in 1984 and 5.9 per cent in 1989. The unemployment rate in northern Ontario in 1984 was 13.6 per cent. That was after 15 solid years of great Liberal management. At the end of 1989, under a Conservative government-the bad boys, as they would like to convey to Canadians, and the people who do not know how to run the country-it was
7.5	per cent. I think those figure speak for themselves.
I would like to go through a couple of the areas that the member for Kenora-Rainy River wanted to talk about, for example, the lack of commitment to economic diversification in northern Ontario. Until 1984 if north-
May 10, 1990

ern Ontario wanted to deal with the federal government there was only one way to do it. We had to go to Toronto. Yes, we had a couple of offices in northern Ontario, but there was never a decision made in northern Ontario. The decisions were made either in Toronto or Ottawa, and they were usually too busy looking at booming parts of the country to worry about the concerns of dear old northern Ontario.
The Prime Minister, the minister for industry and trade at the time, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, and the cabinet decided that it was time that northern Ontario was recognized as an area of economic development with its own program. It is the first time that northern Ontario has been recognized. It was recognized with a program called FedNor. Offices were set up in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, and Sudbury with boards made up of local individuals, people from northern Ontario communities who discuss and know what projects should go ahead.
Since 1984 this government has contributed over $19 million to the economy of northern Ontario. That is over 300 projects that ensure the opportunity for northern Ontario companies and communities to be able to have their own say and their own direction. That has never happened before.
We do not stop at that. We have never stopped. We are continuing to work along that line. I heard my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood talking about tourism. I recognize that tourism is very important to northern Ontario and this government recognized it.
On November 23 of last year the minister of tourism made an announcement of an $8 million contribution to FedNor to be specially earmarked for tourism. The maximum contribution allowed under the program is the lesser of $500,000 or 35 per cent of capital costs for theme parks, ski centres, tour boat operations. It is the lesser of $100,000 or 35 per cent of capital costs for accommodation and marina projects. This never happened before. This happened because local individuals on a board representing northern Ontario came to the government, talked to the minister and said: "We need
Supply
to have something that is going to help develop the infrastructure of tourism".
I would like to move on to another area we have talked about: the budget. The night of the budget it was put across northern Ontario by the opposition that FedNor was gone; the government had cut FedNor.
The government made one change in FedNor. That change is that projects over $100,000 will have an option which is plain and clear. It could be a loan repayable over five, ten or fifteen years on which no interest will be paid. If the board decides that that adjustment is not correct, it can be a straight grant. However, projects under $100,000 will continue to be seen as they were prior to the budget. We have increased FedNor by $14 million. Again I say to my colleagues who were crying wolf that they are wrong again. FedNor is strong. FedNor is there to support, and it will continue to support with extra dollars.
The part that is so troubling is that it is such a good program and that has been recognized. I wish the odd time my colleagues from the other side would take some time out and start to applaud it. The reason I say that is that I have a few figures here that I would like to place on the record.
Accepted FedNor assistance for electoral districts to April 12, 1990: For the riding of Algoma, 54 projects, $2,093,292 or 128 jobs created or maintained; the riding of Kenora-Rainy River, 36 projects, $1,386,660 or 148 jobs created or maintained; the riding of Nipissing, 20 projects, $3,855,994 or 425 jobs created or maintained.
FedNor has played an important part in bringing recognition to northern Ontario. The Marylin plumbing fixture plant will be built in North Bay, the first time a plant of this size has been located in northern Ontario. The efforts of the FedNor board and its employees enabled us to ensure that the infrastructure dollars were going to be there for that project.
I should mention that these are opposition ridings. They are not held by Tories. These are opposition ridings that this government believes in supporting. The Sudbury Nutrino Centre is a science centre, the only one in the world. This government has committed itself, from the Prime Minister with research and development, to the

May 10, 1990
Supply
minister responsible for FedNor, to the Minister of Science and Technology. We are committed to this project and to spending more than $30 million.
Two weeks ago in Thunder Bay we announced funding of $2 million to help get the Nordic International Games in Thunder Bay in 1995.
There are two other areas of FedNor I would like to take a moment to talk about. I have to watch how I say this, but we in northern Ontario have had a difficult time selling to the government, whether it is a stationery store, a furniture manufacturer, or a printing company. To be able to get on a list or to be able to get that opportunity at least to quote would be advantageous.
In 1986, under FedNor, we set up a procurement incentive program. An official based in Sault Ste. Marie works directly with the companies in northern Ontario to ensure they get the opportunity, are put on lists, and are informed of exactly who to call and how to fill out the quotation forms.
Furthermore, the Conservative government that members opposite would have people believe is so bad, will bring together on May 28, 29 and 30 here in Ottawa over 100 companies from across northern Ontario. They will be setting up displays, giving the opportunity for all departments to come and see what we have to offer in northern Ontario. That is a first. That, to me, indicates a real commitment to all the companies in northern Ontario.
There are areas in northeastern Ontario that are going through some difficult times. I can say that the town of Elliott Lake is having troubles. We are looking toward the advisory board and Pathfinders to ensure that everything can be done to help that community. My own riding of Timiskaming and communities within are certainly having difficult times.
Companies such as Dingwell's Machinery & Supply Company, which requires an investment of $430,000 will receive a FedNor contribution of $107,000 toward this sum. Company vice-president, Robert Bell, said:
FedNor was great to work with. They supported us throughout the
whole endeavour. They looked at it carefully to see if it was viable.
They looked for stability, and feasibility.
That is what economics is all about. That is what this program is all about. That is what northern Ontario is all about.
I would like to move on to one other area. It concerns the 15 per cent surtax on softwood lumber. There is no doubt that the lumber industry in northern Ontario is going through a difficult time. There are a number of reasons for that.
It cannot be blamed only on the 15 per cent surtax. If the hon. member over there would understand what the combination is and listen, I will tell him exactly what the reasons are. For instance, the logging and hauling costs combined account for 64 per cent of the over-all costs of operation. Poor timber quality results in higher cost factors. There are higher sawmill costs. There has been a 30 per cent decline in sales to eastern U.S. markets since 1986.
The province of Ontario, through the 15 per cent that they get back from the federal government, which is supposed to go back to the industry, received $30,551 million in 1987. In 1988 it was $21,358 million, and in 1989 it was $17,710 million. That totals almost $68 million.
That money should have been put back into the industry to help with modernization and silviculture and help them through the difficult times. Instead what did the province do with $68 million that belongs to the industry?
Madam Speaker, it is easy to talk but when you look at the facts, they are clear. To put the blame on the 15 per cent tax is not the answer. You must look at the combination of reasons why the industry is in trouble.
If my colleagues in Toronto at Queen's Park are listening, I hope they will lobby the Minister of Natural Resources to come to her senses and join in with the rest of the Canadian provinces and the forestry companies, to sit down and negotiate a way out of this. Of all the provinces, Ontario is the only hold-out before we can do anything to negotiate with the Americans. The province of Ontario is the hold-out, but I can see why. Who would want to get rid of a $68 million cash cow.
Anyway, I would like to move on to deal with a couple of areas.
We hear a lot about unemployment and the fact that the unemployment programs are not correct. We know that the other place is holding up Bill C-21, a bill that is so important for regions of this country. It is a bill that would give the opportunity for adjustments whether in mining, the sawmill and particle board industry, agriculture or the expenditure of $350 million a year for training for an additional 60,000 people who would like to be trained. Additional training is available for modern
May 10, 1990

technology, which is becoming more and more important to be competitive.
I should mention that this government, under the former minister from Kingston and the Islands, made the right decision in formulating Community Futures Program through which communities have the opportunity to ensure that the programs for worker adjustment are there.
I would like to take a moment to describe the employment, training and data programs that are ensured in ridings such as Timiskaming and Algoma in northern Ontario in order to show what this government is doing. In the year 1988-89, the riding of Algoma has received "$7,946,000".
Again, it indicates that this government is certainly recognizing that ridings such as these should be supported. Kenora-Rainy River received $7,645,584 for such programs as employment training, job development, job entry, Challenge 88, skills shortages, skills investment, Community Futures, Innovation.
Madam Speaker, if you listened earlier today, you would think there was not a thing that this government is doing in northern Ontario. We are doing everything we can, but this government was left with an anchor around the neck. There was mismanagement of the economy by a government that was in power for 15 years. It did not care about the future and whether there was a debt left for our children and grandchildren. Spend, spend, spend. Spending is popular because it gets one elected. Those days are over.
Canadians recognize that we have a problem and that we have to make adjustments, whether it is under the free trade agreement, on our tax reform or on the goods and services. This government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, is making the correct moves. We are making sure that we will be able to challenge Europe in 1992. Our country will be able to challenge anybody around the world with regard to manufacturing, ensuring that we have a strong structure in place for our children and grandchildren.
I say again that this government has done more to ensure the stability of northern Ontario and other
Supply
regions across this country in the last five years, and we will continue to do so over the next three years. I will say here right now that whether it is 1992 or 1993, Canadians are going to recognize what this government has done and that we have set the course for the next decade. They will be sure to elect this government one more time.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's remarks.
He began by saying: "Being Liberal means never having to say you are sorry." He had it almost right. What he really should have said is: "Being Liberal means never having to say you are Tory." He had it a little bit wrong. Notwithstanding those remarks, I want to ask a question of my colleague across the way, who made these vicious attacks against the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources, the Hon. Lyn McLeod. It concerns what he considers the failure of the Ontario minister to sign the Canada-Ontario forest agreement, which has a tremendous impact on my own constituency of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell. Only a few miles from Ottawa, we have the Larose forest, the second largest transplanted forest in the country, and I want to take this opportunity to invite all my colleagues to come and visit this beautiful Larose forest.
I want to read, to my colleague across the way, a letter I have in hand which was just received today, signed by the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources and addressed to the Minister of Forestry. It reads:
Dear Mr. Oberle:
Your recent remarks in the House of Commons about the Canada-Ontario Forest Resource Development Agreement were very troubling to me. In those remarks, you indicated that your Government was waiting for Ontario to indicate that it wished a renewal of that Agreement, and that Ontario was displaying little urgency.
That follows in line with what the member across the way was saying. Let us hear the truth, Madam Speaker. Here it is. The letter goes on:
You surely know that this is not the case. Ontario has been pressing, at both Minister and staff levels, and on numerous occasions, for such action. My letter of December 19, 1989 -is just one instance of our urging that the Agreement be renewed.

May 10, 1990
Supply
I want to ask the member across the way, how dare he make such a criticism against the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources, when it is his own government that is failing to sign that agreement with Ontario and failing to provide the leadership necessary for reforestation, not only in the north but all across the province of Ontario, including my own riding?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, to the hon. member, if Liberals were popular they could probably have formed the government in 1984 and 1988. They sure did not do that.
Frankly, since 1984, this government has increased the budget for forestry by 300 per cent. It is finally starting to become apparent that the Ontario minister finally woke up and decided that she has to do something. For the last two years, we have been trying to get an agreement. We have done everything possible to ensure that the opportunities are there.
I know the Ontario Lumbermen's Association, the Sawmills' Association and the municipalities all want an agreement, but she has been dragging her heels. As she did in closing down Temagami if she had stood up and fought for the natural resource, fought for the fact of cutting and multi-use in Temagami, we would still have 80 jobs left in there.
She is not listening to the people of the north. She is being dictated to by the people of the south, and I hope someday she will wake up and start doing what is right for the people who live in the regions and ensure that the forestry opportunities are going to be there.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Madam Speaker, I also would like to pursue, with the member, the forestry agreement for British Columbia.
The forestry agreement for British Columbia expired at the end of March. There has been no effort by the federal government to sign the agreement with the province of British Columbia. For goodness sake, with all of these good programs that the member is talking about and all of the good work that the government is doing, is it not time that the federal government announced its proposal for the amount of moneys to be made available for British Columbia for its forestry programs so that the service groups that provide the seedlings and so on, can operate and manage their programs for the years to come? For the minister to-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has difficulty with the hon. member's line of questioning.
The question should relate to the hon. member's speech and I have not heard the hon. member talk about British Columbia a lot in his speech. Maybe the hon. member would want to answer.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Whether it is a forest in northern Ontario or in British Columbia, I support it.
I should say that I know there are negotiations going on between the province of British Columbia and the Minister of Forestry. I would expect that, within a very short period of time, there will be some good announcements.


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member's speech. In the motion tabled in the House this morning, we read, under item 1: "Its lack of commitment to economic diversification". I heard the hon. member mention FedNor, the program for northern Ontario. I also heard about all the benefits northern Ontario residents have enjoyed under this program.
My question is this: Was there any similar attempt under the previous government to develop a specific region, as we have done? Did that government take any concrete action, Madam Speaker? For instance, we introduced a plan for western Canada, for Atlantic Canada, and the "Plan de l'Est" for Quebec.
If this is so important to the Liberals and the New Democrats, were there any programs at the time to stimulate job creation and diversification of the economies of these northern regions?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, prior to 1984, if someone in northern Ontario wanted to look into the expansion of a sawmill, an industrial welding shop, or a small business, their only opportunity would be to apply through Toronto. The applications went into a great big drum and, with any luck at all, at the end of the month, six weeks, or 12 weeks, they might have been recognized. In that period of time, there was so much red tape and so many hoops to go through that a year would be over.
May 10. 1990

One of our greatest concerns in 1984 was to ensure that we had a program in place so that individuals across northern Ontario, northwestern Ontario and northeastern Ontario, would have the opportunity to have counsellors who would move forward to ensure the programs were recognized and the applications received and reviewed by individuals in northern Ontario. This is what we tried to do.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, on the point regarding red tape, I support the hon. member. I still think there is too much red tape, even though we have a place in the north. He did mention some interesting pluses which we recognize. The Sudbury Science Centre is one of them.
Some of these infrastructure commitments he made are interesting. A plant in North Bay produces toilets for houses and industry, but we are not building houses because the economy is not going forward and there is a whole spirit where the entire nation is lacking in confidence. This is where the member is missing the point we are trying to make.
The hon. member has an interesting list of statistics, but somehow they are not translating into moving the nation, turning on the nation, or getting the nation excited. He cannot use the argument that the government inherited a debt because, yes, we did have a debt but this government doubled it from 1984 to 1988 with one of the best economies we have had in years. The GNP went from about 450 to 620 in a four-year period. It was fantastic. That is when it should have been making some of its cuts.
When I was talking earlier about tourism, I was talking about marketing. We are going to have to stimulate and work twice as hard to get people to come to the north. The signal we are sending out regarding the problems we are having in terms of national unity and the GST is a bit of a nightmare for some American tourists.


An hon. member:: For everybody.


Dennis Joseph Mills: We will have to do something totally different from what we have done in the past. This is what concerns the people and it is reflected in the fact that about 85 per cent of the people in the country at this moment lack confidence in the government. I dare say it could change and I am not being smug about that 85 per cent. It could bounce back a bit.
Supply
How does the hon. member respond to that feeling out there that shows a general lack of trust and confidence, in spite of all the statistics and contributions of the government, especially in the north? I will give the government credit also for other parts of northern Canada as well. I am more concerned about turning on the nation so that we can dream again and have feelings. Would he please address that?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A short final comment from the hon. parliamentary secretary.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I will make it quite short. The vast majority of the population in northern Ontario has a tendency to turn off when they feel that the comments being made are not really adjusted to what is happening.
I would like to make two small comments. With regard to the plumbing facility in North Bay, it is not only new houses that use new fixtures, it is an over-all market. The other part is that in that market-place we are also shipping into the United States. If this facility had not been built in North Bay, it would have been built in Illinois. It is an opportunity to export.
We also have a job to do in tourism. There are no two ways about it. We have a short season up there. If it is a good year, we might have eight weeks; if it is a a bad year, we are down to four weeks. So, we do have a job to do. Through different programs and opportunities, we have our tourist operators and associations going to the United States and southern Ontario with programs, starting off in mid-November through to the end of February. It is an effort that has to be made. Quite frankly, you cannot turn everything around at once. Through FedNor and other programs, we are doing everything possible and we will continue to do so.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on the motion of the Liberal party. There are eight specific points mentioned in the motion, indicating the lack of commitment by the government to northern Canada and, from my perspective, northern Ontario, and the failure of the government to treat northerners fairly and equitably. It is demonstrated by the list which I think it is quite appropriate. But I do not think the list is all-encompassing. Very quickly, I jotted down at least two other areas in which the government's approach to

May 10, 1990
Supply
its policies has negatively impacted on life and the ability to survive in northern Ontario and northern Canada.
Let me start with one of my favourite topics, VIA Rail. That is a battle that northern Ontario residents fought as hard, if not harder, than other people across Canada. At 11.40 p.m. on January 15, we saw the last transcontinental train arrive and depart the Thunder Bay station. Well over 1,000 people who had attended a rally earlier that evening marched the half mile to the station to greet The Canadian.
Now, I should put into context that Thunder Bay is not a community that is known for visible protests. It is not the norm for its people to march on city hall in large numbers. We have a few committed individuals who, from time to time, are out there protesting certain actions by some level of government, but never in my lifetime have we seen over 1,000 people at 11.40 at night protesting a government policy.
It was important to them because it was not just a minor fine-tuning of the service. It was the out and out elimination of service. After that night, there were no more passenger trains rolling through Thunder Bay, Schrieber, Terrace Bay, Nipigon and Red Rock, Upsala, Ignace, Dryden, or through Kenora. We had lost 100 per cent of a service we had had for over 100 years.
Thirty thousand people got on and off in Thunder Bay with that service, but for the students at Lakehead University and Confederation College it was the only affordable method of travelling to and from our university and college community. People at the university and college have already noticed a decline in out-of-town student enrolment because of the cuts to VIA Rail.
It impacts on our seniors. Some chose not to drive or to fly to visit family and friends elsewhere in Canada, but others had no choice because of their physical make-up but to take the train. They no longer have that option. Residents of those communities in northwestern Ontario, who are confined to a wheelchair, no longer have an accessible means of transportation available to them, accessible in the sense that they can roll on and roll off by themselves. They did not have to have a stranger grappling with them to remove them from their chair to put them into a seat. They did not have to go through-let us face it-the insult of having to be carried onto a
plane or a highway bus. With trains, they did not have to go through that but now they do.
With the combination of the loss of VIA Rail, the deregulation of air, and the movement toward smaller and smaller commuter planes that are clearly not accessible for the handicapped, citizens in the smaller communities of northwestern Ontario have no choice but to relocate permanently to the Thunder Bays, the Winni-pegs, the Torontos and the Sault Ste. Maries, of this land.
The battle over VIA Rail was not just a romantic battle because we had had the train for so long. It was a key element in our ability to commute into and out of northwestern Ontario. The same applies to Atlantic Canada and northern parts of the prairies and British Columbia which were served by rail until this government decided that people were less important than the bottom line.
As you know, Madam Speaker, yesterday I was in the Federal Court of Appeal. We are waiting for a judgment on an action which I took along with Greenpeace Canada and my home community, the City of Thunder Bay. I mention that only to point out that decisions made here in Ottawa have far-reaching impacts on life-styles and on the environment. The government has argued in court not only that the Governor in Council or the cabinet is exempt from the environmental assessment review process, but so, too, is the Minister of Transport. If that is the case, what is left? Is the only person who has to adhere to an environmental assessment review process the typist in the steno-pool at Fisheries and Oceans? I hope not.
Just before I leave VIA to talk about some of the other items on the list of the motion, I want to read to you from a column that appeared in the weekend paper of the Times-News Chronicle-Journal of Thunder Bay. The writer is Gerry Poling, who is the regional editor for the paper and a life-long resident of northwestern Ontario and who has a really strong feeling about the north. He writes about his experiences post-VIA. He writes, and I quote:
In wiping out VIA Rail service to Thunder Bay, Transport Minister Benoit Bouchard, still left Canadians with a railway service across Canada, but via Armstrong. What he neglected to consider, however, is how one gets from Thunder Bay to Armstrong.
If you wanted to go to Vancouver by train, for example, you can buy a one way fare for $275 or, for seniors, $248. But then, to get to Armstrong, you have to take Grey Goose bus, which leaves Thunder Bay at 5:30 p.m. daily, and ride the 200-kilometre-long snakey, bumpy highway for 3 1/2 hours.
May 10, 1990

What he does not say is that that highway is the primary highway for hauling raw fibre from the bush. It is inundated with transport trucks, driving at very fast speeds, making a very unsafe situation for motorists and passengers in buses.
Just to continue, the cost for a one-way ticket is $24.20 or $38.70 for a round trip. Once you reach Armstrong you then have two hours and fifteen minutes to kill before train time, that is if the train is on time at 11.50 p.m.
He also points out that, by the way, the transcontinental train leaves Armstrong on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays only, so you must make sure you have the right day before you get on the bus.
The reality is that people are being forced to use alternate means of transport. More people are being put on the highways in northern Ontario, highways that have been killing people on a systematic basis for many years.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Highways don't kill people.


Iain Francis Angus: The hon. member chuckles but the carnage on those highways, because of conflicts between transports and private automobiles, is very serious. More than a dozen people a year, not just from northwestern Ontario but from across Canada, are killed in traffic accidents. The more people that are put on the highways, the more dangerous they become.
Let me leave VIA Rail and touch on some of the other aspects. With regard to unemployment insurance legislation, research that we have done shows that because of the changes to unemployment insurance-the reduction in the work weeks, the qualification period being longer, et cetera, upwards of $60 million a year is taken out of the northwestern Ontario economy. That economy is already struggling. We have communities like Atikokan, Ontario, in which one of every two people is out of work at some time each year and where there is a sustained unemployment level of 25 per cent.
Supply
The new UI act is not going to make it easier for them. Sure, they can get training, but for what? There are no jobs available. They have been through the training mill. They have had training for welders, log hauling, and for this, that and the other thing, but the jobs still are not there.
What northern Ontario and northern Canada needs is a more community-based form of economic development. We have to provide the tools at the local level to support the individual entrepreneur and to attract the investment group from outside. But beyond that, the north and, I would suggest, all regions in this country really need a better transportation policy.
I cannot put the onus on the federal government alone because transportation is controlled primarily by the two senior levels, provincial and federal, but the federal government does have a fairly major leadership role to play.
We hear these cries for Senate reform from western Canada and other parts of Canada based on the belief, and quite rightly so, that they have not been getting a fair shake. They see the jobs being created in the Golden Horseshoe and the greater Montreal area. Consequently, they see more government involvement visible in those areas. So they say to themselves that they need Senate reform so that they have some checks and balances and can get a fair deal, no matter what the stripe of the government in power, it will have to take notice of their needs.
There is a different way, and I think it is one that this House should explore from time to time to see how we can come up with a mechanism. It all stems around transportation.
One of the realities of the Golden Horseshoe is that because of the millions of people who live in that market it becomes cheaper to produce within that market the goods that that market consumes. The reason you cannot produce those goods in Thunder Bay, Atikokan, Calgary or Moose Jaw, is because of the high cost of moving those products from the manufacturer to the purchaser. That will always be a problem in Canada because of our geographic structure, that thin ribbon along the Ameri-

May 10, 1990
Supply
can border with a lot of drags south. We are seeing this now, not just because of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, but because of the natural forces of the economy between our two countries.
The solution is to find a way to neutralize the cost of transportation, to make it possible for the widget manufacturer who can sell 99 per cent of her product in Toronto, to also be able to make that product in Thunder Bay, Nipigon, or in Schreiber, and not find that it is impossible to compete with a Toronto-based producer because of the difference in the price of moving the finished product.
It may be a combination of the use of modes, a requirement that a good must travel by the cheapest mode, in other words, truck to rail to marine to final destination, so that you minimize the use of energy and maximize the saving to the producer.
The other way, which some companies already practice, is having a regional or national pricing policy. The best example in Ontario is beer. A box of beer costs the same on Yonge Street as it does in Kenora because the transportation component is rolled in as part of the wholesale price for the distribution. Therefore, everybody pays the same. Simpson Sears does it. Eaton's does it for a lot of their commodities on a regional basis. That allows them to market a fridge, stove, vacuum cleaner, or what have you at the same price in that regional market.
In effect, the purchaser in the Toronto area pays a couple of pennies more so that the purchaser in northwestern Ontario pays many dollars less. That is another method.
Another way would be to provide, through government intervention, some kind of tax credit system that would allow, again, for the neutralization of transportation costs. People may say that that is going to cause problems with those we compete with in the United States, offshore, and what have you, but as long as we are doing it for domestic purposes I cannot see any problem.
That is only a rough suggestion. I have not completely worked through the mechanics.


Mr. Redway:: Would that not be a corporate tax rip-off?


Iain Francis Angus: No, it would not be a corporate tax rip-off because those who are being ripped off today would
finally get the benefits. It actually might help to lower the cost of housing throughout the province as well. The hon. minister might want to consider it from that point of view.
Let me deal with a couple of other areas because I realize that my time is almost up, but I would be more than happy to respond to members' questions about this concept I have put forward.
With regard to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway, this government has recognized that the Western Grain Transportation Act, as adopted by the Liberal government before it, is having a negative impact on the port of Thunder Bay and other ports along the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway. This is another transportation policy which sought to equalize a particular mode of travel, in this case rail, in order to ensure an equal treatment in the movement of grain. The result has been a skewing of the system, a skewing of the marketplace, so that the west coast ports are favoured over Thunder Bay, Churchill and the Great Lakes system because the marine component is not included.
I realize that the Minister of Agriculture will be handing something down in June to deal with this, but it is a crucial matter to the port of Thunder Bay. We have gone from 1,700 or 1,800 grain handlers down to about 700. Men with 20 years of seniority did not get enough work last year to qualify for unemployment insurance under the old rules. So, Madam Speaker, work needs to be done in order to protect that component of the port of Thunder Bay, which allows it to be one of the few fully diversified communities in northern Canada.
On one final point, the member who spoke before me made reference to the contribution of the federal government to the World Nordic Games bid for the city of Thunder Bay. I was pleased that that happened. I supported the government and the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport all the way. I appreciate his help in securing that $2 million. I appreciate the help of some of his colleagues, particularly the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister for Tourism and Small Businesses for their assistance in convincing Cabinet that it was important to assist Thunder Bay in its attempt to get the 1995 World Nordic Championships, which I know we will get in two
May 10, 1990

weeks, and Thunder Bay will once again be back on the map internationally.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Madam Speaker, I know of the hon. member's interest in transportation because we have had many discussions on this in the past.
I know he would not want his comments to go by without also mentioning the fact that the government, realizing the need for a transportation policy in this country, especially on passenger transportation, has formed a royal commission on passenger transportation. I am sure that it will be looking to the needs for transportation for passengers in northern Ontario and northern Canada as much as it will in the Golden Horseshoe. In the Golden Horseshoe it is more a case of lack of capacity than a lack of ridership.
The member mentioned that people who are handicapped are not able to get access as easily now that the train has gone. I am sure that he will be glad to know that there has been a lot of investigation and, in fact, trial routes are now in place. Buses have been modified to give disabled people far more accessibility than the trains offered them in that they can be very conveniently lifted in their wheelchairs and put into place on the bus so that they never have to leave their chair.
I have spoken with disabled people who have tried this new system and they find it far superior to anything that they had before. It gives them far more ability to travel than they had in the past.
I know the member's concern about VIA Rail service in the north. I know how much effort he has put into it and I also know of his support for Thunder Bay and the port.
He raises a point about grain coming through Thunder Bay. I think he would also have to acknowledge the fact that part of the lack of grain travelling through Thunder Bay now is due to the fact that our markets for grain have changed. Much of our grain market now is in Asia and it is shorter to ship through the Pacific ports. That is one of the reasons why some of the grain is no longer going through the port of Thunder Bay.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for her comments.
Supply
Let me start with the last one. The minister might be interested in knowing that grain from the prairies going through Vancouver is destined for Egypt and has to go through the Panama Canal.
The minister is correct that the markets have shifted. There is no question about that. There is also no question about the impact of the EEC getting its act together and becoming an exporter of grain. That has had an impact. What bothers me is that the Canadian Wheat Board is being more aggressive in seeking out markets in the Pacific Rim than it is, for example, in North Africa and the Soviet Union.
Admittedly, the mandate of the Wheat Board is to get the highest price for the lowest cost to the producer, and I have no objection to that. My party has long supported that concept. But that, in conjunction with the WGTA, has forced the Wheat Board to go that way. It has closed its office in Europe and opened a new one in the Pacific Rim. So I do not think it is fair to say that it is strictly market forces that have created that situation. There is also the drought. We have to admit that there just is not as much grain as we used to have. But the important point is that they are maximizing the west coast and using Thunder Bay for whatever is left over. Right now we are down to 30 per cent of the export trade, and we used to be at 60 per cent.
With regard to the bus modifications, yes, I am aware of those. I would have preferred that they had been in place across the system before there were any cuts to VTA Rail, because we have in fact disenfranchised a number of our citizens.
I found the minister's comments about southern Ontario interesting. I think she said their problem is lack of capacity, not lack of access. Perhaps another time she might like to explain why the Government of Canada, through its Order in Council, reduced the number of trains and the number of cars available in the southern Ontario component so that there is less capacity available. In the meantime it is going to sell off the rolling stock that VIA has declared surplus to its needs.
On a final comment, I will be appearing before the Royal Commission on Transportation to outline what direction I and my party feel Canada should be heading into the year 2000 and beyond.

May 10, 1990
Supply


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I wonder what thoughts the member has with regard to the equalization of transportation costs. I think it is a great concept. Each province is taxing the diesel used by freight trains travelling across their province. This has been a tremendous deterrent for shipments, especially of coal from the western regions to the eastern regions. Has he any comments on that? That is beginning to be a very heavy burden on top of the other situations.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Provincial tax on railroad fuel was one of the questions that came up time and again during the VIA Rail debate because VIA Rail is also charged that tax. It is interesting that that tax is really a road tax to assist in the maintenance and construction of roads within the provinces. The irony is that the one mode of travel that owns its own roadbed is being taxed on its energy consumption to help pay for the roadbed that everybody uses, not for free, but without paying the full cost.
With regard to the coal question. I know that my colleague, when he was here the first time, did a lot of work on the issue of coal from the Kootenays coming down through Thunder Bay, being processed there and going on to Ontario Hydro plants. I took up some of that work when I was elected in 1984, as I know did the hon. Deputy Prime Minister who heads a task force to examine coal.
Quite frankly, I am disappointed with the province of Ontario and my own provincial member, the Hon. Lyn McLeod, who is the Minister of Energy. The province decided not to purchase additional amounts of coal from western Canada, low sulphur coal I might add, a cleaner burning coal. It chose to continue to draw high sulphur coal from the United States to use in the Ontario Hydro generating stations. We will continue to push for that. Obviously, the elimination of the fuel tax on rail will be one of the ways in which we can help make western Canadian coal much more competitive with the American high sulphur coal.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today and to apprise it of this government's commitment, not only to the people of
the north but to economic development and diversification in northern Canada.
The current economic conditions in the north contrast sharply with those of the mid-1980s. In 1984, the economic indicators such as the GDP, value of production and employment still demonstrated the effects of an earlier economic recession. Today these indicators show signs of growth, due in large part to the joint federal-territorial economic development programs under the Economic Development Agreement.
We must, however, ensure that the improved situation today is sustained and that the current growth which has occurred, thanks in part to the policies and economic development programming that we have provided, continues.
In particular, this government recognizes that Yukon and the Northwest Territories must continue to strengthen their leading sectors and diversify into other sectors if they are to achieve greater stability in the future and provide northerners with an adequate number and variety of economic opportunities.
This government has undertaken a number of successful initiatives to help support economic development in the north and to provide a stable planning framework. From a policy perspective, it has provided greater certainty to northern developers by, first, reaching agreements in principle with northern native groups on outstanding land claims, by reaching agreements in principle with the territorial governments on a northern energy accord, and by introducing a northern mineral policy.
Through targeted economic development programming under the federal-territorial Economic Development Agreements, assistance has been provided to northern entrepreneurs and to organizations to investigate and pursue new employment and business opportunities. This programming has been successful because with minimal support the federal government is able to lever additional territorial government dollars along with project dollars.
It has also been successful because much of the Economic Development Agreement spending has been targeted at strategic priorities and projects that are now showing and will continue to yield definite long-term benefits. Importantly, infrastructure has been put in place in numerous communities under the auspices of
May 10, 1990

economic development planning subagreements. These subagreements have included renewable resources, mineral development, arts and craft development, small business development and tourist development.
Participation by native people and organizations as proponents of these EDA projects in the Northwest Territories has been significant. In the Yukon participation has been increasing but we know more can be achieved. The federal government has introduced the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy, or CAEDS. This is to support native business and employment opportunities and to address economic development requirements of native people in general. With representatives from native organizations participating on the EDA committees, a greater understanding of the programming that is necessary has been gained with a resulting increase in usage.
The efforts under EDA to date have certainly made a positive contribution toward expanded, diversified and more stable territorial economies. However, to realize the full potential long-term benefits of the federal government's contribution to economic development, further government support and assistance is needed in the sectors that we have been encouraging.
Although the EDA with the Yukon expired last year, extensions have since been put in place. As well, the EDA with the Northwest Territories is scheduled to end this year. This government has, however, initiated preliminary discussions with both territorial governments with a view to developing new programming for a five-year period beginning in 1991.
The future challenge for the federal government in co-operation with northern governments is to continue the transformation of northern economies. This involves further diversification of the economic base with increased emphasis on sustainable economic development, structural changes to sectors, such as mining, to enhance the returns to the communities and to their residents, as well as linkages among the sectors.
Given the relative strength of the Canadian, Yukon and Northwest Territories economies and the possibilities arising from the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agree-
Supply
ment, it is easy to see that there are opportunities which can be pursued.
Under the subagreements of the EDAs, opportunities exist for the improvement and expansion of a number of essential areas, including the mining industry and the area of renewable resources, the tourism and business sectors, human resources development and skills acquisition, and ongoing economic planning by communities and governments.
The theme of diversification is not new. It has been a thrust of the federal and territorial economic programming in both territories over the last six years. We all recognize it as a solution to another challenge, which is to minimize the reliance upon a few sectors for revenue and employment.
Import substitution is a principal component of diversification, and the renewable resource sector is an excellent example of this type of development which will lead to stronger linkages between the wage economy and the traditional economies of the aboriginal people.
Technological innovation is another avenue for generating business opportunities, especially at a time when science and technology is a national and international growth area for future development.
Regardless of the approach taken to diversify the economy, long-term benefits can only accrue when economic growth has been balanced by the development and maintenance of a healthy resource base.
The key to this is the acquisition of requisite skills and training by our northerners participating in their expanding economy and the provision of an infrastructure achieved through community based planning which will encourage industry to locate and develop. This will be the key in the future.
I expect future federal economic development programming for Yukon and the Northwest Territories to recognize these many opportunities and to ensure that our efforts are directed to this accomplishment.
As well, this week the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development signed a roads program transfer agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories. This transfer represents yet another step

May 10, 1990
Supply
made by this government in the development of responsible northern government.
With this transfer the territorial government will not only be directly responsible to its citizens for the existing roads system, but it will receive $10.5 million to do so. This is an increase from the original program budget of $9.4 million and effectively paves the way for increased access, development and exploration.
In addition to the further developments of the preceding sectors, there are other events which I foresee as having significance to the development in the north. These events include the North American air defence modernization project, the renewed interest in northern gas pipelines, and oil and gas projects in the Beaufort Sea. Opportunities for new or expanded businesses and employment will undoubtedly be generated by these endeavours.
These will be reflected in and complimented by the organization of the land use planning commissions and recently initialled final agreements to settle land claims for the Yukon Indians and the Dene-Metis as well as the agreement in principle for the land claim for the TFN.
The settlement of land claims will be of particular significance to each territorial economy. Obvious benefits will be derived from direct injection of funds into the economy as well as through any investments made by native development corporations. It also means that native people will have a substantial land base to manage and develop for their future. The future of the north will be one of co-operation in a common goal for growth and prosperity.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this motion which I believe addresses a particularly important question, Canada's north.
The motion raises most of the critical issues that I believe need to be addressed. It speaks about economic diversification and the need for additional diversification. It points out that some of the transportation services have been reduced rather dramatically and it gives us the example of VIA Rail. It points out that some
of the transportation services have been dramatically reduced and it gives as one example VIA Rail. It also points to the regressive impact of the unemployment insurance legislation for high unemployment areas such as the north. Of course implied within that observation is that unemployment in the north is much greater than in a number of other areas in Canada. It talks about the planned cancellation of the northern residents' deduction. It identifies the imposition of the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber. It identifies the cancellation of the mining depletion allowance and flow-through share benefits for mining exploration and that the imposition of the goods and services tax will have a particularly negative impact on the north because of the higher costs involved. Of course 7 per cent is a great amount when we are dealing with costs that are higher than ordinary. Finally, it points out that there are no adequate adjustment programs for single industry towns.
How much do we really know about the north? I think this begs an even more fundamental or perhaps more basic question. How much we do really know about our country? How much do we really know about the province of Ontario if we have not lived there? How much do we really know about la province du Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, or the western provinces? How much do we really know about the north?
It has often been said that Canada is a country that does not know nearly as much about itself, its people, its regions, and its resources as it should. Therein lies a great problem.
I am particularly happy that this motion gives us an opportunity to talk about the north, one of the regions of Canada that is probably least understood.
When I think about the north right away I think about our two territories: Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I have been told that Yukon from a land mass perspective is roughly the size of Manitoba, which is approximately the size of France. In Yukon I am informed that there are approximately 25,000 people; in Manitoba, slightly more than one million; and in France, 55 million. I give these figures to show the dramatic differences that exist on this planet and in this country.
When we talk about the Northwest Territories, basically we talk about one-third of Canada's land mass. There
May 10, 1990

are just a few more than 50,000 people, people who identify with the Dene, Inuit and others; a mixed group to say the least.
When we talk about the north we must also include the northern part of many of our larger provinces, because they very much lie in the north. The north occupies much of Canada's land surface. It has much of Canada's mining, including gas and oil reserves. It has much of Canada's forests, water and soil. Without the north we would not only be a very small country; we would indeed be much poorer from a number of perspectives.
The north has a uniqueness, as I believe most areas and most peoples do, which is not very well understood. We often talk about small rather isolated areas, although that is not always the case. We often talk about small numbers of houses, residents, students, or whatever. However, there are extra costs that people do not understand as well as they should. Because of the large distances covered and because of the small numbers we do not get the economies of scale and indeed there are huge transportation costs. All people in the north want the essential services that are taken for granted in many of the larger of centres, such as a quality education system, quality health services, and social services which respond to the needs of the citizenry. That is fair. I think what this country needs to be all about is trying to make sure that those who do not have as much do have that which is necessary so that they can feel as if they are a full partner in this country we call Canada.
Recently I had an occasion to speak to some people in Inuvik, Iqaluit, Churchill and a number of other communities. I wanted to talk to them about the costs of bread, meat, fish, cheese, vegetables, fruit, paint, and fishing equipment. I took those at random because I wanted a sense of how much larger the costs were there than they are in Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver or Halifax. It was virtually impossible to draw any real mathematical relationship. Clearly it is much higher.
It was as much as four to twelve times higher depending upon the item and depending upon the locality. In conclusion, I was extremely surprised by that large gap, which I was told was mostly because of large transportation costs and because of the small numbers that are often purchased by the population that I have mentioned.
Supply
We need to address a basic fundamental question in the north, but it is essential to make a commitment to the provision of services equal to or equitable to those in other areas of Canada. I think whenever possible those services need to be on site or, whenever that is not possible, they need to be accessible. In other words they must be available. My first preference would be that essential services-health, education or any number of social services; I could go on-be there.
Like many other Canadians the people of the north want to feel part of this country. They want to feel that they are understood, that they are appreciated, and that what they have can make a difference to this nation. They believe they need the political power, not a disproportionate amount but sufficient that their regional development initiatives will be realized.
They want education that is comparable to other centres, school facilities, and teachers with training and experience who can do the kind of job and deliver the quality education so needed in today's society in order to be competitive and to contribute to one's community, one's province, one's territory and one's country.
They actually believe that there is no reason the quality of education should not be equal to those of other centres. As well, they are concerned about the post-secondary offerings, because clearly their numbers do not permit the construction of a college or a university in each centre, but they want access to that post-secondary education because they recognize how increasingly important it has become.
They realize that there are new technologies out there, new concepts such as distance, correspondence education which has been around for a while but which has been refined, campuses that can be set up, and people who can come in to assist in creating a more level kind of arena, a situation where they can get their fair share.
People in the north as I have defined it are aware of the special costs of transporting students to school, college or university; the special costs of books and equipment; and what have you. They are concerned about this matter. They want people in government who will appreciate that uniqueness and be ready to respond to it.

May 10, 1990
Supply
These people also believe as I do that there is a need for special opportunities to be provided so that they can be equal, equitable or competitive with others. There are a number of ways of doing so. Clearly it is not always to give the same; sometimes one needs to provide more in order to make sure that that is the situation.

Madam Speaker, I notice you are signalling that my time is up. I am a bit confused, because I thought, and in fact I was told that I had 20 minutes. I would need some clarification.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I can inform the hon. member that earlier today, I was given notice by the representative of the hon. member's party that all Liberal members would share their 20 minutes. If the hon. member, with the consent of his colleagues, is to speak for 20 minutes- I simply wanted to make things easier by letting him know that his time had expired. It was not my intention to interrupt his speech.


Ron J. Duhamel: I appreciate your comments, Madam Speaker. I had understood that I had 20 minutes. So I have your permission to proceed, since I believe I have the support of my party. Thank you.

I was pointing out how important I felt it was that special opportunities were offered to those who life in the north. I was about to give an example of some programs in Manitoba, access programs which provided special opportunities to individuals who have now entered the medical profession, the law profession and other professions. This has provided role models for certain communities and groups that were particularly important. In other words, there is something that can be done. We have the proof that there is success in those kinds of programs.
As I pointed out initially, the motion addresses the whole issue of diversification. There have been attempts to be fair about the diversification of the north, but there needs to be greater opportunity and greater attempts undertaken in order to accomplish this very worth-while goal.
The economy of the north should be given an opportunity to diversify beyond natural resources and it can be done only if the basic infrastructure is in place. We need good roads, social services, and telecommunications
services. As one of my friends who wrote to me recently pointed out, not only do we need these good roads, social services and telecommunications facilities, "the north can be used as a base for high technology research into forestry, the environment and other areas."
I want to address the whole question of aboriginal self-government. It is time for us to make a full and total commitment to our aboriginal people so that they can become full partners in this country we call Canada. They need to have the political power in order to realize their goals, dreams and aspirations.
We have tried in a number of ways to help them, but that assistance has not been particularly successful if we look at where they are in terms of housing, education and a number of other factors. It is time that we took that step, that made the commitment, and that we explored openly and honestly the concept of self-government and greater autonomy for our native people.
I want to address the question of health care. It is easy to ignore that question in a sense by saying that these are small, isolated communities with few people, but it is not good enough. Clearly we cannot have a hospital in each centre. In fact it is impossible depending on the size of the centre to have medical professionals, but clearly we can have access to medical facilities available to people who live in our far outlying areas. It is absolutely essential to offer the kinds of medical services that we would find in other larger centres, as I pointed out either on site, if it is feasible, or accessible by air or any number of ways that may be adequate.
One of the questions that I think is important to raise is what does the north want? What would it like that it does not have today? I think the question is one that has been raised by most regions in Canada and by people in Canada generally. It is to be understood, to be appreciated, to have the political power and tools to realize its destiny and potential. It wants to be treated fairly and be able to participate fully in the planning of its future.

The Northern region is a misunderstood region that we do not know well at all as Canadians. It is rich, not only because of its people and its natural resources, but also because of its large potential that remains to be developed. It is somewhat fragile, from an environmental perspective. Caution must be used, otherwise long-lasting damage could be made. It is inhabited by people
May 10, 1990

who want to be given the opportunity to have their say in the decisions made which concern them in the Canadian governmental systems, whether territorial or provincial. They are people who have children, like you and I, and who want their children to have an education so that they can either go work elsewhere, if they wish to, or stay home and contribute to the development of their community.
I am referring not only to elementary school and high school, but also to post-secondary education. I understand, like many, that it is not always possible to have a community college or a university in a community, because of cost considerations for instance. Many other possibilities exist, however, through technology, through distance teaching and through allowing teachers from some colleges and universities to go and teach in small communities. It is also possible to invite students, as it has been done on several occasions, to come and study in colleges and universities in the south.
We nevertheless have a commitment to make. We must commit ourselves to providing them with education at home whenever it is feasible. These people want both an education system that will allow them to be competitive and other systems, such as health services, social services, etc. In general, I think that those people want to be understood, they want to be appreciated. They want Canadians to know that they exist, that they live in a part of the country that is extremely beautiful and extremely different from one side to the other. If you take, for example, the community of Lac la Martre and if you compare it to Iqaluit, Inuvik, Eskimo Point, Churchill or Dauphin, you will see enormous differences. But, nevertheless, there are great similarities. Those people want to participate fully in this country that we call Canada. The want to be partners who not only are appreciated, but who can contribute their talents, their energy and their resources.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his excellent, well-prepared presentation. It seemed to me that there
Supply
is a long wish list for northern Canada and rightly so, because there is a definite problem there. I guess we can provide them with all the institutional requirements and schooling they need, but unless we give them a reason to remain where they are, we will see over the next 10 or 15 years a mass move from northern Canada to southern and western Canada and elsewhere.
One of the factors that will persuade the northerner to move is the GST. The goods and services tax is a reason for many northerners to think twice about remaining in the north.
In my view, we need to provide them with all the necessary services and institutions, especially educational, that they need. They should be provided with the required population in order to maintain and provide the taxation base they will need in the long run.
I would like the government to think about the immigrants who come to Canada using the business criteria for immigrating, somebody who applies with $150,000 or $200,000 and gets access to a visa to come to Canada. Perhaps the government might consider the creation of some sort of incentive to newly arrived business immigrants to locate in certain parts of northern or western Canada. This is one thing that can be done.
Also we have here in Canada many immigrants who come from eastern Europe, Asia, or Africa who are professionals, engineers or doctors for that matter. Those people are not allowed to practice in some provinces such as Ontario or Quebec or elsewhere. Maybe it is time for the government to make an assessment and look at the possibilities of encouraging those people to go to northern Canada and certain other parts of the country where they can practise.
There are many ways to skin the cat, Madam Speaker. I guess the most important element is that we have the will to encourage and help the people of northern Canada.
I would like once again to commend my colleague on his excellent presentation and I welcome his comments.

May 10, 1990
Supply


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I appreciate some of the points raised with respect to responding to the north more sensitively perhaps than we have in the past and I would like to explore each of those.
I guess we have to start from a basic principle that I want to enunciate and repeat. That is, we need to make a full commitment to ensuring that people from the north have access to the same kinds of services that we have.
The opportunities to develop economically will increase, particularly when the infrastructure is in place for the education systems, health systems, social systems, roads and what have you.
If I had had more time it would have been interesting to have explored some of the uniqueness of the peoples of the north. We are talking about several native languages. A few years ago I worked on a short assignment in the western Arctic where, if my memory serves me correctly, seven native languages were used. This impressed me significantly because they were being used in some significant harmony, and we are not unaware of the fact that we sometimes have real difficulty across Canada in using two languages.
There are cultures in the north that very few people know about. They really require nurturing and support and I would hope that that might be the possibility of another discussion at some other time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the hon. government House leader.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Harvie Andre: I would just take a moment, Madam Speaker, to get to some House business which has been under active discussion.
The first item has to do with what is now Government Order No. 6, in terms of government business, and what is known to members as the motion dealing with Private Members' Business. This was introduced and debated very briefly before it was amended by a motion of the hon. member of Kingston and the Islands, that the question be now put.
I think you would find unanimous consent, first of all, to set aside that the motion be now put for the purposes of amending the original motion to put the following motion:
That the motion be amended by adding thereto the following:
And that the provisions of this order be in effect until the last sitting
day in December, 1990.
The effect of that would be to have these rules respecting Private Members' Business as set out in this motion be in effect until the end of this year.
The purpose is to see how they work. In essence, it is a kind of sunset Standing Order. So, I believe, Madam Speaker, there is unanimous consent to proceed to amend the motion with this sunset clause, if you will, and then I think there will be unanimous consent to pass the motion as amended.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I want to confirm what the hon. government House leader has said.
The committee had originally recommended that these rules be amended for a period from January to June of this year. Because we were unable to agree on adoption of the committee recommendations in the time frame, it seems reasonable to us that the rules as introduced by the government, with the slight modifications made, would apply for a limited period. We are prepared to work with them on a trial basis to the end of December of this year.
I welcome the amendment. I am delighted that we have finally achieved agreement in dealing with these rules which, in our view, will assist in dealing with Private Members' Business in a more expeditious way. I thank the government House leader for negotiating this arrangement and trust that the new rules will work out to the benefit of all hon. members.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I rise to indicate support for the amendment and the motion itself, particularly in light of the comments by the government House leader earlier today that he was not quite sure as to when the June break would occur, it is probably appropriate that we keep it going through until December.
I just want to make it very clear that this is not a precedent in terms of passing Government Orders on allotted days.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. minister to have leave to present the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
May 10, 1990


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I think you will also find there is agreement for the following consent motion.
It is after considerable discussion that agreement between all three parties has been reached on how to handle a very controversial piece of legislation, namely, Bill C-43, the abortion bill. What we sought, and hopefully achieved, was a consensus that will allow all hon. members who want to participate in that debate, the opportunity to do so. No one is attempting to curtail in any way, shape or form, the rights of members to participate in the debate, but rather to allow the debate to terminate and the appropriate votes to be held, at a time that would be convenient for the maximum numbers of members of this House.
It is a complex motion, Madam Speaker, but the purposes are to afford members the opportunity to debate and to afford members the ability to organize their affairs so they might be here to participate in the vote. Therefore, I move:
That the following provisions apply to further consideration of the
reporl and third reading stages of Bill C-43, An Act respecting
abortion:
(1)	on Tuesday, May 22,1990 and Wednesday May 23,1990, Report Stage consideration be the first order of the day; and
(2)	on Tuesday, May 22, 1990, all selected motions shall be moved seriatim, at the start of Orders of the Day, by the Member in whose name each stands, with each such Member speaking for up to ten minutes immediately after his or her motion is moved;
(3)	on Tbesday, May 22, 1990, immediately following the proceedings set out in (2) above, any Member may speak once, for up to 10 minutes, and may refer to any of the motions moved pursuant to (2) above;
(4)	on Tuesday, May 22,1990, the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and until 9.00 o'clock p.m., at which time it shall adjourn;
(5)	on Wednesday, May 23,1990, the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment and continue report stage consideration of the said bill, until no later than 9.00 o'clock, p.m.,
Supply
at which time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and, successively and without further amendment or debate, put every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the said bill, following which the Speaker shall adjourn the House until 11.00 o'clock, a.m. on Thursday May 24,1990, provided that if debate on report stage is concluded before 9.00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday May 23,1990, the sitting shall be suspended until 9.00 o'clock p.m. the same day, at which time the Speaker shall begin to put every question as set out in this order;
(6)	on Thursday, May 24, 1990 the order for third reading of the said bill be the first order of the day, and the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment until such time as no member rises on debate, provided that in such debate:
(a)	any member may speak only once and for a maximum of 20 minutes followed by 10 minutes of questions and comment,
(b)	following an indication to the House by a Whip of any party, members of that party subsequently recognized in debate may speak for no more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes of questions and comment,
(c)	no member shall be recognized in debate more than once on the said day; and
(d)	no amendments shall be accepted by the Chair; and
(7)	at the conclusion of debate, which shall be no later than 9.59 a.m., Friday, May 25,1990, the putting of the question or questions shall be deemed deferred until 3 o'clock p.m. on Tbesday, May 29, 1990, at which time any recorded division requested shall not be deferrable.
That is the motion, Madam Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, if a seconder is needed for the motion, I would like to second that motion.
Indeed, this motion is a result of negotiations in good faith by all sides and all parties. I want to give thanks to some of our under-utilized but sometimes overworked assistants and tell the member for Kingston and the Islands and the member for Peace River that we appreciate their contributions very much.
We were trying to reach an agreement here which would allow all members a chance to put forward their views on this very important issue, and also give them the opportunity to plan according to the day and the votes and the hours at which these things will be held so that there will be no surprises. In this way everyone will know the day and the hour. Therefore, they will be able to be in the House and do what we are being asked to do by Canadians, that is, to take decisions.

May 10, 1990
Supply


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise to indicate that there have been lengthy discussions and negotiations on this matter.
I would also like to compliment the parliamentary assistant to the government House leader and the member for Kingston and the Islands for their diligence in this matter.
It is not easy in the House, on partisan issues or non-partisan issues, to reach agreement. I appreciate the manner in which my two colleagues have dealt with this matter today.
May I say as the Whip of my caucus that it is nice to know when any vote is going to happen so that I can have my people here.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I understand there is unanimous consent for the hon. minister to present the motion.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In order to clarify, Motion No. 6 was amended and agreed to as amended, is that right?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nault:
That this House condemn the government for its lack of
commitment to northern Canada and for its failure to treat
northerners fairly and equitably as demonstrated by:
(1)	its lack of commitment to economic diversification;
(2)	deserting northern Ontario by slashing VIA Rail services;
(3)	abandoning all northerners with its regressive unemployment
insurance legislation;
(4)	planning the cancellation of the northern residents deduction for
isolated areas;
(5)	imposing a 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber;
(6)	cancelling the mining depletion allowance and flow-through share benefits for mining exploration;
(7)	imposing a goods and services tax; and
(8)	failing to implement adequate adjustment programs for single industry towns.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today on this opposition motion. I welcome the chance to clear up as well any misconceptions put forward by the claim that northern Canadians in any way receive less than fair and equitable treatment by the government.
In terms of Bill C-21, the new unemployment insurance regulations will, in fact, improve the effectiveness and the fairness of the current unemployment insurance program. It represents a natural evolution of a social program, an essential part of this country's compassionate ability to provide income security for those Canadians in all regions who are out of work and in need. It is part of our commitment to provide all Canadians, the north included, with the best training and adjustment programs possible.
We recognize the importance of the UI safety-net to many communities with seasonal industries, particularly in areas like the north and Atlantic Canada. Under Bill C-21, these areas will continue to benefit from the flexible entrance requirements tied to differences in unemployment levels.
I would imagine that the hon. member who spoke some time ago was referring to areas of high unemployment when he made his misguided statement about regressive UI legislation. It is wilful ignorance to suggest that plans to create a more active approach to unemployment and to build an efficient, competitive labour force would be carried out at the expense of Canadians with no prospects of finding a job. This simply is not the case.
Bill C-21 is explicitly designed to shield those people who live in regions of highest unemployment. This bill is designed to help, not hurt them.
Bill C-21, in conjunction with the new proposed boundaries for the country's economic regions, will make the unemployment insurance program more regionally sensitive. If anything, it will mean a more generous system for the north. The economic boundaries will better reflect the reality of today's regional work pat-
May 10, 1990

terns based upon previous unemployment figures, individual and family income levels, and regional industrial structures.
Yes, it may be true that claimants in northern Ontario will be affected by the bill. Some people will have to work more weeks to qualify for UI benefits, but to tag the legislation "regressive" does not do justice to the intelligence of the members of the House.
We were elected in 1984, and again in 1988, with a mandate that included controlling federal spending in order to maintain economic stability and continued growth, and to prepare Canadians for participation in the competitive global economy. Recent polls show that Canadians understand the government's efforts to make UI a more constructive, pro-active program.
Recent Decima polls and Environics studies show that about two-thirds of Canadians support the idea of using UI funds to train unemployed people so that they can find better, more stable jobs, and find them sooner.
It is foolhardy for anyone to suggest that Canadians do not want a more effective and efficient UI system. The Labour Force Development Strategy and Bill C-21 which flows from it is one means by which the government wants to use its resources better.
It must be kept in mind that the changes to Bill C-21 will free up significant resources and will result in reallocation of some $350 million to help claimants gain work experience and upgrade their academic qualifications while receiving benefits.
Eight hundred million dollars additionally a year will be made available for enhanced training and other re-employment measures which will enable more Canadians to find secure and lasting jobs. This is almost a 50 per cent increase in the $1.7 billion funding currently available. This is particularly beneficial to regions where the economy is more fragile and the need for skills and innovation is greater.
Two of the more successful government programs which offer important adjustment help to communities and businesses will also receive increased funding once Bill C-21 is proclaimed. The Industrial Adjustment Service, or IAS, effectively helps businesses and their staff work together on solutions to adjust problems. It plays a particularly important role in one-industry areas
Supply
that can be devastated by massive lay-offs or shutdowns.
At Dona Lake, Ontario, for instance, the IAS assisted the Windigo Tribal Council to ensure jobs for natives in construction site jobs. This agreement involved the provincial government as well.
In the Yukon at Elsa, a silver mine closed, throwing 200 employees out of work. Through an IAS agreement, social services support was provided, prospective employers were brought in for the purpose of recruitment, and resume preparation and job search activities took place.
Bill C-21 means that an additional $15 million will double the number of firms which receive help. That means 1,000 businesses instead of the current 500.
Another very important program is the highly successful Community Futures Program. It was designed to help small and rural communities which face chronic unemployment and economic decline. Towns like Hay River and Pine Point in the Northwest Territories, Sault Ste. Marie and Ear Falls in northern Ontario, and Fort McMurray in northern Alberta have all benefited from Community Futures.
The new UI bill will also add $50 million to this fund to help increase the number of communities which will benefit from the various options available. Some 200 additional rural and small town communities will be helped.
I would also like to mention briefly the maternity and parental benefits that will come into effect with the passage of Bill C-21. At present, maternity benefits are available for 15 weeks. This will be enhanced so that up to 30 weeks of benefits can be claimed. I know that many northerners are patiently waiting for these improvements to be put in place.
I can speak from personal experience with respect to phone calls that I have been receiving in my riding. I have received calls from Wanda, Belinda, Ken and Lori, Sharon, Greg, Shanna, Janis and Janet, just to name some of the people who have called me within the last couple of days. The question on their minds is: When oh when will this bill be passed? These are young parents expecting and anticipating to use one of the major benefits of this bill to provide for a basic opportunity to be good and proper parents to the new-born that they

May 10, 1990
Supply
are about to bring into this world. Having the 30 weeks, the double period of time available to them, means so much more to them.
Janet, the last woman whose name I mentioned, is of particular interest to me, not that one constituent should be any more important than another, but she is my daughter. She says: "Dad, when are you going to get that bill through?" I keep saying to her that we are doing all we can.
Perhaps, Madam Speaker, if members of the Liberal dominated Senate were capable of experiencing a pregnancy they might be moved to show a little compassion for these young people. It is tough enough to raise a family and be responsible for its development. Why does the other place insist on standing in the path of young Canadians seeking this much needed help?
You can see, Madam Speaker, from the few examples that I have given that the government is not abandoning anyone, let alone northerners whose livelihood the Labour Force Development Strategy is designed to secure. I wish I could say the same for the other place.
Our goal is to continue to provide the necessary safety net for those in need while fostering a dynamic economy where workers enjoy opportunities.
Canadians deserve the best in social programs that we can deliver. We believe that Bill C-21 will do that.


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, first of all, a few words about the hon. member's magnificent speech, mainly about Bill C-21.
What is the connection between Bill C-21 and an opposition motion that says or appears to say that the Canadian government does nothing for northern regions? I think even Bill C-21 recognizes the fact that some regions should receive more than others.
Madam Speaker, as you know, Bill C-21 also provides for a new designation of economic regions. In Quebec, in more remote areas, this is extremely important, because often these communities are far removed from our urban centres and are more or less ignored. In the past, before Bill C-21, they were included with our large urban centres, and they were, in fact, terribly penalized because of the way the regional unemployment rate was
calculated. It was far more difficult for people to obtain unemployment insurance benefits or access to programs tailored to the needs of regions that are economically and socially disadvantaged.
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, Bill C-21, which was tabled in the House, is now being held up in the most partisan way by the Liberal Senate. This means we cannot implement measures that are adapted to today's needs, measures that will recognize the needs of isolated regions, of centres that need more government assistance than others. Unfortunately, because of the present delay caused, as I said earlier, by the Liberal Senate, all Canadians will have to pay the price.
And as far as the opposition motion is concerned, I read that the government is condemned for its lack of commitment to economic diversification.
Madam Speaker, when we look at what has been done in the way of job creation since 1984, and when we know that since 1984, 1.6 million jobs have been created in this country, 80 per cent of which are permanent jobs, I don't think this happened exclusively in our large urban centres.
When we look at the distribution of government funds among the provinces, it is clear that every part of the country has been affected.
When we look at what the government did in terms of decentralization- My colleague from northern Ontario was telling me that since FedNor was established, people in outlying areas can call on local officials and agencies without having to go to the large centres such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Victoria. Regional development is within their reach. And the government knew that, by creating agencies such as the Western Diversification Office, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and FedNor, implementing the Eastern Plan, signing the Canada-Quebec Agreement on Regional Development and providing funds for northern regions, it was decentralizing this money. It did it not to hinder but to promote the development of isolated areas because decentralization brings us closer to the problems. We are thus able to find solutions and make immediate decisions without having to go back through the system. I do not want to blame officials, far from it, but often when they get documents from a remote area, they are
May 10, 1990

not too sure where it is and what the problems are. Sometimes they say yes, sometimes they say no.
By decentralizing, the progressive conservative federal government has provided a great deal of services to the Canadian people.
The Opposition says that we did almost nothing for diversification. I want to remind them that since 1984, we have signed federal-provincial agreements with each and all of the ten Canadian provinces in most of the crucial economical sectors like agriculture, forestry, mining, transportation, all economical sectors that promote regional development, that result in the success or the failure of a region.
In Quebec, we do have some remote areas, although they may not be as far up north as some of those areas in other provinces. The federal government has been supporting Quebec's remote areas, especially its forest industry, with the Eastern Quebec Development Plan, put in place to assist what was considered a doomed region about twenty years ago, because of a perceived lack of economic activities and initiatives necessary for the survival of the communities. With Phase II of the Eastern Plan, the federal government injected close to $50 million to help entrepreneurs develop forestry resources which are vital and essential not only to the economy, but also to the environment. That gives you an example of what we have done.
As far as regional development is concerned, I mentioned earlier the Canada-Quebec Industrial Development Agreement that involved some outlying areas. Some funds have been frozen, if I may use that expression, to be used for those areas only. We have given them the opportunity to do more, to develop at their own pace, since sometimes remote areas cannot develop as fast as larger centres, not because of a lack of willingness of course, but often because of insufficient financial, human, and other resources. By implementing specific programs for those areas, the federal government has made a step in the right direction. But we still have a long way to go.
The government does not believe it solved all the problems of remote regions in Canada, nor does it intend to say it did. As we know, there are about 26 million of us in a huge country, we have to deal with long distances, a
Supply
small population and the whole economic question which, let it be said, is not always easy. Nevertheless, we signed agreements with the provinces, agreements which worked well, and this is new in Canada. Serious negotiations between the federal government and the provinces, strategies to share the more efficient spending of money between the provinces, the federal government, the institutions and the regions, are new indeed.
It wasn't easy, I admit, but the cooperation that had been lacking for several years was rediscovered at a negotiation table where there were frank exchanges of views and finally, we succeeded in many instances in doing more with less.
During those discussions, Madam Speaker, we came to recognize that there are some regions that need more intervention by the governments, where the amount of help cannot be arbitrary and has to exceed what was planned or what is considered to be the national average.
Madam Speaker, I am happy I was directly or indirectly part of the process by giving my support to my governe-ment these last few years.
The forestry agreement is extremely important. Some hon. members said a few minutes ago that the federal government did nothing concerning the 15 per cent surtax on softwood lumber exported to the U.S. but I can say, Madam Speaker, that the-
There were discussions with each of the Canadian provinces, the majority of which, 9 out of 10, including Quebec, of course, and British Columbia, the two biggest softwood producing provinces, accepted to negotiate, to cooperate in order to find a solution where as the money, instead of going to the American Treasury stayed in Canada where it could be used to develop the forest sector.
Thanks to that kind of joint action and discussions we were able to better help the forestry sector.
Madam Speaker, I was quite amazed this morning when the hon. member for Algoma, who is usually such a good critic in agricultural matters, said that the federal government had done next to nothing for agriculture. Let me remind him that we have increased spending in agriculture by close to 600 per 100 since 1984.

May 10, 1990
Supply
Let me remind him also that this government that introduced a long term dairy policy, a policy long awaited since the early 1980s, but which the Liberal government did not want to give to farmers.
Moreover, I would like to remind him that this governement has done enormously for our Western Canadian producers in terms of spending, in terms of money granted as drought relief.
Finally, in all the intiatives the government has undertaken in the last few years, whether in agriculture, forestry, mining, natural resources or natural resources systems, it has always been present and taken its responsibilities, sometimes alone, often in co-operation with the provinces. That, Madam Speaker, has produced interesting results that allow us to say remote areas are getting more, will be getting even more in the future and will be able to look after themselves and develop to the full extent of their potential and aspirations.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his great speech, particularly for the clarifications he has given us.
I would however like him to explain what he meant exactly when he talked about two provinces signing or approving that agreement. Could he clarify that statement for us?


Michel Champagne: I thought my hon. colleague from Richelieu would start a debate, but I see that he chose to ask a question instead.
The two provinces are of course very important in the context of the discussions on the 15 per cent surtax. I must however remind the member that Quebec and British Columbia are not the only provinces to have agreed to take on that 15 per cent surtax. There are nine others.
Therefore, I could tell him that both the federal government and the provinces have taken their responsibilities regarding forestry. That goes to show once again our concern for those issues and to prove that we are interested in not only discussing them but solving them in a positive way.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forestry.
Earlier in the debate there was some concern expressed about some of the forestry agreements and the manner in which they were being worked on, whether or not there were any increases at all in budgets since 1984, and whether or not silviculture and working closely with the industry has been part of forest management. With it being National Forest Week, could the parliamentary secretary take a moment to bring us up to date on exactly what the department is doing?


Michel Champagne: I suggest this is a most important issue, Madam Speaker. If we fully analyse the Department of Forestry, we discover that since 1984- as a matter of fact, in 1984, our Prime Minister had made a firm commitment to give back to forestry the status it deserved. How did we do it, Madam Speaker? By increasing by as much as 300 per cent the forestry budgets, and through Federal-Provincial agreements which resulted in over $1.1 billion investments in forestry. It is important for us, Madam Speaker. We went even further, because we are often blamed by the Opposition members who kept on asking the Hon. Member representing Northern Ontario what he had done under such and such agreement? I wish to remind them that from 1984 to 1988, or 1990, depending on their renewal date we signed the agreements.
We promised to do more and to renew these agreements. That is what we did with New Brunswick. That is what we did also with Nova Scotia. That is what we did finally with Newfoundland. That is what we did under the Eastern Quebec Plan. Madam Speaker, when the Minister of Forestry stood up in the House and promised to renew the agreements, to maintain the level of investments and to ensure the economic development of the forest industry, I think he clearly indicated his major interests and concerns as Minister of Forestry. By the way, Madam Speaker, it was our government which re-established forestry as a full department, no longer
May 10, 1990

dependent either on the Department of Environment or the Department of Agriculture or any other. It is a full fledged department which assumes its responsibilities and will continue to do so in the future.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I am happy that my collegue from Champlain (Mr. Champagne) mentioned that this government created of a distinct department of forestry. Up to now, its functions where shared by several departments. This new department made it possible to have a greater concentration, more precise budgets, as well as a more equitable distribution of moneys. My collegue mentioned the provincial distribution, the federal-provincial agreements reached since we took power, and, of course, those signed with the province of Quebec, which has made the most of the money and the agreements to have a thriving forest industry.
There is still much to do, of course. But it seems we have been on the right track for the last few years, and that the policy stated once again by the minister is an indication that our forests are in good hands.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Madam Speaker, unusual though this may sound in terms of forestry, I hail from a region half of which perhaps is covered by trees, and we are blessed with this exceptional Canadian industry which creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. I should point out that since 1984 our government has been very active in the forest sector, not only by establishing a full-fledged Department of Forestry but also by signing agreements which have enabled the regions to develop. This has made it possible to maintain and create hundreds of jobs, while at the same time working in close co-operation with the provinces to administer our forest resources. We knew this of course, but we made Canadians realize that forests are not an endless resource. Trees are renewable, sure, but this process can only be achieved through close co-operation on the part of both government levels. I would suggest that this is a good time to acknowledge the outstanding work done in this field by the current minister, the parliamentary secretary and various other people. I think that we as Canadians can be proud and expect a very promising future for Canada's forest industry.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the Elouse under Standing Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.

Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, one is always juggling a number of roles in this place, but I am pleased have made it on time to raise with the government on this adjournment debate the response that I received in April 1989 dealing with the question of the safety of airlines.
On that day I raised with the minister the fact that at the same time that the House of Commons was considering the bill to amend and actually create the National Transportation Agency, the National Transportation Act, which is the vehicle for deregulation of air, primarily, that the government had in its hands documentation from its own senior staff which suggested that the government was not prepared to handle the ramifications of deregulation. By that, the document meant that they knew they did not have the staff to deal with the increase in the number of carriers that was clearly going to happen because of the experience in the United States where there would be a mushrooming of the number of airlines servicing points in this country.
We have seen it in my home community of Thunder Bay where we have tripled or quadrupled the number of flights in and out of the Thunder Bay airport. We have become a hub. What this document showed was that the government was not prepared in terms of having the right number of inspectors in place in the right places, nor did it have the other components of the kind of protection system that all of us in this House and all of our constituents expect to be there. We want to know that every time we get on a plane that that plane is safe. At the same time that this House was considering the deregulation bill, this report warned that Transport Canada did not have the trained bodies available to them in order to handle this influx.

May 10, 1990
Adjournment Debate
We saw that in the United States there was an increase in the number of accidents. We have had an increase in incidents of problems with airline safety. We have had at least one carrier grounded because of its unsafe operation and its licence pulled by the Minister of Transport. We have seen questionable practices.
We have ongoing a major inquiry into the Dryden air crash. Some of the testimony before that inquiry has suggested that inspection was extremely lax. We have had other evidence in northwestern Ontario that a detected problem with an aircraft in terms of its welds was detected by an inspector in Winnipeg and recorded but never acted upon and ultimately that plane crashed because there was not the inspection procedure and follow-up that Canadians used to take for granted.
I was chastised by the minister at the time I raised the question for always connecting safety with deregulation. Ministers of Transport, right from the hon. member who is now the Deputy Prime Minister, through the minister of trade to the former Minister of Transport and even to the current one, kept saying that safety shall not be compromised. However, the reality is that there is cut-throat competition and the banker breathing down your neck, ensuring that you make those payments every Friday. If it comes down to making a choice between buying that replacement part that just is not worn out yet, but is close to the end of its life span, or making your payment to the bank, because you know if you do not make the payment to the bank they are going to pull the plug and put you into receivership, you take the chance. You say it is rated for 200 more hours and common sense tells me to replace it now, but I cannot afford common sense.
The government was warned of this, not just by my colleague, the member for Regina-Lumsden, who has recently celebrated more than 21 years on the transport committee of this House, but by their own bureaucrats that, at the very least, they did not have the capability of monitoring the changes that would occur in the aviation environment.
It goes beyond that. At the same time that the government was pushing deregulation, which I should
remind the House was started by the Liberal government before them, they were cutting back on air traffic controllers, placing in jeopardy the people who travel and who live in areas around Vancouver and Toronto.
Madam Speaker, I know that you know that I could go on for minutes if not hours on this important matter, but I recognize that my time has run out. I thank you for your patience and with interest I am awaiting the response of the government.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, the government has said many times and it will continue to say that safety is our number one priority. Perhaps the problem is that the hon. member opposite does not like to accept the enormous success that has been the reality of economic regulatory reform. The promise of the National Transportation Act in 1987 that less regulation will result in competitive market forces thereby ensuring adequate service levels and the establishment of equitable fares, appears to have unfolded as envisaged.
It is important to note that two large carrier families have emerged, both of which effectively link together the opportunity for national, regional and local airlines. As a result, Canada now, for the first time, has two fully-com-petitive coast-to-coast networks providing intensive competition on heavily-travelled intercity routes and in local service markets. Yet, notwithstanding the development of the large carrier families, the ranks of independent air carriers continue to grow.
As far as the recent failures of some charter operations, it is most misleading to blame deregulation for this. Economic regulatory reform created an atmosphere in which to compete. In a competitive world, there will necessarily be adjustments, and some growth and some failures.
Turning to the question of provision of resources, yes, Transport Canada as a whole has taken a cut in person years in some areas. This is nothing new. These goals were established in the 1985 budget with the government's commitment to reducing the size of the public service. These reductions are being accomplished in a number of ways, none of which will impact on the safety or the security of the travelling public.
May 10, 1990

These reductions to our human resources have been accomplished through a co-ordinated program recognizing and streamlining administrative functions, reduction of levels of management, consolidation of support services, increased contracting out and increased use of technology. It is important to emphasize that none of these will be affecting the department's ability to assure transportation safety and security.
In fact, the continued safety of the system is such an important issue that the former Minister of Transport established a task force in order to seek the expertise of the private sector, industry and government. The aim of the task force is to ensure that we have the right resources and that they are used in the right way in order to meet the challenging needs of the future.
The task force has been asked to look into the aviation traffic system and to provide the minister with recommendations on the approaches that will ensure safety standards are always maintained while improving the efficiency of the system to cope with the anticipated demands of the coming years and into the 21st century.
The member has forgotten about some of our recent initiatives, such as RRAP, CAEDS and MOS. I would like to say to him that we are very concerned and will continue to ensure safety and that the National Transportation Agency will undertake a complete review of the impact by 1992.


REFUGEE STATUS
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, on April 9, I asked a question in the House about Lebanese refugees. I said to the minister that there were thousands of Lebanese here in Canada who had yet to obtain their refugee status and who were waiting for various committees to examine their files. I may point out, Madam Speaker, that the Lebanese are not the only ones, in fact there are a great number of people-I am particularly concerned about the Lebanese because I have had a lot of requests at my office and phone calls from Montreal. Many people from other countries come to Canada to live. Canada is a country of peace and opportunity, and it is perfectly normal that they should wish to live in this country.
Adjournment Debate
In the past, Canadians were always known for their generosity to immigrants. If I may look back, I would like to say something about the role played by immigrants in Quebec and how they were received, and in fact, I have first-hand experience. My father, who came from Lebanon in 1906 to settle in Canada and who went to Quebec was very well received. My mother, of French-Canadian and Irish ancestry, raised nine children. So we have a whole family, my father's relatives, his brothers who came over from Lebanon and were well received in Quebec-I think there are very few countries that can pride themselves, as Quebec does, on having welcomed immigrants with open arms. Look at the mosaic we have in Montreal! There we see that immigrants enjoyed the same benefits of prosperity as all other Canadians.
Today, there are refugees, like the Lebanese and Romanians I have met, and people from countries like Peru and Chile and Central America. They are all here in Canada, waiting for committees to decide whether they can stay.
I believe that perhaps one of the most important characteristics of a people is its generosity in receiving others who are seeking peace and trying to make a life for themselves, to have children and take advantage of opportunities they did not have in their own countries.
I would like to focus mainly on the Lebanese community, which is well represented in Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec and Canada. Since 1975, they have experienced a terrible war in their country. And I may add, Madam Speaker, that they were not fully responsible for that war. The Lebanese people themselves are not directly responsible for the civil war. They are involved of course, but look at the presence of foreigners, Israeli soldiers in Lebanon, Syrian soldiers in Lebanon, they have no business there. But as you know, it is not easy to expel them in this kind of conflict. And so there are thousands of Lebanese and especially children who have suffered the most and who are forced to live through these hostilities.
But some of them have been lucky, for it must be said that one has to be lucky to reach the island of Cyprus or flee elsewhere in the Middle East and eventually land on Canadian soil. I know that many of them did not come here through normal and legal channels. Some landed here with tourist visas and claimed refugee status. I can understand them. When you come from a war-torn country, it stands to reason that you would want to remain in Canada. Who would not? In committee I saw reports where these Lebanese people explained why

May 10, 1990
Adjournment Debate
they wanted to be given refugee status. Unfortunately they are told: Well, you have no sound motive to seek refugee status. Or else they are told: We do not believe your story. They are hardly in a position to know what really happened. When looking at a country destroyed by war, I would be inclined to believe that they are quite right to seek asylum in this land. That is why I made insistent representations by letter and by phone to the Minister's office to ask her not to return any Lebanese nationals to their countiy, at least for now. 1 say "their country" but it is shared by foreign armies. I am asking her not to deport any Lebanese citizens.
I would ask the same thing for victims of harassment, in Central America for instance. That is all. It is that simple, Madam Speaker. I am confident that the Canadian people will understand my request and I would ask those listening to my speech to send the Minister a letter saying: "Given the conditions in which these people live, especially the Lebanese but also Central Americans and others, those who are here should be given the chance to be heard. We should also find every reason to be as generous as possible and grant them refugee status so that they can live in peace.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, since the beginning of the civil war in the mid-1970s the Canadian government has with only brief interruption facilitated the immigration of Lebanese affected by the fighting who have close relatives in Canada.
The Lebanese special measures have allowed more than 17,000 assisted relative category immigrants to come to Canada under relaxed criteria. Many of those would not have qualified under normal circumstances or criteria. Together with those whose admission was authorized under normal immigration criteria, this constitutes a major contribution to the alleviation of the distress experienced by relatives of Canadian citizens and residents. The program is precisely designed to match Canadian efforts with the needs of those persons of
direct concern to Canada: those who are the relatives of our citizens and residents and those directly affected by the civil strife in Lebanon.
The hon. member knows that Canada withdrew its embassy from Beirut in 1985 because of the danger posed to Canada based staff. On April 27 1989 Canada opened a temporary immigration office in Nicosia, Cyprus in response to the influx of Lebanese to Cyprus. The office complement is now three Canadian visa officers, four Quebec immigration officers, and 22 locally engaged employees. Consequently, that office provides Lebanese applicants with a quality of service comparable or superior to any Canadian visa post abroad.
From the opening of the temporary office in Nicosia until April 5, 1990, that office issued more than 5,000 immigrant visas, 657 visitor visas, and 175 ministerial permits to Lebanese. To the end of March, our office in Damascus has in 1990 issued 1,668 immigrant visas and 227 visitor visas to Lebanese citizens.
Canada is the only countiy to have implemented such special measures and to have increased the levels of service in response to the flight of Lebanese nationals to Cyprus. Our response is both sympathetic and effective in considering the needs of individuals affected by the situation in Lebanon. We shall continue to assess the situation as additional issues emerge.
With respect to the immigration and refugee board, members of the board undergo extensive training to assist them in carrying out their responsibility of determining whether or not claimants are refugees as described by the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees. The acceptance rate for refugee claimants from Lebanon was 82 per cent in 1989.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to be adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 11, 1990