Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I will do so very briefly. I wanted to raise a few concerns I have about the shoe industry which is very important in my constituency. It employs several hundred people, principally around the Alexandria area which has one plant manufacturing all of the Adidas tennis shoes in this country as well as several other makes.

Customs Act

The previous government had extended the quotas on shoes until March 31, 1986, I believe. Beyond that, we still do not know what the plans are for that particular industry. We know that the industry is extremely concerned and has serious worries as to the future. It would like to know if the Government has yet formulated any plans and, if so, would it be willing to share them with this House at this time? I think we should remember that it is very difficult for our country to compete with some of the other shoe manufacturing countries, especially when you consider that almost 50 per cent of the shoes manufactured in the world are done so in the underdeveloped or so-called developing countries. Their labour is much cheaper than ours. We must recognize the fact that many people who work in our shoe industry here in Canada are indeed very low paid workers. Shoe imports in Canada in 1966 were only of the order of 10 per cent. By 1970, it had increased to 20 per cent. By 1977, it was 36 per cent, and I understand that it is now somewhere around 60 per cent. All this, notwithstanding the fact that the anti-dumping tribunal made several investigations in the area and succeeded in eliminating some of the damaging dumping of shoes onto our markets. Notwithstanding all of the restrictions we have had in the past, our industry is still suffering, and it is an industry which is very important to our country. Certainly it is very important in Ontario and Quebec as it is indeed in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

We should also be aware of the fact that most employees of shoe factories in this country are women and they are, as I stated previously, in low paying jobs. Therefore, we cannot say that shoes are expensive because of the high salaries paid in that industry. Indeed, the opposite is true, Mr. Speaker, as you will have recognized.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Minister could take few minutes to respond to the statements I have made and use the occasion to outline government policy vis-a-vis shoe imports and indicate the current state of affairs. More particularly, will she explain to us if she is aware of the policy of the Government toward the quota system which, as I understand it, is supposed to expire some time in 1986? Perhaps the Minister could respond to that.

Mr. Boudria:

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is asking me whether I want to pass judgment on corporate practices of companies in my riding and elsewhere. Obviously I am not in a position to do that, Mr. Speaker. I do not think you would want me to take the time of the House to evaluate the practices of corporations which manufacture cowboy boots. That would be highly improper.

In terms of tariffs costs on shoes, I bring to the attention of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic page 43 of the Bill which describes exactly what the tariffs are. They range between 18 per cent and 40 per cent. That would obviously not

make a $5 pair of shoes worth $40 or $50 because 20 per cent or 40 per cent of $5 would not increase the amount by that much. However, it is a very necessary feature at the present time in order to enable the industry in our country to compete with similar industries in so-called developing countries.

Mr. Boudria:

This is supposed to be relevant.

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell);

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in the debate on this Bill.

In fact, I was reading about past debates on the subject in some old volumes of Hansard, and I cannot help wondering why another attempt is being made to bring this legislation before the House today. I must say that I wish it were a quarter to six or six o'clock or whenever we are going to vote on this Bill this evening, because it will be very interesting to see how our Quebec colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party vote on this particular Bill.

I intend to be very brief to give these Hon. Members an opportunity to take part in the debate and show us how they intend to vote.

Mr. Speaker, the history of the Acadians in Canada is very important, although at times many Canadians have trouble remembering that particular history.

The Hon. Member who is sponsoring the Bill referred to the Acadians earlier, but I think his remarks need some elaboration. We should remember what happened in 1755, remember the deportation of the Acadians and their arrival in large numbers in Louisiana and related events.

Today, we should also remember the day when the Conservative Government of our country closed the consulate in

Louisiana, which I think was a slap in the face of the people of Louisiana, especially Acadians. Today, this Bill is once more before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that as a Francophone outside Quebec, I am very reluctant to support this kind of legislation. That is why I fully intend to vote against the Bill, and I also wish to take advantage of this opportunity to urge my francophone colleagues here in the House of Commons to do the same, especially our colleagues from Quebec on the other side of the House. I would urge them, first, to rise in the House and let us know what they think of the proposed legislation and give us their views, and second, before the House adjourns this evening, to vote against the Bill.

We are told that the reason for presenting this Bill is that in 1621, the province was given the name "Nova Scotia". That may be so. In fact it must be so, because the Hon. Member said so. However, Mr. Speaker, in 1621 legal texts were probably all written in Latin. I therefore fail to understand why it is so important for us to remember this particular incident today. It is quite possible that at the time, a lot of other things were given Latin names as well, but today, these have been translated into other languages. Prince Edward Island is called "l'lle-du-Prince-Edouard" in French, and when I go to the Maritimes next year, I want to be able to go to Nouveau-Brunswick, if that is what I want to call that province, and to "la Nouvelle-Ecosse", if that is how I want to call that province. If the Hon. Member wants to go on calling his province Nova Scotia, he is welcome to do so. I think we should keep the province's French name, the way it has been translated for centuries. It is correct, and I think especially in the present context, it is a way of showing the Acadians of our country some small recognition, and we certainly owe them at least that.

Mr. Boudria:

Mr. Speaker, I found the comments of the last Member rather interesting. On one hand, he is in favour of

Supply

de-regulation. On the other hand, he extols the virtues of supply management. He wants a red meat stabilization program, but he says the federal government should not impose anything on the provinces. He says the farmer should not go out of business, yet he says that red meat producers should not exist in my riding, only in his riding. I find that difficult to accept.

I also find it difficult to accept the Member's statement that the previous Government did not devote the required attention to agriculture. In the announcements of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), dairy programs are being cut by $6.2 million, departmental operations are being cut by $9.4 million, and Canagrex is being cut by $6.6 million. That would have been a very useful tool for the marketing of our agricultural products. The Government is deferring $4.9 million in the testing laboratory and research facility to be built in Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, and Victoriaville. All this is from a government which pretends it is going to pay more attention to agriculture. How can it direct more attention to agriculture when it does not want to invest the funds required?

In the same document, we see that $32.3 million will be cut in agricultural services. The document states that fees are currently charged for services such as food inspection, agricultural input quality assurance and so forth and that the level of these will be increased. I find it very difficult to accept that this Government would make cuts in agriculture while at the same time saying that it is interested in agriculture. Where I come from, you put your money where your mouth is.