Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):

Mr. Speaker, was the Minister of Agriculture telling the House of Commons the truth when he said on October 5 that there is a commitment by the United States "to consult with us prior to extending the Export Enhancement Program into our traditional markets"? I want to know whether the Americans made that commitment.

I want to know whether that agreement really means that the Americans cannot introduce any new Export Enhancement Programs or that they can use the existing program, triple or quadruple the budget, and take away Canadian markets?

October 23, 1987

What does that commitment mean, if anything at all, for the farmers of Canada?

Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member say that we have increased our market share. I am glad that he acknowledges that.

Mr. Nystrom:

We all know that, but at what price?

Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):

He then says "at what price". We do not control the price. The price is controlled by the international market and we have-

Mr. Broadbent:

American subsidies.

Mr. Nystrom:

Subsidies, Mike.

Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):

-made many appeals in international fora as well as on a bilateral basis with the United States.

At the same time we have increased substantially the amount of support for the grain and oil seed sector in order to protect our farmers from the acts of other countries.

With regard to the specific question, the Hon. Member must realize that that is an international program. It does not relate directly to Canada. We cannot control that program directly as a result of a free trade agreement.

We have, however, received the commitment of the United States to take into account the export interests of the other party in the use of any export subsidy on agricultural goods exported to third countries. We are consulting with the Americans on that and will continue to consult. We will hold them to that agreement.

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and is with regard to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Program. Innocent victims of violent crime should have assistance to help them restore some semblance of normalcy to their lives. The Minister knows that assistance can come in the form of support groups and professional counselling.

Given the importance of that assistance to the innocent victims of violent crime, can the Minister tell the House what his plans are for funding of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Program?

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for that question. He has long had an interest in

Oral Questions

victims' rights, not only in Saskatchewan but as a Member of Parliament.

I have been in communication with my provincial counterparts with regard to the federal contribution to crime compensation programs across the country. I hope to be in a position soon to announce the level of funding which I am sure will be well received by Members of Parliament and the provinces.

The way in which we treat victims of crimes is an area which has been neglected for too long. I intend to correct that situation.

Mr. Jean-Claude Multipart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Minister admitted he had sacrificed jobs in the textile, clothing and footwear industry. As I said yesterday, the Minister and the Government are to be commended for protecting workers in the beer industry.

However, I met with workers in the rubber and plastics industry, and they would like to know why the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of the Conservative Government did not make the same effort and let the Free Trade Agreement protect these 86,000 workers in Canada, 22,000 of whom work in Quebec. We know from a report that was published in Montreal that, initially, 10,000 jobs will be lost, and that workers in the rubber and plastics industry would be among the victims. I ask the Minister of Finance why, when the agreement was being negotiated, he preferred not to protect those workers although he did protect workers in the beer industry.

Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is drawing unfair conclusions as to the effects of the agreement. Second, he distorted what I said in response to a question yesterday in relation to the textile and footwear industries. I did not say that. In fact, from from it. I said the opposite. I said there are representatives of the footwear industry, as an example, who are looking at this as a major opportunity under the free trade agreement with the United States, providing them with a tremendous opportunity to sell into a market of 260 million people instead of just 25 million people. Surely that is an opportunity for an industry that will create jobs.

October 23, 1987

Oral Questions

[ Translation]

Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister. He forgot, or purposely omitted, to say that the U.S. will also have an additional market of 25 million. It is much easier for them to cover the Canadian market than for Canadian companies to cover the U.S. market.

To get to my question, it concerns workers in the electrical products industry. We know that according to a reliable study by the Economic Council of Canada, 5,500 workers in this industry will lose their jobs. Will these jobs be lost in Montreal, at Canadian General Electric and Northern Electric? Why didn't the Minister of Finance manage to get it in writing, as he did for the beer industry, and why wasn't he able to do this for workers in the textile, footwear, rubber and electrical products industry? We know 5,500 workers will lose their jobs as a result of this Agreement. Why didn't the Minister negotiate to deal with the situation? And the same applies to Bill C-22. If you want jobs and research, put it in the legislation!

Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do want to see jobs for research. I cannot understand why the Hon. Member does not have the sufficient degree of influence over his Party and his Leader to get action on this Bill which will create jobs today, create jobs next month and create jobs next year.

He is talking about holding out some expectation that possibly five years, ten years or twenty years down the road some people may lose their jobs. Why is he not concerned about today, and getting action, getting his Leader to move, and getting the Senators off their fannies to act in the interest of the people in his riding of Montreal-Sainte Marie who feel let down by the impotence of that Member.

Mr. Speaker:

There will be a question by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre and a question by the Member for Western Arctic, and that will close Question Period.

Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.

Union leaders, the Chamber of Commerce and municipal authorities in Sept-Iles have organized a week-long demonstration to protest against unemployment and the failure of their Member of Parliament, the Prime Minister, to deal with their economic problems.

Could the Minister of Finance explain why the Prime Minister will be away from Sept-Iles for a week, and why he was not at a meeting last night to meet his former constituents in Central Nova, where the unemployment rate is 40 per cent? Does the Government have any special measures to announce to ensure that constituents in Sept-Iles and Central Nova will have jobs?

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):

Mr. Speaker, obviously previous New Democratic Party questioners in this regard have been impotent and ineffective. They have had the Member for Ottawa Centre simply repeating other untrue and unfair allegations with respect to the availability of the Prime Minister.

The Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out that this Prime Minister is more accessible than any Prime Minister in the history of our country. Our Prime Minister understands the average working person a heck of a lot better than the people in the NDP.