1988-07-18

Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Ministry's response to the five petitions bearing the numbers 332-4722, 332-4785, 332-4812, 332-4830 and 332-4836.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceeding.]



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue) asked for leave to table Bill C-308, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Chapleau.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of this House that the Hon. Member introduce this Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, when the electoral map was being re-drawn, the Commission suggested that the whole rural section of my riding be amputated, and it chose as the new name for the new riding that was thus created, the name of Chapleau.
Because of representations made by the residents of my riding, including the mayors of all the rural municipalities that did not want to be amputated from the riding of Gatineau, the judge decided not to change the structure of my riding.
But inadvertently the new name was kept, Chapleau.
Mr. Speaker, we have nothing but respect for Mr. Chapleau as a figure in our history, but he has no association, either geographical or historical or emotional, with the Gatineau region.
I therefore ask this House to permit me to return to the former name, adding to it "La Lievre", which is the other river valley in my riding, so that the name for the new riding would be "Gatineau-La Lievre", with the same structure we had before, that is, 80 per cent rural. It would be much fairer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of this House to adopt the Motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

[DOT] (mo)


PETITIONS
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition which has been certified as correct as to form, pursuant to Standing Order 106, from a number of residents of St. John's, Holyrood, Torbay, Bay Bulls, Goulds, Portugal Cove and other communities in Newfoundland, who state that the Conservative Government, through Bill C-33, seeks to deindex the pensions of federal public servants who now have complete protection through full linkage to the Consumer Price Index, and that the Government has insisted on dropping full indexing for public servants. The undersigned petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to reject Bill C-33 as regressive, unfair, untimely and against the best interests of public servants and all Canadians, and that Parliament affirm full indexing to the Consumer Price Index as the model for inflation protection for all Canadians.

July 18, 1988
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 365 and 374.


Mr. Heap: Since November, 1981, according to the latest statistics available (a) have domestic workers been refused landing in Canada under the Foreign Domestic Program and, if so, in what numbers and, in each case, what was the applicant's (/) country of last permanent residence (//') age (iii) number of dependents (/v) gender (v) reason for rejection (b) have domestic workers applied for landing under the program and been accepted and, if so, in what numbers?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Since its inception in November, 1981, the Foreign Domestic Program has accepted 14,199 workers as permanent residents. Very few do not qualify. For example, of the 28,869 foreign domestics who have entered Canada as temporary workers, from 1981 to the end of 1987, only 635 have been refused permanent residence. The approximative 14,000 remaining are in the immigration stream or they have left Canada having decided not to become permanent residents.
Foreign domestics refused for permanent residence
Total	Nov. 1981 to Dec. 1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987*635	27	119	149	188	46	106
Data on the composition of the refusal group will be available at the end of August, 1988, covering the period June 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988. Statistics on refusals for 1987 are available; however, it should be noted that the data breakdown requested only started as of June 1, 1987. Prior to June 1, 1987, there was no collection of specific data on refused applicants (i) country of last permanent residence (ii) age (iii) number of dependents (iv) gender (v) reason for rejection.
*Preliminary Statistics


Mr. Langdon: Are contamination-monitoring procedures being carried out for the Great Lakes and, if so (a) with what frequency (b) by what groups or individuals (c) in what areas?


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the Departments of the Environment and of the Fisheries and Oceans as follows:
Contamination monitoring procedures are being carried out for the Great Lakes by Environment Canada, the Ontario
Ministry of Environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and eight Great Lakes states under the Canada/U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Environment Canada is responsible for the monitoring of conventional parameters and contaminants in the waters of the open lakes by carrying out the following: Lake Ontario-two cruises/year; Lake Huron-two cruises/year; Lake Superior-one cruise/year; Niagara River-weekly (Niagara-on-the-Lake, Fort Erie); St. Lawrence River-daily.
Environment Canada also operates a network of 30 air quality monitoring stations throughout the Great Lakes Basin and monitors contaminant trends in herring gull eggs in 13 colonies.
Since 1977, DFO has carried out a contaminants monitoring program on fish and other biota on the Great Lakes in response to federal commitments respecting the 1972 and 1978 Canada/U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Annual surveys are carried by DFO throughout the Great Lakes at approximately 20 sites (10 sampled annually) to determine trends on selected contaminants in fish and other aquatic biota. The program receives the assistance of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and is part of a coordinated international study involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency. Results of these annual surveys are presented through the surveillance Workgroup of the International Joint Commission to the Water Quality Board and reported biennially.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Richard Grisé: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Orders.
July 14, 1988-Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-137, an Act to provide for incentives to assist in financing exploration for mineral resources and hydrocarbons in Canada and to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act.-The Minister of State (Forestry and Mines).
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this, but in fact there is no copy of the amendments in the folders which are on the desks of the Hon.
July 18, 1988

Members. I asked a Page to find one, but according to the Order Paper they are listed in Votes and Proceedings of last Thursday. Perhaps we can spend a minute until the House is able to review what these amendments coming back from the Senate are. I do understand that they are technical amendments and should be treated in that way.
On a procedural point, I am not sure whether the motion allows us to consider these amendments or whether it is for the acceptance of the amendments which have been sent back to the House by the Senate.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding from the other Parties was, that there was no necessity to debate these amendments. However, if my friend wishes to debate them, 1 am perfectly prepared to suggest that the House not proceed with these amendments immediately so as to give my friend an opportunity to review them. Instead, we could move to the second item on the Order Paper, which is an item which we intend to debate, and there are members from the other Parties here who are prepared to debate it. We can take up Bill C-137 after Question Period, if my friend wishes.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Agreed. Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with my colleague from Yorkton-Melville, who is acting as House Leader today. It might make sense to ensure that the members of the Opposition have at least reviewed the amendments coming back from the Senate.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances, I think that the suggestion made by the Hon. Minister of State may be a very good one. It seems to be agreed to by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). I must ask if there is consent in the House to adjourn this matter and to proceed with another matter on the understanding that we could revert back later today or at another appropriate time.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Members. I will call the next order.


CANADIAN ORGANIZATION ACT, ATLANTIC CANADA, 1987 MEASURE TO ENACT-NON-CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the text of the Message made by the Senate to Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, because this House believes that in dividing the Bill, the Senate has altered the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions,
Canadian Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
limitations and qualifications of the grants of aid and supplies set out in the
Bill, contrary to Standing Order 87, as recommended by Her Excellency the
Governor General to this House, and has therefore infringed the privileges of
this House, and asks that the Senate return Bill C-103 in an undivided form.
He said: Mr. Speaker, one normally starts these speeches by thanking the House for an opportunity to address the matter. I have to say to the House that I regret very much the necessity to make this speech and move a motion of reply. Recent actions of the Senate have caused Members of the House of Commons grave concern, and I think that we should send a signal of that concern to the Senate and to the Canadian public.
First of all, I want to set the debate by explaining what happened. The Government introduced and passed Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, on May the 10th, 1988. By this Act our Government established the principle that we wanted Atlantic Canada to grow through federal government assistance directed regionally and not directed from Ottawa.
This was a new and innovative step by our Government-a departure from the "Ottawa knows best" attitude of the previous Liberal administrations. When the Bill reached the Senate the Liberal majority instructed the Senate Finance Committee to divide Bill C-103. The procedural acceptability of this move was challenged and the Speaker of the Senate ruled the motion out of order.
The Speaker of the Senate based his ruling on the fact that Bill C-103 involves the payment of taxpayers' funds and the sound legislative theory that the Senate could split Bills originating in the Senate but not Bills originating in the House of Commons.
The decision of the Speaker of the Senate was challenged by the Liberal majority in the Senate and overturned by that majority. The Bill was split by the Finance Committee and Part I was reported back to this House on Friday, July 8, 1988.
Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament immediately objected to this high-handed action by the appointed Liberal Senators.
I must say that we were pleased to be joined by our colleagues from the New Democratic Party, in a rare demonstration of non-partisanship, in order to establish the rights of the elected representatives over the rights of the appointed Senators. We were distressed that the Liberals in the House refused to back the democratic principle that elected representatives have pre-eminence when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money. I suggest that we are indebted to the Chair for the strength of the arguments put forward by Mr. Speaker in the ruling. I want to refer to some of them.

July 18, 1988
Canadian Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
First, on the question of whether this was common practice, the Speaker said:
I have been unable to find any instance in our practice where the Senate divided a Commons Bill or where the Commons has divided a Senate Bill.
The Speaker pointed out that there was one precedent for consolidation of two Commons Bills into a single legislative measure by the Senate which took place on June 11, 1941 with a message from the Senate to the House asking for concurrence. The Commons agreed with the Senate's proposal waiving its traditional privilege, and a single Bill was eventually given Royal Assent. Mr. Speaker went on to state that concurrence was specifically sought by the Senate.
The message received last Friday was not one of seeking the Commons consent but one of saying, "We have done it. Tough luck''. In our opinion the Senate should have respected the propriety of the original Bill and asked if we would concur in the splitting of that Bill. That is the one part of the argument which the Speaker of the Senate made and which the Chair made in its ruling.
The other part is under Standing Order 87, namely, the question as to who controls the spending of taxpayers' money. Our Standing Order reads:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all Bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
The Speaker went on to say something that I have not heard in my nine years here. The Chair said:
I have ruled that the privileges of the House have been infringed . .. The cure in this case is for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them, if it so wishes, by way of a message to Their Honours informing them accordingly.
I want to state unequivocally on behalf of the Government, and I hope all Members of this House of Commons, that we are claiming our privileges, the privileges traditionally granted to elected representatives over appointed representatives. As I said when the message originally came back, this action is an affront to Atlantic Canadians. It has been two months since the Bill passed the House of Commons. By dividing this Bill the Liberals have ensured that further delay will result before it is enacted in its entirety.
I want to go into some detail as to why it is important that Bill C-103 be passed, complete, in its original form, not just for the procedural purposes but for Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Robichaud:: Why complete?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Just hang on, my friend. Let me quote some of numbers. We want to demonstrate to Atlantic Canada that we feel that the decision-making authority ought to be given to Atlantic Canada to direct its own future. We have had years of mismanagement from the Liberal Party with local authority
being refused and all decisions being made in Ottawa. If my friend from New Brunswick wants to continue the practice of all decisions being made in Ottawa, let him take the floor and state that for his people back home. Even his colleague is not in favour of that.
We want Atlantic Canada to know that Parliament and this Government feels that it should be treated the same as western Canada. Atlantic Canadians know that we have passed the Western Diversification Fund, that it is in full operation and not being held up by the whims of one Senator. It is in full operation.


Fernand Robichaud: Full operation?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Let us look at what this authority has done. We have interim authority, certainly. But we want to give full and final authority to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Let us run through what this program has meant to Atlantic Canada so far.
The program has solicited in the region from February 15, 1988 to May 30, 1988, 2,886 applications, 643 of which have been approved for a total contribution of $58 million, making possible over $209 million worth of investment in Atlantic Canada. During the month of May alone, 917 new applications were received by ACOA as compared to 304 in the previous year under the old programs left by the Liberal Government. Look at that increase, Mr. Speaker. That is why we want ACOA for Atlantic Canada.
Furthermore, during the same period, 306 applications were approved under ACOA as compared to 144 under the same program in 1987. We have some 1,900 active applications. There is a great deal of interest in this program in Atlantic Canada and that is why we want to pass this Bill to try to meet the needs of Atlantic Canada.
This legislation will give the ACOA Minister and the agency more flexibility; it will give it decision-making in the region; ACOA will be able to participate in co-financing of regionally advantageous projects with other Departments. ACOA will help the newly established designated areas of exceptional opportunity and it will help harness federal programs to the common goal of increasing opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada. But, and here is the but, should Bill C-103 be allowed to die, as my friend from New Brunswick wants it to do-he wants to go back home with that on his record. He will have to answer as to what he did in his four years in Parliament. He will have to answer that Atlantic Canada did not get any opportunities. I tell him to put that on the record.


Fernand Robichaud: What about your responsibilities?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I ask him to stand up and state firmly where he stands. He should tell the people that he does not want this Bill to pass.


Fernand Robichaud: You don't want it to pass.
July 18, 1988


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: He can go home and tell the people that. I await his speech with interest, Mr. Speaker.
We regret very much these delaying tactics. This is not a single instance. By tomorrow morning the Senate will have 24 Bills from the House of Commons on hold, 24 pieces of legislation with which the Senate is dilly-dallying and on which it is not going forward. These include the multiculturalism Bill, the official languages Bill, a new immigration Bill, and emergency refugee legislation.
We returned here here on August 12 last year to proceed with emergency refugee legislation, which the House of Commons passed on September 14, 1987. We sent the Bill back to the Senate once again just recently because the Senate has been delaying, delaying and delaying on that important legislation. When Canadians ask what happens when a ship lands with illegal refugees on it and why airplanes can land at Pearson International with people on them eating their passports, Hon. Members opposite can tell them that it is because the Senate has refused to move. That is where the legislation is, and everybody ought to know that. That is the kind of delay we are getting from the Senate.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that these efforts by the Liberal Senators to delay and derail our legislative package-this one in particular-is an affront to democracy in all of its principles. It is an affront to Members of this House. It is an affront to Atlantic Canada, and it is an affront to the taxpayers of Canada. I ask all Members of Parliament to stand and be counted when this motion is put to the House. At that time my hon. friend will have to ask himself whether he is for the House of Commons and against the Senate for attempting to dictate important principles of democracy in this House. He is either for the House of Commons or for the Senate. My friend will have to ask himself whether he is for the taxpayers of Canada deciding who spends money or for the Liberally appointed Senate.


Fernand Robichaud: Let's have the election right now.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is the question. I want my friend to have a chance to put a few remarks on the record and we will all await those with interest.


Mr. Gauthier:: He will and he has unlimited time.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: My hon. friend will have to ask himself in the final analysis whether he is for Atlantic Canada and the principle that people in Atlantic Canada should make their own decisions, or does he want them made on Wellington Street? We say that Atlantic Canada should have the opportunity to make its own decisions as to its future as expressed in ACOA legislation. My friend says, "No, we like it the way it was going under Ottawa's rule".
In conclusion, I say that I hope all Members of the House will put aside partisan interests and get behind this motion
Canadian Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
which says, first, that we want to do something for Atlantic Canada and, second, we defend the principle that the elected representatives of the House of Commons should decide how taxpayers' money is spent.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to quarrel with the Speaker's decision on this matter. It speaks for itself. Nor, as the Hon. Minister said, am I going to say that I am not in favour of the rights of the House of Commons. I do not think that is the major question here. The question before us is the motion presented by the Government.
It was interesting to listen to the speech of the Hon. Minister. He did not once mention the people of Cape Breton or the main objection of the Liberal Party, which I will get to in my speech.
I have unlimited time, so if the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) continues to interrupt because of the insecurity he feels about his Party's position, then I will just wait him out. This is far too important a subject to let it go by without putting the proper points across.
We can, of course, signal the position of this House with respect to its privileges without sending back to the Senate that portion of the Bill it has sent to us. The two things are not connected at all. In saying that I want to refer to a couple of things which have been misinterpreted by my friends opposite in their discussion of the Senate's action.
They say that the fact that the Speaker of the Senate was overruled indicates something important. Of course, the Speaker of the Senate is in an entirely different position than the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Senate Speaker is appointed by the Government. At the first sitting of the Senate he or she announces that he or she has received the appointment from the Governor General to be the Speaker, and that is unchallenged. The Speaker of the Senate remains so at the pleasure of the Government.
The reason that the Speaker's decision can be overruled is that he or she has a vote on all motions before the Senate. The reason for that is that all the regions of the country are to have equal representation in the Senate. The Senate was formed to protect the regions of the country. If the Speaker did not have a vote, then of course one of the four regions would be one vote short. It was decided that this would not be in the interests of any region.
I would like to now go on to what is a very important question and that is, what kind of a Bill do we have here? It has been stated that it is a money Bill. If this is a money Bill, then all Bills of the House of Commons are money Bills except perhaps amendments to the Criminal Code.
What is a money Bill? Do we have a definition? The only reference to the term in the Constitution Act is in Section 53 and Section 54. What do they say? Section 54 says:

July 18, 1988
Canadian Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House-
There we have the word "Appropriation". Can we really say that this Bill is an Appropriations Bill? Of course it is not. An Appropriation Bill is a Bill that appropriates money for the House of Commons. This certainly cannot be considered an Appropriations Bill under that definition.


Mr. Valcourt:: So the Speaker is wrong?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: What about Section 53? It says:
Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.
Fine, but once again we are talking about the word "appropriating". This is not a Bill appropriating money.
What we have to ask ourselves is this. Is there anything in this Bill which says that we need it in order to fund the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or the supposed successors of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation? There is nothing. The only reference to money is the salary of a vicepresident, and we do not need this Bill to appropriate the salary for a vice-president.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Why are you against Atlantic Canada?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Then we have had reference to a Royal Recommendation as if any Bill that had a Royal Recommendation were a money Bill. Yet there is no indication that because a Bill has a Royal Recommendation it is a money Bill and cannot be amended. Bill C-18, for example, I put to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), had a Royal Recommendation, but it was amended, as was Bill C-22. Just because it has a Royal Recommendation does not mean a Bill is a money Bill, nor does it mean that it cannot be amended. The question is: What kind of a Bill do we have here? As I said earlier, we do not need this Bill to approve funding. The Estimates are where we approve funding for ACOA, and the Estimates have been passed and the funding is in place.
During the meeting of the committee dealing with this issue in the other place the President of ACOA was asked this question:
But there is nothing in this bill that gives you any funds. In other words, I do not see a dollar bill in it.


Mr.   McPhail@: I was speaking of the Estimates.
Senator MacEachen: Yes, and your money comes from the Estimates, not this Bill.


Mr.   McPhail@: Yes.
The Minister of State said the Government presented this Bill so decisions could be made regionally. One of the big decisions that was made regionally was on the funding allotted to the Industrial Development Division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. That was the major feature, that decisions were made by the Board of Directors of the company in Cape Breton and the funding for that division was over $11
million a year. The decisions on that $11 million of funding were made in Cape Breton.
The Deputy House Leader said that they want the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to be in operation. Well, it is in full operation at the present time. When going through my mail on Friday I found some notices in my "in basket". The letterheads on all four of the notices read "Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency". Evidently the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has its letterhead and has had it for quite a while. One press release says:
Five Valley Firms to Receive ACOA assistance.
Pat Nowlan, M.P., Annapolis Valley-Hants, announced today that Five Valley Firms will receive assistance from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
That is dated July 5. The second one reads:
Pictou County Projects Receive Assistance.
Ten Pictou County entrepreneurs will receive $1,076,867 in contributions and loans to carry out expansion development plans that will create 85 permanent jobs.
That announcement was made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay). There again is proof that ACOA is in operation. Another release dated July 6 says:
Minister of Public Works, and M.P. for Halifax (said)... Halterm Limited will receive $450,000 ACOA contribution ... Halifax-Dartmouth Industries Limited will (receive)... $160,000 ...
A release dated July 8 says:
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency ACOA will provide assistance to four companies to establish, expand and modernize their operations in Dartmouth.
It was none other than the Member of Parliament for Dartmouth-Halifax East who made that announcement. Today, along with other members of the Conservative Party, he is saying that we need this legislation in order to get ACOA in operation.
First, this Bill is not needed for the funding because the funding is provided with the Estimates, and certainly no Conservative Government would ever give the funding if it did not have it. They say they need this Bill in order to get the structure in place so that they can operate. They are already operating and already giving funding, as we have seen.
What exactly is the present state of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency? It is in full operation and the Government is asking today that this House give retroactive approval to the origin of it. That is fair enough, but Members should not be spreading doom and gloom all over Atlantic Canada that there will be no funding for projects unless this Bill is passed, because that will not be the case. Mind you, it seems that the only places where approval is being given is in constituencies represented by government Members. The reason for that, of course, is that they want to persuade opposition Members to change their position and sabotage the Cape Breton Development Corporation and people of Cape Breton.
July 18, 1988


Mr. Forrestall:: You're misleading.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: No, that is not misleading at all. That is exactly the situation.
We must look at exactly what the Government is trying to do. The Senate sent this Bill back, the Speaker has made his ruling, and that is inviolate and is to stand. However, very important questions must be considered. The Government's motion says that:
-this House believes that in dividing the Bill, the Senate has altered the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of the grants of aid and supplies set out in the Bill, contrary to Standing Order 87, as recommended by Her Excellency the Governor General to this House, and has therefore infringed the privileges of this House, and asks that the Senate return Bill C-103 in an undivided form.
First, the principles and intention of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency have not been infringed upon in any form whatsoever. As a result of the Senate separating the Bill, all of the provisions which relate to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency are now before the House. Whether the Government or the Speaker feels that the rights of the House of Commons have been infringed upon is another matter. It is up to the House to decide whether or not it wants to adopt the Bill in its divided form. That is in the Speaker's decision.
There is nothing to stop the Government if it is, as it says it is, interested in getting the provisions regarding the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency through. There is nothing to stop the Government approving the provisions which deal with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. They are before us in the House right now. How can the Government say that the Liberal Party is stalling ACOA? For one thing, ACOA is already in operation. Second, the revisions are before the House right now.
The reasons for the situation which exists in the House now is that the Government is not interested in ensuring the early passage of the Bill implementing ACOA. The Government is more interested in retribution against Cape Breton and the Cape Breton Development Corporation. In the Deputy House Leader's statement he did not mention what will happen to the Cape Breton Development Corporation as a result of the undivided Bill. ACOA is only Part 1 of this Bill. Part 2 relates to doing away completely with the Industrial Development Division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
The Cape Breton Development Corporation was set up under a separate Act. If the Government wants to do away with the Industrial Development Division, the way to do that would be through the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act. However, it has chosen to do it as a rider on the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Bill. It has decided that if it does it that way it will be able to include something unpalatable and economically devastating to the people of Cape Breton in a wider subject of general appeal, thereby catching the people of Cape Breton and Atlantic Canada in a catch-22 situation.
Canadian Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
If they want the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency enshrined in legislation they have to do away with the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The people of Atlantic Canada are being told that if they want the legislation to implement this agency passed they have to punish the people of Cape Breton who have had the Industrial Development Division since 1968. In order to get the general benefit of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency they have to turn against the people and the economy of Cape Breton by including the provisions doing away with the Industrial Development Division.
What happens if that succeeds? I am talking about precedents and the rights of Canadians. This would be a precedent because it would give the Government free rein to include such unpalatable provisions for a certain small region of this country in any Bill it wanted to pass if, of course, the Bill was generally acceptable.
In the Bill dealing with the Western Diversification Fund, which this Party supported, there was no provision for any part of western Canada to be detrimentally impacted upon. The people in western Canada did not have to turn on any part of western Canada in order to get the general benefits of the Western Diversification Fund, and therefore this Party approved it, and rightly so.
Why can the people of Atlantic Canada not have the same benefits? Why can the people of Atlantic Canada not have a program to set up the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency without having to cut the economic feet from under the people of Cape Breton? That is the major question right now and that is something the Government does not want to explain to the people of Canada.
The Cape Breton Development Corporation Act was passed in 1967 setting up the Cape Breton Development Corporation which had two divisions; a Coal Mining Division and an Industrial Development Division. The purpose of the Industrial Development Division was to bring in industry to replace the jobs that were being lost in the coal industry at that time. The people of Cape Breton had a reprieve in the early 1970s because the price of oil went up.
However, let us consider the situation in Cape Breton at the present time. There are at least 1,500 less jobs in the coal industry today than in 1967. Employment at Sydney Steel Corporation is less than half of what it was 10 years ago. The Government has closed the two heavy water plants, costing the area between 600 and 700 jobs.
The Government just stated that it is closing the railway in Newfoundland, which supposedly will not hurt the people in the Sydney and North Sydney area. Yet we are told that the containers will be routed through Halifax and Montreal. There is no compensation for the people in that regard.

July 18, 1988
Canadian Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
The special investment tax credit upon which the Government hinged its whole regional development policy on Cape Breton has elapsed. Essentially, everything has been taken from an area that has one of the highest rates of unemployment in this country. The Government knows that the unemployment figures are bogus because there is no way of gauging the true problems in unemployment according to the system the Government has implemented. One no longer has the right to see the councillor in the unemployment office but must simply pick a job from the job board. People in Cape Breton have been unemployed for so long that they simply do not bother going to the unemployment office.
When one also considers the problems of the much older than average population, one can realize the true problems with the economy in Cape Breton. This Bill will not address those problems.
The Government is saying that it does not want to keep the Industrial Development Division that was established by an Act of this Parliament in 1967. It wants to set up a separate Crown corporation called Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. It is essentially the same name as Enterprise Cape Breton, to be established under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The reason the Government is not original in naming the other corporation is that they will eventually be merged, without anyone knowing the difference. That one operation will be a local office of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
The President of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, which the Government intends to establish, is Mr. McPhail who stated before the Senate committee that the ACOA legislation was not necessary in order to have funding. He is also President of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton, through its direct relations with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Essentially, we are dealing with three parts of the same entity. Whether there are three or 300 agencies in Cape Breton, if they operate under the same framework and according to the same system, it is only one agency. It is a complete fallacy to suggest that the Government is replacing the Industrial Development Division with a separate Crown corporation. The people of Cape Breton are gaining nothing whatsoever. They will lose the industrial division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, with a budget of at least $11 million a year in an area that has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
In 1967, this House decided that the people in that area needed this assistance. Today, there are fewer jobs in that area than in 1967. Those jobs are required to develop the economic framework in which people can support their families. The Government is not only taking away the funding, but the ability of the Cape Breton Development Corporation to decide how to apply that funding in the area.
I agree with the Deputy Government House Leader that it is important for people in Atlantic Canada to make their own
decisions. That will not be the case in Cape Breton if we lose the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It is wrong to put the people of Cape Breton in that position.
The Government believes that if it can pass this Bill through Parliament without any amendments, or without its being divided, it will be able to eliminate the Cape Breton Corporation Industrial Development Division. That will be a serious blow to Cape Breton.
The Government believes that the general benefits in the broad concept of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will allow it to include a measure that will adversely affect the people of Cape Breton. It believes that the people in the rest of Atlantic Canada will not bother with what fate befalls the people of Cape Breton, that the greed of the rest of Atlantic Canada will be paramount and win the day. That is not true. The Government has taken a cynical position with respect to the people of Atlantic Canada. The loss of this valuable agency will be devastating to the people of Cape Breton.
While we support the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, it has many problems and is not the complete answer. The political nature of the agency is rampant and could turn into nothing but the biggest pork-barrel in the history of Atlantic Canada.
However, it is the only game in town for Atlantic Canadians, since the Government has decided that this is all it will do. The Government has provided funding to the various regions through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Western Diversification Fund and the Northern Benefits Program in Ontario. However, that is all it is going to give and will refuse any further requests from these areas. Regardless of the need for regional development funds in Atlantic Canada, that is no reason why the people of Cape Breton should be targeted for this clandestine and detrimental action on the part of the Government. I cannot accept that.
The Government's motion is flawed. It states that the House believes that in dividing the Bill the Senate has altered the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of the grants of aid and supplies set out in the Bill. All the Senate is doing is considering further the section that refers to eliminating the Industrial Development Division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It wants to study the impact of that on Cape Breton.
I too would want to study what that would do to the Cape Breton Development Corporation in particular. I hope the other place will look at that and realize that the loss of the Industrial Development Division will result in a coal mining company that is just ripe for privatization. That, I would say, is what the other place is maintaining it wants to study. What it has given back to the House are the provisions that relate to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency without amendment and without any change whatsoever, ready for passage by this House. If the Government is interested in the passage of these provisions with respect to this agency, there is no reason that we cannot deal with that right now. But the
July 18, 1988

Government wants to play politics with Atlantic Canada. That is the pure and simple reason for not dealing with it, and I think that is a travesty.
I would say to members of the governing Party that if the people in Cape Breton, certainly all Atlantic Canadians, do not know what the Government is doing, they are certainly going to know. I think the people of Atlantic Canada are going to see through this sham.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion by the Minister of State and Deputy House Leader (Mr. Lewis), because I believe we have in this particular case a very special motion. It is perhaps rare that this House must assert its privileges against the Senate. I have been in this House since last August as a new Member of Parliament and I must say it came as a bit of a shock to see some of the traditions in this House. For example, the Black Rod knocks on the door of this Chamber, interrupts proceedings and Members of the House of Commons dutifully go to the Senate to hear some message or pronouncement from the Senate. I was told, of course, that this is a tradition, a mere formality of subservience of the House of Commons to the Senate, and it was a bit of a shock to me to have to participate in asserting our privileges in this House against the Senate.
What the Senate has done with this particular piece of legislation is a disservice to the House of Commons. It has divided a Bill this House passed, albeit with substantial disagreement on particular parts of it from this side of the House, particularly from the New Democratic Party. But we supported the over-all legislation. In dividing this Bill, the Senate, as the Speaker has ruled, has interfered with the privileges of the House of Commons.
We, therefore, must join in with the motion in stating as follows; that we send a message to the Senate stating that this House disagrees with the text of the message made by the Senate to Bill C-103 because the House believes that in dividing the Bill, the Senate has altered the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of the grants of aid and supplies set out in the Bill, and has therefore infringed the privileges of this House, and we ask that the Senate return Bill C-103 in an undivided form. This motion is a very serious one. This House must claim its privileges against the Senate.
I must make a few comments on the Government's attitude toward the Senate in this respect. We have heard the Deputy House Leader rail against the unelected Senate as it carries out its activities in opposition to the House of Commons. The New Democratic Party has opposed the choice of a Senator as a Minister responsible for this Bill. The Government has chosen not to have a Minister in this House be the main spokesperson to report to Cabinet on this legislation. Instead, the Government itself chose a Senator to head the agency and
Canadian Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
to be the Minister responsible, and we must have someone in this House to answer questions and speak for this agency.
The Government rails against the Senate for interfering with this Bill, but the Government itself has made use of the Senate and instead of having one of its many Members of Parliament in this House act as a Minister responsible for ACOA, it has chosen a Senator. So the Government, I would suggest, is rather hypercritical on this point. It rails against the Senate yet it chooses a Senator. In addition, the hyprocrisy of the Government on this issue is evident by refusing, despite many invitations from this side of the House, to bring in legislation to curb the power of the Senate with respect to what it can do to Bills originating from this House.
We listened to what the Government had to say about the Senate but we do not believe it is sincere in wishing to do something about it. It continually rails against the Senate yet does not take any action despite repeated invitations by this Party to do so.
I should also point out that the very issue on which the Senate has taken action in dividing this Bill is one that was brought up by my Party at the first opportunity in the legislative committee studying Bill C-103. That committee, as you know, Mr. Speaker, travelled to Atlantic Canada, to St. John's, Halifax, Cape Breton, Port Hawkesbury, Prince Edward Island and Fredericton. We heard submissions on this issue.
This issue first came up in Port Hawkesbury where the committee held hearings. Members of the Liberal caucus and Liberal Senators are now taking up the cause of DEVCO, particularly, the Industrial Development Division, but when the committee held hearings in Cape Breton, there was not a Member of Parliament representing that Party even present, nor was there a Member present in Prince Edward Island or in Halifax to discuss the issues of ACOA and to listen to what those parts of Atlantic Canada had to say. It was my Party, and myself on that committee, who first moved amendments to the legislation to delete the entire section of the Bill dealing with the breakdown of DEVCO, hiving off the Industrial Development Division. We listened to the arguments put forth and the comments made by the people of Cape Breton as to what they felt was wrong with breaking up DEVCO and breaking away the Industrial Development Division. I will not go into all the arguments except to say that with DEVCO having both a Coal Mining Division and an Industrial Development Division working together, the DEVCO operation, with certain flaws, of course, has become a model of enterprise. With that operation there has been the ability of the Industrial Development Division to maintain flexibility in dealing with economic circumstances and changes within Cape Breton. It was an agency within Cape Breton that had control, not from Moncton or Ottawa, but from Cape Breton itself.
Within the Industrial Development Division, working with the Coal Mining Division, there was also the capacity of the advice, knowledge and expertise of those involved in the coal

July 18, 1988
Canadian Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
mining operation which could be used to assist other enterprises within the Cape Breton community which were participating in the Industrial Development Division programs. That is very important to the success of many programs. The Industrial Development Division was also able to respond when, for example, there was a fire in a colliery and a particular mine had to be shut down. The assets of DEVCO were able to be used in conjunction with the other aspects of the Industrial Development Division programs to create new opportunities and employment.
After the House voted on amendments to that legislation, and those amendments have been turned down, this House ultimately has the final say in voting in favour of the legislation, so I reject the notion that the Senate can then alter the Bill in a substantial way as it has done. What would stop the Senate, in that case, from taking any Bill passed by this House, no matter which Government, and chopping it up into little pieces because the Bill did not suit the Senate? That would destroy the effectiveness and privileges of Members of this House to carry on their mandate from the people of Canada who elected them to pass legislation and get on with the business of Government.
We in the New Democratic Party supported amendments, both in committee and in the House, which would have separated the Bill. In effect, they would have done the same thing as the Senate has done. We voted on those amendments and they were lost. The Bill, in its original form with certain amendments which were accepted, was passed along to the Senate and has come back mangled. It was changed in a way that perhaps we would have liked to have seen. In fact, if the amendments by Members on this side of the House had been accepted, the Bill would have the same appearance as it has now coming back from the Senate.
We cannot accept the fact that the Senate, having received the wishes of this House, decided to act in so drastic a way, as the Speaker has ruled, to breach the privileges of this House. They are privileges which we must claim as Members of Parliament.
However, I reject with great force the contention of the Government that delay of this legislation will destroy the program as it now exists. The Government, through ACOA, is still spending money. That is something that has been going on for many months. The Government is very much overstating the consequences of a delay of this nature since under the new program of ACOA money has been handed out quite regularly in the form of grants. The details of those grants and criticisms of them are another issue.
It strikes me as very hypocritical when we hear Liberal Members of the House talk about their commitment to regional development. For much of the last 20 years since 1968 when the Industrial Development Division of DEVCO was established we have seen activities by the Government, most of
which have been Liberal Governments, which have given Cape Breton an unemployment of 15.3 per cent, as reported today in The Halifax Chronicle-Herald. In all of Newfoundland and Labrador there is an unemployment rate of approximately 17.3 per cent. In many parts of Newfoundland and in whole statistical divisions there is an unemployment rate of 28 per cent.
We see a history over the last 20 years of regional development programs of both Conservative and Liberal Governments which have not resulted in any real commitment to changing the unfortunate realities in Canada wherein the unemployment rate in Newfoundland, in Cape Breton and the Maritimes is unacceptably high.
We have seen a program unveiled by the Government which has made some improvements under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It has some features that we welcome. There is the feature of flexibility in terms of granting and programs that can respond to the different needs of the Atlantic provinces. Indeed, one of the major defects of existing programs or pre-existing programs was that, although they were designed in Ottawa, they did not take into account the realities of economic and industrial life in the Atlantic provinces. They were not successful. We hope that with ACOA there will be improvements in that rate of success.
Therefore, the measures that were taken in the whole were supported, despite the fact that there were serious flaws. One of the most serious was the destruction of the Industrial Development Division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which had been put together and which had worked very well as a model. It was not successful in moving full employment in Cape Breton. It still left an unemployment rate of 15 per cent. However, in terms of the model of the type of activities that could be undertaken on a regional basis within a part of a province of Canada it was a successful model. It did not receive the total commitment of the Liberal Government before this one, and obviously it has no commitment from the present Government which has set out to destroy it.
These points with respect to the attitude taken toward the Senate by the Government are most important. We support the motion which is before us. The reason we support the motion is that we must, as the House of Commons, rise up and claim our privileges against the Senate. We must insist that the Senate respect the privileges of the House, despite the fact that the changes made to the legislation are ones that we ourselves would have made in this House. Those changes, once denied by this House as a body, must not be imposed upon this House by the Senate.
We support the motion. We support the message to be sent to the Senate to claim the privileges of this House against the Senate.
July 18, 1988


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I join the other Members of this House in this debate on the motion which has been made.
I would like to start by saying that I listened attentively to the remarks of the Hon. Members for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and St-John's East (Mr. MacLellan and Mr. Harris) about the motion, and I imagine, Mr. Speaker, that I and the other Members of this House have an obligation to regard this debate as a historic event in the history of the Canadian Parliament, because it is the first time that anyone can remember that the Senate has done what it did with this Bill, which aims at promoting the economic well-being of Atlantic Canada.

I guess that when people look at this debate and when they look at what has caused this debate to occur they will realize how desperate the Liberal Party of Canada has become. An explanation for this action by the Senate must be found. Why is it that unelected people in the other place have, on their own, decided to transgress convention, even the powers of this House, by infringing on the privileges of every Member of this House?
What I find astonishing this morning is to see members of the Liberal Party standing up to defend yet again their little cousins in the other place for the very single reason of playing partisan politics. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) tried to portray the Government as playing partisan politics here. Who has been playing politics with this issue if not the Liberal Party of Canada represented by the Liberal Senators?
It is a shame to see Members of Parliament from the Liberal Party who are elected standing up to say those things. After all, their cousins in the other place are not elected. We can understand that MacEachen and his gang would try to hold on to power to frustrate the will of the elected people of Canada. What I find astonishing is to see Liberal Members of Parliament defend the other place and the actions of the Liberal Senators.
We should not have this debate this morning. The Senate of Canada should not have divided Bill C-103. In his remarks this morning the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys challenged the ruling of the Speaker. The Speaker said quite clearly that this was a money Bill, but the Hon. Member attempted to explain that it was not a money Bill. By doing what it has done the Senate was infringing the privileges of the elected people of Canada. That is what the issue is about this morning.
The Liberals attempted to justify the gestures of the Senator who leads the Liberal Party in the other place by saying that we were destroying the Industrial Development Division of
Canadian Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
DEVCO. If it were not for the rules of the House where we have to watch the language we use there are certain terms I could use to describe that Member of Parliament. I will not, because I respect the rules of the House. I think that the smoke-screen that the Liberals are attempting to put over this issue will dissipate, just as in 1984, after 20 years of apparently dealing with regional economic development problems in Atlantic Canada, the smoke-screen has dissipated and people have seen the Grits doing everything in Atlantic Canada from Ottawa. The difference today is that it will not be done by bureaucrats in Ottawa; the Liberals want it to be done by Senators in the other place who are not elected. They know what is best for Atlantic Canada.
The same Senator seems to forget that he was here in the House of Commons for a long time. He was a very influential member of the previous Liberal Government. What has he done for Atlantic Canada? Where was he all those years? He talks of the Industrial Development Division of DEVCO as if this was a solution to the problems of Cape Breton. What has happened to Cape Breton since 1984? What has happened to Nova Scotia and to Atlantic Canada? When one looks at the number of unemployed people in Cape Breton in 1984 and compares that to today, there is a big difference. Many more people are working today in Cape Breton, not because the Government has thrown money at the problem, like the Liberals did, but because the Government in Ottawa has decided and understood that Atlantic Canadians have the stuff to do it themselves. Hence the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency would give the people of Atlantic Canada the very tools that they need to be the architects of their own economic development. That is what ACOA is all about.
In the House today we hear the Liberal Members of Parliament defending the unelected Senators who are trying to frustrate the will of Parliament. That is unacceptable and Atlantic Canadians will not forget. The only Liberal federal representative in Ottawa, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), applauded the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys when he stated that there are interim authorities and that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency can do whatever it wants.
To justify their position on this issue today the Liberals say that, first, we are doing away with the Industrial Development Division of DEVCO, and, second, that the Senate's action does not result in any delay in ACOA bringing forward initiatives to support regional economic development because it is funded.
ACOA is operating under interim authorities that will allow the agency to put in place the action program. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys was talking about an announcement made for certain companies across Atlantic Canada under the action program. That is only one program and one leg of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
The Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys stated in the House on July 8 that Bill C-103 does away with the Industrial Development Division of DEVCO. He called this an affront to

July 18, 1988
Canadian Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Atlantic Canadians. In fact it is a statement that is an affront to the truth. The Industrial Development Division of DEVCO will remain after the passage of Bill C-103 but with a strengthened mandate as the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. The only difference is that currently that division, as part of DEVCO, reports to the Minister responsible for Industry, Science and Technology, the DRIE department. That is where DEVCO has to answer to.


J. Michael Forrestall: Here in Ottawa.


Bernard Valcourt: Here in Ottawa, what is proposed in this Bill by the creation of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation is to have it report to the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
With the creation of ACOA and a new Department of Industry Science and Technology, IDD as the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation will report to the new Minister responsible for economic development in all of Atlantic Canada. As a result, Enterprise Cape Breton will not in any way be impeded from doing what the Industrial Development Division has been doing for the past 20 years, contrary to what the Member stated. In fact, it now has a better chance of success because it is now in direct connection with ACOA, which is the lead federal agency for economic development in Atlantic Canada.
There are further provisions in the Bill that prove the absolute hollowness of the Liberal Party's argument. In establishing the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, Section 27 gives it its own board of directors separate from ACOA and separate from DEVCO. To me that is an improvement. That means more strength for this important tool for Cape Breton economic development.
Furthermore, Clause 33 lays out the objects of Enterprise Cape Breton. I challenge any Liberal Member to take exception to what I am going to say. Clause 33 lays out in identical terms the powers of the Industrial Development Division of DEVCO to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. The words are exactly the same and they state:
The objects of the Corporation are to promote and assist, either alone or in conjunction with any person or the Government of Canada or of Nova Scotia or any agency of either of those Governments, the financing and development of industry on the Island of Cape Breton to provide employment outside the coal producing industry and to broaden the base of the economy of the Island.
In other words, the Government remains committed to the original mandate of the Industrial Development Division. No one, not even the not-so-famous Senator in the other place, can take exception to that. It is plainly written in Clause 33.
It is even more important to note that in Clause 34 the powers of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation will be the same as those of the IDD, except for some minor technical changes. The Industrial Development Division has been given an extraordinary range of powers that very few, if any, other federal Crown corporations have received. All those powers have been retained for Enterprise Cape Breton Development Corporation. They include the power to provide assistance to a
company that is likely to make a substantial contribution to the industrial development of Cape Breton Island through loans with or without security and with or without interest, grants, equity participation, or guarantees subject to Governor in Council approval. The Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation will also retain the power to purchase lands, sell lands for cash or equity, take mortgages on lands sold, and advertise industrial opportunities on Cape Breton.
Clause 38 provides that the head office of that corporation must be in Sydney in Cape Breton, and not in Moncton, as the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys was trying to let the people believe. He was claiming that it would be run from Moncton. Clause 38 clearly provides that the head office of the corporation must be in Sydney. The corporation will be run from Sydney and not from Moncton or Ottawa. That is contained in the Bill. Bill C-103 and the philosophy behind it create very direct links between the ACOA Act and the ECB Act. The Government has set out to establish a new economic development system in Atlantic Canada. It is vital and necessary that Cape Breton should be linked to that system. That is what Bill C-103 accomplishes.
If we listen to the brilliant Senator up there, he would want IDD to remain there linked to Ottawa, not linked to the one agency that has the mandate for the economic development of all of Atlantic Canada. He wants it linked to Ottawa again. Those Liberal Senators like it to be closed. Now that they are in the Senate, they have found a way to keep it closed to Ottawa. They are against the economic development of Atlantic Canada. The Liberal Party has been estranged from the people of Atlantic Canada by this move. To see Members of the House of Commons defend this move is totally unacceptable. I dare say that in the very near future-and I hope that is soon-Atlantic Canadians will have a chance to condemn those Members of Parliament who are denying them the opportunity to develop their own regions with the implementation of this Act. That is what this debate is all about this morning.
For them to defend their unelected cousins in the other place, against the will of the elected people, means that they will go down in history as the people who have done just that. Atlantic Canadians will never accept non-elected people being the master of their economic development. They want to be the architect of their own economic development.
Even the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris), who has not informed himself, says everything is fine. Even if the Senators are playing with Bill C-103, even if they are delaying the approval of the Bill, it does not disturb anything. Money is still flowing. It is the same old attitude and it has not changed. They think that by throwing money at the problem they will solve it. They do not realize that Bill C-103 creates more than just giving money to corporations in Atlantic Canada. These measures cannot take effect until the Bill is passed.
July 18, 1988

The Elon. Member from Westmorland-Kent-and this I cannot believe-has one of the poorest counties in all of Canada, but yet he is here applauding the Senators who are infringing on the privileges of this House.

Mostly Acadiens, Mr. Speaker! And what does the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) do? He applauds the efforts of Senators who are trying to frustrate the will of the elected representatives of the people. In his riding, which is perhaps the second poorest in Canada, the passage of and Royal Assent to this Bill would make possible, for example, to designate certain parts of New Brunswick, such as the region of Kent, a special region. But to do that, we need legislative authority, and that legislative authority is being denied to us by the Senators. That is the issue.

These Members of Parliament will have to explain to the Member for Westmorland-Kent why he is preventing the adoption of this Bill as it is. That area could be designated a special area under the enabling legislation of Bill C-103. I cannot stress enough the importance of this Bill and the approach of this Government to regional economic development. I am a product of Atlantic Canada. I come from northern New Brunswick. The people who are represented here have been subjected to regional economic development policies of the previous Government for 16 to 20 years.
In 1984, when the people across Canada and Atlantic Canada decided that they wanted to do away with this approach of throwing money at the problem they have spoken loud and clear and we have answered. That is why we have brought in the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Bill C-103 addresses every problem that they have. Everything is in the Bill. The integrity of the mandate of the Industrial Development Division is protected and it is in the Bill. Instead of reporting to Ottawa it will report to the Minister who is responsible for all of Atlantic Canada's economic development. That is the only difference. I guess I know why the Senators acted as they did. They used to be here making laws.

It's pathetic to see that. Imagine the poor Senators over there, who can't come up with any solutions, who can only watch what the government does and try to frustrate the will of the elected representatives of the people.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Liberal Party just have today to wake up and stand up for the House of Commons!

The issue is the powers of the House of Commons versus the prerogatives of the Senators. The Speaker has ruled that this is a money Bill, that they have infringed upon the privileges of each and every Member of the House. I want to see those Liberal Members of Parliament stand up for the right of Canadians who elect their representatives, not the Senators who are not elected.
Canadian Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to address myself to this particular issue before us today on the floor of the House of Commons. It is a great opportunity to follow the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt), who has made some suggestions and comments with regard to what is taking place in another Chamber and, in particular, what is taking place here in the House of Commons. I failed to hear from Members opposite. Perhaps, as the day progresses, we may hear from them. I failed to hear nor did I receive any specific indications from them as to what parts of this particular Bill they would deem to be a money Bill.
In the motion it says:
. . . because this House believes that in dividing the Bill, the Senate has altered the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of the grants of aid and supplies set out in the Bill, contrary to Standing Order 87.
I would hope that in the course of our debate Members opposite would clearly spell out, for Members on this side, where that has been a bridge. It is passing strange that government Members have not themselves alluded to their support of the somewhat ill-founded substantive portions here before us today, with any reference to those sections of the Bill.
There is a fundamental problem which members on the government side and, to a lesser extent, my colleagues to the left, the New Democratic Party, do not wish to acknowledge or to address in any substantive way. All of them knew in their hearts that Part I of Bill C-103, notwithstanding the shortcomings and numerous amendments which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), made in committee and in the House, would be passed by the House of Commons. But when it comes to the second part they know in their hearts, that what they are doing is fundamentally wrong.
This is a piece of legislation which, by the Government's own admission, and I say to you, Sir, respectfully and sincerely, ought to be treated as two separate and distinct pieces of legislation. Why? First, not I, not members of the New Democratic Party, but government Members in introducing Bill C-103, in referring to it by its short title, said it is the Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada Act, 1987. The short title in Part II reads Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation Act. There are two distinct, different elements, yet the Government attempts to lob them in as if they were one.
It is interesting to note that when the Bill was introduced in this House, a great deal of time, a great deal of rhetoric was given by the then Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), with regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. In checking through Hansard it became clearer and clearer that the second part was a throw-

July 18, 1988
Canadian Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
in by the Government of Canada for, in his deliberations, the Minister of the day provided but three or four brief, succinct sentences with regard to Part II of the Bill known as the Enterprise Corporation Act. We have two separate and distinct elements.
Listening to the Minister who preceded me was somewhat reminiscent of watching and listening to the Keystone Kops. Rarely did he talk about the substantive aspects, rarely did he admit what is taking place here, and purposely and intentionally he has attempted, without success, I might add, to brandish the Opposition for wishing to split this Bill as somehow being against motherhood, apple pie, et cetera. I guess the difference between this Party and the other Party at that end of the Chamber is that its Members talk a pretty good game when it comes to assisting and enhancing the economic opportunities in Cape Breton. But when it is put on the line, you get another answer.
I am disappointed, really disappointed, in my colleagues to the left who, for I would believe political gain in their own parts of the world, have not seen fit to support the splitting of this legislation knowing full well as they do that if it were split we in this Party would support it, they would support it and the Government would support it. That does not mean that each and every scintilla of a sentence would be accepted. It does not mean that at all. But I am disappointed for other reasons.
The New Democrats have talked about heart and about sensitivities toward regional economic development. When I hear a colleague from my region, from Atlantic Canada, from Newfoundland, cast aspersions, if you will-and he is free to do that in his choice of words-and say to the people of Canada that no success was ever uncovered with regard to previous regional economic development policy, let me say how shameful, how utterly untrue and how utterly unfair that is. There is no question that my colleagues on the government side as well as in the New Democratic Party would jump to their feet and say, yes, there may have been some successes, but not nearly enough, with which I would concur. But to try to sustain over a period of time that the economic policies of former Governments were not successful in the rebirthing, if you will, or the enlightening of the economy in the Halifax area is utterly untruthful. It is utterly untruthful concerning parts of the city that he represents. Some of those policies worked in Charlottetown and Fredericton. But it goes much beyond the New Democratic Party; it goes to the heart of economic development.
The Cape Breton Development Corporation with its Coal Mining Division and its Industrial Development Division has had some success and some failures. When one tries to address regional inequality, there is no quick fix. There is no panacea. Over its history DEVCO has been able to provide financial assistance to business and to non-profit institutions. It has, however, done more, Mr. Speaker. It has been the leader of a people, because in trying to change the behavioural patterns which comprise an economy, DEVCO has also served the
community in lifting its standards. Now the Government comes along and is supported by Members opposite, and particularly the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands- Canso (Mr. O'Neil) who will have to answer in this Chamber as well as elsewhere as to why he would concur with such a decision. The question is this. Will the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation have the same independence and the same status as the Cape Breton Development Corporation, of which the Industrial Development Division is an integral part?
We heard some pretty unbelievable two-sided arguments from the previous speaker, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, as to why he believes it will be the same. I asked this Minister, this fountain of knowledge, this individual who thinks that he has each and all of the answers to regional inequality, why does his own appointed President of the Cape Breton Development Corporation disagree with him? Why does his own appointed Executive Vice-president of the corporation disagree with him? Why, Mr. Speaker? Because of the very fact that it will not have the same independence as the Cape Breton Development Corporation. By a single definition, the Deputy Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is also made the head of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation which, accordingly, becomes a subordinate part of a regular government Department or, in the words of the Minister, and I quote, "a member of the ACOA family". That is quite different from the present legislation of the Industrial Development Division which comes under DEVCO.
The Vice-President of the Industrial Development Division of DEVCO was asked by Senator Graham before the Finance Committee:
So once you have your money approved for the ensuing year, the entire
authority as to how that money is spent is up to the Board of Directors?
Mr. Brown, appointed by and reaffirmed by this Government, answered the question by saying, "Yes". You cannot answer in the affirmative when you talk about the Cape Breton Enterprise Corporation. You cannot say that because it becomes an integral part of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, thereby reporting to the Deputy Minister. His head office is in Moncton, he resides in Halifax, and has operations in Cape Breton.
Another aspect of this issue Concerns what was said by the Chairman and Acting President of DEVCO, Dr. Theresa MacNeil, appointed by the Government. She said the strength and reputation the corporation acquired in the past 20 years arose in the main from its independent status, its autonomous legal base, which provided the necessary flexibility in dealing with changing circumstances and new situations. She was asked in committee if she had concerns that Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation would not have the same kind of independence that Devco at present enjoys and has enjoyed for the last 20 years. Her answer was, yes, she had concerns.
July 18, 1988

Those are but two individuals who see many difficulties with the new organization of DEVCO. Yet the Government has intentionally tried to portray the splitting of this Bill as endangering money flowing to ACOA. If there was ever an untruthful portrayal of the facts, it is just that. No Member of Parliament, particularly on the government side, can say that splitting this Bill in any way delays or stops money going to ACOA. Members of the Government do not have to accept my word for that. They should accept the word of their own appointed Deputy Minister, Mr. McPhail. He said in committee that money for ACOA comes from the Estimates. Therefore, when the Minister of State for Tourism tries to portray the Opposition as holding up money for ACOA, I say, with great respect, that this completely and utterly false.
Senator Stewart from Antigonish-Guysborough asked a question of Mr. McPhail in the committee on June 23, 1988. He said:
Am I correct that you said that you were operating on the basis of the
appropriation made for your predecessor organization for the fiscal year
1988-89?


Mr.   McPhail@: No, Sir. There is in the Estimates a separate provision for
the agency.
On that same day Senator MacEachen put this question to Mr. McPhail:
Yes, and your money comes from the Estimates, not this Bill?


Mr.   McPhail@: Yes.
No more smoke-screens. No more false accusations by government Member!!. No more jumping in bed with the Government by the NDP on this matter.


Richard Grisé: You don't jump in bed with them, you live there with them.


David Charles Dingwall: Their allegations are utterly false and they know that.
We have heard from Ministers of the Crown, but only one or two Members opposite, about the great things they have done for Cape Breton. They ought to be ashamed, utterly ashamed. It took them four years to conceive a legislative package to institute ACOA. The Prime Minister said in 1984: "Jobs, jobs, jobs". The people in my riding say, "Bull" you know what.
In 1984, when we were in power, the Industrial Development Division received $13.6 million. The Government reduced that to $10.6 million by 1988-89. That is a loss of $12.7 million since the Tories came to power. Don't tell me and my constituents, who are far more intelligent than Members opposite, that the Government has been treating them with equality and generosity. The facts are completely and utterly the opposite. Just the other day a fish plant closed in Glace Bay, throwing in excess of 300 women out of work, and the response of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) was to bob and weave, weave and bob, not reply to correspondence and not meet with the people concerned.
When we stand in this Chamber as Members from Cape Breton and ask the Government to split a Bill, which it should do based both on precedent and substance, we do it because we speak not only from the heart but from the head. It is clear to each and every living soul on the Island of Cape Breton that this is an affront to the independence DEVCO has enjoyed for a considerable period of time. It is an affront to regional economic development in Cape Breton.
I can say in conclusion only that government Members who support the raping of DEVCO as we now know it, and members of the NDP who support that attack, will answer for it in a general election, and when we are elected we will restore the original mandate to the corporation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member just told us that the NDP wished to destroy the Industrial Development Division of Devco. No one from his Party was in Port Hawkes-bury when we first heard about the major concerns with that division. It was an NDP member, myself, who moved the motions in committee to delete that part of the Act dealing with the destruction of the division. We also spoke against it in this House. Therefore, when the Hon. Member says what he says, he is creating a false impression in the minds of the voters of Cape Breton and Members of this House.
What I ask him to tell us is whether or not he supports and is prepared to stand up for the privileges of this House as against those of the Senate.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am in your hands, but I always thought it was unparliamentary to comment on whether Members attend certain functions of a legislative nature. However, if the Hon. Member wishes to raise that concern perhaps we could refer to other situations where he and his Party have not particularly participated in debate on initiatives which have been taken on Cape Breton Island. I could recite for him a litany of those initiatives.
With regard to the substantive question, the motion before us, what he is saying to the coal miners of Cape Breton is that this is the first stage of the Tory Government's move to privatization of DEVCO through which we will see the elimination of the coal industry in Nova Scotia. He is saying that he supports that action by saying we will not split this legislation.
May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
July 18, 1988
17660_______________________


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the recent $1.2 billion housing proposal by the City of Toronto to build affordable accommodation for 12,000 people offers yet another opportunity for the federal Government to demonstrate a tangible commitment to ease the crisis in affordable housing that has befallen Metro Toronto and other major urban centres.
To date the Conservative Government has failed to respond to proposals to utilize either parts of the Downsview Airforce Base or surplus postal lands for additional and reasonably priced residential units.
Now, in terms of the new St. Lawrence project, which includes 15 acres owned by the Canadian National Railways, a federal Crown corporation, I urge the Government to direct the Canadian National Railway to release these lands and become a co-operative partner in this housing plan.
The Government is quickly running out of time and opportunities. The urban housing malaise demands that the federal Government act swiftly and decisively.

[ Translation]



OCEAN RESOURCES


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, today, all Canadians were delighted to hear the news of the historic decision to proceed with the development of the Hibernia oil site, a project that will involve billions of dollars for the development of this offshore oil field. Thanks to this project, the people of Newfoundland can look to the future with confidence. They can look forward to being on an equal footing with their fellow Canadian citizens, to a future of dignity. While the impact of this megaproject will be felt across Canada the spinoffs will be very substantial for the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec, involving the purchase of supplies, manufacturing and engineering firms. Furthermore, thousand of jobs will be created.
I want to congratulate the governments of Canada and Newfoundland, as well as the members of the consortium who
signed this historic agreement, and I congratulate the citizens of the Atlantic provinces who will benefit from this project.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Conservative Government was given another clear message about its language policy for immigrant women. The largest Roman Catholic women's group in Ontario, the Catholic Women's League, has called for greater access for immigrant women to government subsidized language training programs. These women add their voices to many more groups that have urged progressive reforms of federal policy in this area.
Despite these numerous calls and despite a legal challenge under the Charter of Rights, the Government continues to ignore the fact that its language policy discriminates against women and keeps immigrants in low-paying, dead-end jobs.
Immigrant women need a fair language policy in order to integrate and contribute best to Canadian society. The Government would be wise to avoid a lengthy and costly legal battle, and start negotiating for better programs for immigrant women.



THE LATE CLAUDE BRUNET, C.M.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, every person, every society needs role models who live exemplary lives and who impress us by their humanism and warmth. Today, we mourn the passing of Mr. Claude Brunet, the founding president of the Comite provincial des malades in Quebec, who championed the rights of the chronically ill, who was the moral and political support of the disabled and the apostle of the sick and all those who received medical care.
Mr. Brunet probably did more for the image of individuals who are stricken by illness than the most sweeping reforms of our health care system. Mr. Brunet was a true advocate, not because of any desire for financial gain but for humanitarian and highly laudable reasons. The passing of Mr. Brunet comes as a shock, but even after his death, he remains a symbol of the urge to live.
July 18, 1988



FISHERIES


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern and, indeed, disappointment with the Government of Canada and its lack of sensitivity toward the former employees of Highland Fisheries in Glace Bay. It should be noted that the people of Cape Breton have had to sustain a number of set-backs since the present Government came to power, but in particular the people of Glace Bay.
Recently Highland Fisheries, owned and operated by Clearwater Fine Foods of Bedford, Nova Scotia, indicated that its plant will be closed because the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) will not provide that plant or those employees with an enterprise allocation of fish. Some 310 individuals have lost their employment as a result.
I am further advised that the Minister has failed to meet personally with the Premier or senior management to discuss this situation. Almost 3,000 people from Glace Bay and surrounding areas have signed a petition calling upon the Government of Canada to provide the necessary quota of fish in order that this particular operation employing some 310, mainly, if not all, females, would re-open immediately. It is time that the Government of Canada showed some generosity and sensitivity to the workers at the Highland fish plant.



DEVELOPMENT OF HIBERNIA OILFIELD

Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of a historic agreement involving the Government of Canada, the Government of the Province of Newfoundland, and a major oil consortium to develop the long awaited and often promised Hibernia oil project. The dream and promises of past Governments have finally become a reality under the Progressive Conservative Government of Canada.
Hibernia represents the largest single capital investment ever undertaken in Atlantic Canada and will usher in an era of major economic development in Newfoundland. Hibernia will open the door to the development of other energy resources off the shores of Atlantic Canada. The spin-off opportunities will be significant, not only in Newfoundland but throughout Atlantic Canada.
Efforts will be made to achieve Canadian content targets of 50 per cent, to maintain 66 per cent construction phase employment for Atlantic Canadians, and to target 80 to 95 per
cent of engineering, design, and project management contracts for Canadian firms.
The Government of Canada's contribution represents an investment in the future of Newfoundland and an investment in the future of Atlantic Canada. Most important, it represents an investment in new jobs, new skills, and new technology for Atlantic Canadians.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: The
Liberal-Conservative coalition in British Columbia is alive and well but looking for a new leader. Brian Smith from the Conservative wing of the Socreds and brazen Grace McCarthy of the Liberal wing have both resigned from the Vander Zalm Cabinet because Bill Vander Zalm runs a one-man band that always plays off key.
The number one enemy of the continued Liberal-Conservative coalition is no longer the NDP but Bill Vander Zalm, the very person the coalition chose two years ago as their saviour when the Government of Bill Bennett was totally discredited. Bill Vander Zalm hung on to power for the Socreds by running against the Bennett record and by promising reform. Now McCarthy and Smith try to restore their popularity by running against Vander Zalm.
This time the people of British Columbia will not be fooled. Regardless of their style, Bill Bennett, Grace McCarthy, Brian Smith, and Bill Vander Zalm all belong to the same right-wing coalition. They deserve each other. The people of British Columbia deserve better.



SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday in Quebec City I was at the news conference where the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) announced that after an absence of 110 years, the Geological Survey of Canada would be back in Quebec with the opening of a geoscience centre in Ste-Foy, at the INRS.
In five years time, the centre will have a budget of $24.2 million, of which $13 million will be provided by the federal government. Furthermore, there will be 15 new jobs in research and management. Mr. Speaker, the centre will provide for a presence in Quebec of the Geological Survey of

July 18, 1988
Canada and correct the existing imbalance by promoting increased participation by Francophone scientists in research and science projects.
This is an excellent initiative by our Government, and I want to thank the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who once again has helped Francophones to take their rightful place in this important field.
The entire scientific community in Quebec was delighted with the announcement, and the Minister, Raymond Savoie, Jacques Desnoyers of INRS and Gilles Boulet, President of the University of Quebec, were enthusiastic.
Once again, our Government has demonstrated its equitable treatment of our country's two language communities.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, for some months now I have been urging the government to distinguish rural regions from urban regions when statistics are compiled to determine the number of weeks required to be eligible for unemployment insurance. Unfortunately, the Government is continuing to use a system that is not fair to rural residents. The fact that the unemployment rate is actually twice as high in rural areas is not taken into account by the system. In those areas it is much more difficult to find jobs that last more than 10 weeks especially when one considers that many of those jobs depend on fishing seasons.
The Department of Employment and Immigration has just announced that once again for the next 30 days people living in south-eastern New-Brunswick will have to work 16 weeks to be eligible for unemployment insurance.
That is unfair, Mr. Speaker, and once again I beseech the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) to act and to see to it that the eligibility period for the people of south-eastern New Brunswick is reduced to 10 weeks.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that after considering historic, economic, and political implications, some Canadians want to reject the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
After all, Prince Edward Islanders turned down the concept of creating a Canadian nation in 1867, a majority of New Brunswickers voted against it in 1865, and Newfoundlanders rejected the idea several times, all because of the historic, economic, and political implications.
Fortunately for all of us today, including the present free trade opponents, the visionaries, not the timid, prevailed and created Canada. If the visionaries prevail this time the free trade agreement will create a Canada that is economically stronger and politically more self assured than ever before.
*
* *



APARTHEID


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party caucus, indeed, I am sure on behalf of all Members of Parliament, I rise to wish Nelson Mandela a happy seventieth birthday, and call on the Government of South Africa to free Nelson Mandela to permit him to take his rightful place in the history of South Africa and play a constructive role in the development of a democratic non-racial South Africa.
This is a day on which all peoples of the world are joining to express their unanimous wish that the South African Government finally wake up to reality, wake up to justice and free Nelson Mandela, and get rid of apartheid to permit the kind of South Africa for which the blacks of South Africa have been working so long, with Nelson Mandela as their leader.
*
* *



IMMIGRATION


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that prospective immigrants overseas have the right to have an immigration hearing by telephone. This added condition will further increase the huge backlog of cases already present in our overburdened immigration system.
Let us consider the ramifications of the ruling. Huge costs will be incurred by the cost of overseas calls, and the amount of overtime that will be incurred due to the time differences between Canada and the rest of the world. Many Third World nations do not have the telecommunication technology and equipment in order to have reliable conference calls. Language will be a major problem. How will translators function over the phone, and what will be the cost?
July 18, 1988

The application of an oath will also pose legal problems. Thus this ruling will result in a costly nightmare that will create further chaos in our immigration system.



SMALL BUSINESS


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I salute the many people who successfully run small businesses across Canada. I share the disappointment of those who have suffered under Tory small business philosophy and policy.
You who have been squeezed through tax increases, through broken promises for a revamped Federal Business Development Bank policy, and through cuts to programs under the Small Business Loans Act, know that I have been listening and I sympathize with your concerns.
The Conservative Government has increased the cost of your telephones. It has reduced loan guarantees. It has begun charging small businesses for the right to borrow this money and it has increased the size of businesses that qualify for small business loans. It seems in the eyes of the Government that you have to be a big business to be considered a small business. That is Tory small business policy.
We need a much more constructive approach, including more streamlined access to a co-ordinated range of government services. I remind small businesses that have been left out in the cold by the Tories, that all hope is not lost. Change is not too far off. Fairness and equity for small business owners and their families are the policy concerns of the Liberal Party of Canada.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, last week in this House the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) produced a report I had written to my constituents in which I related my thoughts on the proposal to purchase nuclear powered submarines. The Member told this Chamber that I had "recently stated" my opinions on the issue, and later suggested to the media that this is a new development.
The Hon. Member was wrong, as he often is. I wrote that piece in June, 1987, when the Defence White Paper was issued. It was published in all of the newspapers in my riding of Nanaimo-Alberni some 13 months ago, which tells us a great deal about the abilities of the NDP research department.
Oral Questions
The lengthy debate on this issue also tells us a lot about the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). This is a Party of discussion and debate. This is a Party that listens to what Canadians have to say.
The Prime Minister has given this nation single digit inflation, single digit unemployment, and single digit interest rates. Prime Minister Trudeau only gave us the digit in British Columbia.
Trudeau called backbenchers "nobodies". The Prime Minister has allowed us to be called "somebodies". That is why the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will be leading this nation into the next century.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



HISTORIC SITES


Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, recently our very able Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) publicly recognized a most noteworthy natural feature of the environment situated in our riding of LaSalle, the Lachine Rapids. In fact, a bronze plaque confirming the importance of that part of the St. Lawrence, both for tourism and from the historical point of view will be put up next August close to that enchanting site.
All the constituents of the wonderful riding of LaSalle- Emard want to seize the opportunity of this unique event which constitutes national recognition of the site to issue a most cordial invitation to all Canadians. We hope that this symbolic action augurs well for the eventual recognition of the LaChine Rapids as a world heritage site.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland announced with great fanfare and excitement their plans with respect to the development of Hibernia oil.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 18, 1988
Oral Questions


Brian Vincent Tobin: The province has not seen such a commotion since former Premier Frank Moores fired off dynamite on both sides of the Strait of Belle Isle commencing a $1 billion hydro tunnel project. Frank Moores was re-elected, but to this day we have not seen the hydro tunnel project.
With this in mind, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the following words contained in the document released this morning in St. John's, Newfoundland, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Premier Peckford, mean:
The execution of this Statement of Principles by the signatories hereto is not intended to and does not create legally enforceable rights or obligations between the signatories hereto or between any of the signatories hereto and any third parties.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister separate himself from the enthusiasm of this photo opportunity for a moment and explain those words to the House and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange that an Hon. Member from Newfoundland would criticize a very important national and regional project that will be good for Canada, good for the Atlantic region, and particularly good for Newfoundlanders. It will generate some
47.000	person-years of employment in Canada, and almost
35.000	person-years in work for Newfoundland.
What has been announced today is a Statement of Principles. That is precisely what it is. The finite details of this will be worked out in a formalized legal fashion.


DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT QUERY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister says he finds my reaction surprising. I tell him that my reaction, and the reaction of all Newfoundlanders, is born of experience. We heard Premier Peckford announce this project once in 1979, we heard it again in 1982, each time coupled with the calling of an election.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: What's Turner's position on Hibernia? We know what Trudeau's position was.


Brian Vincent Tobin: On both occasions the hopes of Newfoundlanders were crushed and on both occasions many Newfoundland investors lost sizeable amounts of money. How can the Government this morning in Newfoundland describe the announcement not, as the Deputy Prime Minister just said, as a statement of principles, not as a progress report, not as a report card, but as a firm agreement, when in fact, and I quote again from the document:
The signatories hereto will use their best efforts to finalize a definitive agreement or agreements-embodying this Statement of Principles as expeditiously as possible but in any event by March 31, 1989.
That is eight months hence, one day before April Fool's Day. What do those words mean? Will the Deputy Prime Minister answer?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious the Hon. Member has never been involved in an agreement of this nature.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would like to be.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This is quite usual. This is the way in which a major project of this nature proceeds. When the Hon. Member suggests that there was disappointment in Newfoundland, I can tell him that there was disappointment in Newfoundland when the province lost two court battles over whether in fact it had any share in the ownership. This Government acknowledged there was a partnership in terms of the ownership of those resources, which was enshrined in the Atlantic Accord.
This has been a positive step by step process, and today Canadians right across the country, but particularly in Newfoundland, are welcoming this announcement because it is a good announcement for Canada, it is a good announcement for Newfoundland, and it is a good announcement for Atlantic Canada.


REQUEST THAT NEWFOUNDLAND INVESTORS BE GUARANTEED AGAINST POSSIBLE LOSSES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, who should know better, and ordinarily does, now attempts to drag the decisions of the courts into a partisan arena.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: We are talking about the credibility not only of the Government of Canada but the credibility of the Government of Newfoundland which, for the third time, has trumped up a Statement of Principles and called it a definite agreement.
The Deputy Prime Minister has the document the same as I do. Will he now not admit that this statement that i have quoted, these words I have quoted, are an escape clause allowing any one of the partners to walk away at any time from the so-called Statement of Principles announced this morning? If he is not prepared to admit that, if he is not prepared to admit that unassailable fact, will he give an ironclad commitment today to Newfoundlanders and, in particular to Newfoundland investors, that any money they may lose this time, as they have twice before because of a less than forthright statement by politicians anxious for an election call, those losses will be guaranteed by the Government of Canada? Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to say that today in the House of Commons?
July 18, 1988


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Hon. Member has suggested, I was not criticizing any court action. I was simply criticizing the policy and position of the former Liberal Government which would not acknowledge the fact that the province had any share or potential ownership in the resources.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Will you acknowledge you do not have an agreement? Will you acknowledge that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was in fact a Liberal policy that was militating against the interests of Newfoundland. That was clearly the case.
What we have here is a definitive Statement of Principles which has been agreed to-


Ms. Copps:: Tories with principles?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -by the parties; the consortium, the federal Government, and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland. I am sure, as the Government of Canada negotiated the Atlantic Accord with the Government of Newfoundland, as the Government of Canada negotiated the Western Accord with the western provinces, this policy will be implemented on the basis of that, and it is a day on which all Canadians should herald a very major development based on a very definitive and practical policy.


TERMS OF STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about this so-called Statement of Principles which in fact has to be the most unprincipled statement ever put forward because the player with the least gives the most. The companies get billions of dollars and an ironclad guarantee. The Government of Canada gets its duties and its taxes all paid. Yet Newfoundland, little Newfoundland with the highest unemployment rate in Canada, is asked to give up its taxes and to lower its corporate tax and to pay $100 million on top of that. Why is it that the player with the least has to give the most? And isn't this in fact the biggest rip-off since Churchill Falls?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find the Hon. Member's rationale rather amusing because, under the Liberal policy, the Government and the people of Newfoundland would have gotten nothing, absolutely nothing.


Bill Rompkey: One hundred per cent of royalties. That was guaranteed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Absolutely nothing. He asks what Newfoundlanders are going to get. Well, 47,000 person-years for Canada and almost 35,000 person-years for Newfoundland. In terms of the macro economic impact of Hibernia for Newfoundland, it will be $11.6 billion in 1987 dollars. In terms
Oral Questions
of incremental employment, it will be 94,350 person-years of employment. If that isn't good for Newfoundland, I don't know what is.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Liberal offer was 100 per cent of royalties to Newfoundland. That was the Liberal offer. We have been offered jobs before. Under Churchill Falls we sold our birthright for a few menial jobs and we are not doing it again.


An Hon. Member:: Who did it?


An Hon. Member:: Joey Smallwood.


Bill Rompkey: On this agreement, which comes to conclusion on April Fool's Day, I say to the Deputy Prime Minister, fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us. We are not going to be fooled again, and I ask if this is not simply the greatest rip-off since Churchill Falls.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have a clear picture of where the Liberal Party now stands. It is against the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. We saw that demonstrated today. It is against Hibernia. It is against Atlantic Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We are against lies, 1-i-e-s.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And if what they are saying is they want-


Brian Vincent Tobin: That's what we are against. You wouldn't know that if it jumped up and bit you.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the Hon. members from Newfoundland and Labrador are suggesting that they are going to tear up this deal, well, I guess that will be their position. Let them suffer the consequences.


Bill Rompkey: We will offer the old deal. We will offer our deal.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE PROJECT WILL PROCEED
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, while the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would welcome economic activity if it happens as a result of this Hibernia announcement today, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the Statement of Principles signed does not create legally enforceable rights, is not binding on any of the parties unless there is a real agreement reached by March of 1989, what guarantee is there that this is not just a pre-election scheme by both the Canadian Government and the Newfoundland Government? What guarantee is there that this project is going to go ahead at all?

July 18, 1988
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the guarantee is that you have the signature of the Government of Canada, the signature of the Government of Newfoundland, and the signature of the consortium.


ROYALTY PAYMENTS TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, an examination of this deal shows that Newfoundland is drastically reducing and forgoing enormous royalties to allow its own oil to be developed. This deal provides minimum royalties to Newfoundland, a far cry from the 10 per cent to 35 per cent that Newfoundland was talking about and proposed years ago. Does this deal not end up being just like another Churchill Falls for Newfoundland-only construction jobs, and a longterm role of watching our energy flow out of the province with very little economic return?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, day after day in this House we hear from Members from Newfoundland talking about the high unemployment level and the fact that there is a desire and a need for regional economic development. Here we find out today about a very major project that has been in the making for some 10 years. While it should be heralded as a major breakthrough, we find Hon. Members criticizing it.
In terms of jobs, as I said, 47,000 person-years direct and indirect will be created, with 35,000 person-years for Newfoundland. In terms of the permanent jobs there will be 1,100 direct jobs in Newfoundland, 2,450 indirect jobs, for a total of 3,500 jobs, after the project is completed. In incremental terms to the Gross Domestic Product it will add some $15.1 billion in 1987 dollars to Canada, $11.6 billion to Newfoundland, 106,900 person-years of work for Canada and 94,350 person-years of work for Newfoundland.
These are not figures that are pulled out of the air. These are figures that have been developed by the Governments and the consortium. The Hon. Member opposite should be congratulating the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada rather than criticizing them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR JOB GUARANTEES
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister produces figures that he said are developed by the consortium. Even in this non-binding agreement all the provisions related to jobs and procurement for Newfoundland and for Canada are only targets. They are projections. There are no guarantees.
Why has the Government not insisted that the oil consortium guarantee job content for Canada and Newfoundland? Why has it not guaranteed that the goods and services
required for production will come from Newfoundland? Why are they just targets? Why are there no guarantees? Does this have something to do with the trade deal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this is an important project, not only for the economic development fortunes of Newfoundland and the Atlantic region-


Brian Vincent Tobin: An important photo opportunity, but it is no deal.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: If you want a job after the election you better listen to this.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Are you bribing him? Mr. Justice Tobin?


Mr. Rodriguez:: That is unparliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether that was an offer or a threat.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I was trying to say, this is not only an important project for economic development and job-creating activities in Newfoundland and the Atlantic region but, indeed, for all of Canada. What is more important is that it is important in terms of security of supply. This will develop between 520 million and 650 million barrels of oil which will help Canada attain and achieve its self-security and, in particular, supply the Atlantic requirements. That should be welcome news for everybody.
The NDP, we know, and the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, expressed views about the frigate contract going to Saint John, New Brunswick. Now we have a Member right from Newfoundland criticizing the Hibernia project. We can only assume that the NDP are against the Atlantic region-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Balderdash!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This Government is not against the Atlantic region. It is for the Atlantic region. That is why this program is going forward.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COME-BY-CHANCE OIL REFINERY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question, likewise, is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister says that this deal will help security of supply in Atlantic Canada. That is not true. There is nothing in the agreement that says that any of the oil has to be maintained for refining or use in Atlantic Canada. With the free trade agreement there is no way to ensure that it will.
Also, Come-by-Chance is the only refinery in Canada which cannot sell into the Canadian market. After the free trade
July 18, 1988

agreement it will be the only refinery in North America which cannot sell into Canada.
Why is the Government not ensuring that some of this oil be processed in the Come-by-Chance refinery and sold in Canada? Why is the Minister not assuring us that at least a portion of this oil will be used to meet the security supply problem in eastern Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have a little difficulty in following the twisted and distorted logic of the Hon. Member. He knows very well that there is nothing in the free trade agreement that compels the Government of Canada or any province to sell energy to the United States at any given time. That is strictly within the control of the province.
This project is being developed for the security of supply, for job opportunities, and for regional economic development, not only in Atlantic Canada, not only in Newfoundland, but right across the country.


PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the fact that it has nothing to do with security of supply, because it is not there, it is not an agreement, it is an agreement to agree. It is a Statement of Principles.
When the Prime Minister was campaigning in the 1984 federal election he said that oil off the shore of Newfoundland would be treated exactly the same as oil inland in western Canada. Yet Newfoundland gets a small fraction of the royalties that are available to the provinces in western Canada.
Why is it that the province in Canada that can give the least economically is paying such a high price for this development project?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that under the Liberal policy the people and the Government of Newfoundland would have gotten nothing.


Bill Rompkey: That's not true and you know it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You were in Cabinet and you didn't know it.


Bill Rompkey: Completely inaccurate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This deal is developed consistent with the Atlantic Accord. The Hon. Member knows very well that there have been royalty concessions on projects such as Syncrude and Suncor, and if the provinces which own the resources wish to make a royalty concession, to get the resource developed and to get economic development stimulated, then that is clearly within their prerogative. That is precisely what the Government of Newfoundland chose to do.
Oral Questions
The over-all net benefit to the Government and to the people of Newfoundland is clearly a positive one.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister with regard to the historic decision of the Federal Court of Canada last Friday which I regard as a great victory for the men and women who work for the Public Service of Canada.
As the Minister knows, the Federal Court struck down Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act as being contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, thereby removing the restrictions on political activity by federal government employees.
My question is the following. Will the Government undertake not to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, naturally, we are looking at the judgment in some detail now, having received it on Friday. We will consider the implications of the decision.
In that regard I think special mention should be made of the Hon. Member for Ottawa West who has given leadership in this House with respect to the question of political rights of public servants.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is interesting to note in the course of the judgment that only part of Section 32 was struck down on the basis that there was not sufficient definition of the rules with respect to the Public Service being involved in political activity. All Members of Parliament would share the view expressed by the courts that political neutrality in the Public Service in positions which involve public policy and dealing with Governments is a desirable objective.
We in our Party have demonstrated by our policy that political rights are a priority for us with respect to public servants. We intend to take the appropriate action on this particular issue.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Minister of Justice that he and his Government have consistently opposed efforts made by back-benchers on his side of the House as well as by members of this Party to get political rights for federal employees. They have not lifted

July 18, 1988
Oral Questions
a finger in order to implement the promise they made back in 1984.
I ask the Minister whether the Government still upholds the promise made in 1984 in which the Progressive Conservative Party said that it favoured a general removal of the restrictions on political activity, especially for those public servants covered by collective agreements, and that these restrictions were unnecessary and might not be justifiable under the terms of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Is that a promise that one can trust, Mr. Speaker, or is the Government going to back away from that promise and take this matter to appeal, rather than allowing a good decision to stand?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were to read the judgment he would find that the court indicated that there is the capacity in the Government to define specifically the limitations with respect to political activity. The Hon. Member would have to agree that we would have to look at the appropriate legislation that should be applied with respect to the public service.
Having said that, I do not think that any Government, in terms of its relationship with the public service, has had more success with Presidents of the Treasury Board than this Government. We have moved forward with respect to five of the six items which we were negotiating with the public service unions.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Not on this particular issue.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: With this particular issue.
We are now examining it, and especially in light of this decision.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Only because you have to.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When the Hon. Member says that we should not look at the court decision, I think he is singing another tune. I am sure the Hon. Member would agree with us that we want to make sure what the law is and what the Charter implications are. I do not rule out the possibility of appeal to make sure that we have the highest court in the land looking at the law with respect to the Charter and public service rights. We have not made a decision. We have not ruled out the possibility of appeal until we have had a chance to look at it.
If we can receive some co-operation from the Opposition we might look at some legislative initiatives that we can pass in short order. Perhaps the Hon. Member could have his House Leader consider that possibility.


REQUEST THAT SECTION 32 OF PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT BE SUSPENDED PENDING APPEAL
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. In his capacity as Attorney General I would like to ask him, if a decision is taken to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court, would he undertake or give serious consideration to not asking, as part of that application for leave, that Section 32 be considered to be reinstated pending the disposition of the appeal so that the judgment of the court, until it is appealed, will stand?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate the point that I think all Members would agree with, that it is important to have neutrality in our Public Service. We would not want to have a politicized Public Service in this country.
I can assure the Hon. Member that we will be consulting with him and with other Members. I will be consulting with my colleagues who have responsibility in this regard as to what would be the best policy to give some stability to the system and to allow us to move forward. It may take the form of legislative action, in which case I know the Hon. Member has a very substantial interest because of his leadership and his Bill. He can rest assured that, as far as the Government is concerned, we will be wanting his input in this whole matter.


PUBLIC SERVANT'S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN POLITICS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, many had been rejoicing since Friday, but the news that the Minister is considering appealing has many people worried and shows once again that the Conservative Government is unable to make a decision.
The Government promised rights for public servants four years ago, but it took a court decision to say that they do have rights. Now we hear the Minister saying that he is not sure whether he will appeal or not.
Can the Minister assure this House today that he will not appeal the decision and that he will let the court decision to give full political rights to public servants stand?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to remind the Hon. Member and the House of the point that I raised earlier. This decision has been based upon the lack of precision and specificity in the current rules with respect to political involvement. As I understand the court's decision the rules were too broad and were not properly defined.
This court by its decision, and other court decisions, have indicated that the principle of political neutrality is an important position to be taken with respect to the Public Service.


July 18, 1988

We are examining the decision with a view to establishing an appropriate legislative framework. I have not ruled out any possibilities at this time, and I think that is fair, until we have looked at the whole decision and see the underlying implications. That is not in the nature of a threat. That is simply prudence which any Attorney General would want to take when there is an important decision such as this under the Charter.
I reiterate to the Hon. Member and to all Members in the House that it would be our intention to look at this very carefully to see what the legislative options are for us. That will require the co-operation of the Opposition, because we have a very heavy legislative load. If we receive the cooperation of the Opposition we would want to ensure that we put forward a regime that is fair and consistent with our long standing and well known party position and government position, and I hope that we can count on the help of the Hon. Member.


EMPLOYEES OF CROWN CORPORATIONS AND AGENCIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal applies to approximately 214,000 public servants under the Public Service Employment Act.
Many Crown corporations and agencies, with possibly over 300,000 public sector employees, over the years have copied the directives-the restrictive directives, mind you-of the Public Service Commission in regard to political participation.
Given that these corporations and agencies over the past 20 to 25 years have literally given their employees restrictive political rights, will the Minister and the Government be clear and issue directives today to Crown corporations and agencies regarding the political participation of their employees so that we do not create two groups of public sector employees-those who have rights, and those who do not have rights? Will the Minister act on that today?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Hon. Member, who I think is a fair person, that this Government has moved, in the time that we have been honoured to serve as government, with our relationships with public servants and with respect to the whole question of the organization of Crown corporations.
We have brought a rationale and a responsible approach that were lacking in the previous Government. I know that the Hon. Member was critical of the Liberal Government because of the fact that it did not take steps in these areas. We are moving on those matters. We have committed ourselves to action. We will carry those commitments out. We will need the help of the Hon. Members in the Opposition so that they do not delay the matter and will co-operate with us in the sense of making sure that public servants' interests are served in the proper way.
Oral Questions SPORTS


WORLD JUNIOR TRACK AND FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS- BROADCASTING FACILITIES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, and it is placed in light of the fact that we seem to be enjoying Christmas in July.
The World Junior Track and Field Championships will be held in the great riding of Nickel Belt in northeastern Ontario and the Sudbury region beginning on July 26. To be able to broadcast internationally to the 150 countries that are represented at the games the broadcast facilities needed some $684,000. They are now short by $300,000.
We are pleased with the $115,000 that we did receive from the Government. Would the Government consider digging deep into the bag to see if we could get the other $300,000?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, replying on behalf of the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport, all of us want to thank him and the Department for the sensitivity brought to this issue. We have been trying to have these types of games right across Canada, as the Hon. Member knows. I also thank him for his words of thanks for facilitating the games, together with many volunteers, and I am sure those are the people we should thank first.
The Government of Canada has tried to move those games forward. The Nordic Games in Thunder Bay are another example.
I cannot give the Member any specifics on his request, but I can assure him that I will take it back to the Minister and we will discuss it.


REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISION ON ADDITIONAL FUNDING
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, as all Members know, we have all had our sympathies with the Sudbury basin when the price of nickel was down. It is a single industry town. The community has since made great strides in moving forward. This was a great attempt to project the community internationally with all the possibilities that would ensue. In light of the fact that we need to have an answer soon, will the Minister mind getting the machinery moving because the games open on the twenty-sixth?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct. A lot of us, including Members from northern Ontario, were attempting to try to build a broader base than the metal industry; tourism to name another one, and, for example, the whole matter of the arts community and what has been done in Sudbury in that field.

July 18, 1988
Oral Questions
I will look into this matter along with my colleagues. While I cannot give any guarantees, obviously, I can assure my hon. friend that we will see what we can do.


FISHERIES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Over 300 employees of Highland Fisheries in Glace Bay have been informed by their owners, Clearwater Fine Foods of Halifax, that their plant is closed and will be closed because the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will not give that plant or its trawlers an enterprise allocation.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicate to those employees and to the people of Glace Bay specifically when he received a written request from Highland Fisheries and why he is refusing to grant this enterprise allocation when, in fact, he knows the unemployment situation in Glace Bay is chronic and getting worse as a result of this particular action?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a problem of extreme concern to the fishermen and their families of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. It is a problem of which I have been aware for several weeks. This is not an uncommon problem in some of the communities where there are smaller fish plants which did not receive large enterprise allocations under the enterprise allocation scheme introduced by the former Liberal Government in 1984.
The Hon. Member well knows that Clearwater Fine Foods does have enterprise allocations. In fact, it has uncaught enterprise allocations for the present year. These are dispersed according to a process in which all of the companies and the Atlantic Council of Fisheries Ministers engage each autumn. I cannot violate that process by making a special exceptional allocation to this plant when there are still fish in the water that could be caught. We gave Clearwater additional enterprise allocations in the northern waters this year for vessels between 65 and 100 feet.
The problem arises for other reasons relating to market prices and not to a shortage of fish available to Clearwater Fine Foods.


MINISTER'S POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: That answer, Mr. Speaker, is in direct contradiction to what senior company officials are saying to the employees.
The Minister will know that the chronic unemployment situation in Glace Bay is there now. People need the assistance of the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Cape
Breton Advisory Committee has recommended an enterprise allocation for that company, the provincial Minister of Fisheries has agreed with that particular request. Based upon fairness, equity, and because of the chronic unemployment, on behalf of the employees and on behalf of the community, will the Minister not now reconsider his position of some time ago and give an enterprise allocation to that plant and to the trawlers at Highland Fisheries, thereby enabling those workers to have some dignity for themselves and their families?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may not like my answer. I said that we had exercised equity and fairness. We have been bound by an enterprise allocation scheme which his Government created in 1983-84. Under that enterprise allocation scheme, which I have supplemented in the past year, there are still fish waiting to be caught by Clearwater Fine Foods which could be delivered to the Glace Bay plant rather than to the other plants to which it is delivering.
The problem results because of a softening price and demand for fish in the market at the present time, and because Clearwater is not willing to continue to employ these workers, notwithstanding the fact that there are fish available to Clearwater's plant if Clearwater chose to go out and catch them.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
I met on the weekend with a former trooper, Don Laird, of the Royal Canadian Dragoons based in Petawawa, Ontario. He made a series of very serious allegations of misconduct at that base, which included doctors' orders being ignored or disobeyed by field commanders, harassment of injured or ill troopers, acts of brutality encouraged or ignored by NCOs and junior officers, drunkenness while on duty and while operating unsafe vehicles, as well as drunkenness and fighting going on in the barracks, vomiting in hallways, rooms, and in washing machines. Has the Minister caused an investigation to be launched and, if so, what facts have so far come to light?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. This matter has come to my attention since the newspaper reports and we are very concerned about it. They are serious allegations.
I have asked my officials for a complete report. Further to that, I have ordered that a board of inquiry be established to investigate the facts, to do an adjudication and to render a decision.
July 18, 1988


REQUEST THAT RCMP PARTICIPATE IN INVESTIGATION
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I appreciate the answer and what the Minister has done to date, Mr. Speaker. I would like to suggest to the Minister that it would not look right in my view if at Petawawa we have the same people judging the same people, the same officers looking into the same mess in which they may have been involved-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I am not talking about the wet or the dry mess either.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I am talking about the problem, and it is a serious one.
Will the Minister engage a third investigative party such as the RCMP to be part of that investigation, so that not only will there be total objectivity but there will be the appearance of objectivity from a third disinterested party?


Paul Wyatt Dick: I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that the board of inquiry will be made up of three people. This comes under Mobile Command based in St-Hubert.
I take the Hon. Member's representations and I thank him for them.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-COMMERCIAL BLOOD BANKS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Several weeks ago the Minister for International Trade stated when asked questions about the relationship between the free trade agreement and blood banks, "The U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement has nothing to do with blood".
We see today from press reports that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in fact, confirmed that under the free trade agreement American blood banks for profit will be allowed to operate in Canada.
Who is speaking for the Government on this issue?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, maybe I can clear up the misunderstanding which the Hon. Member has. The Minister cleared it up a few weeks ago but I will just repeat the situation. First, the Government strongly favours the current not-for-profit blood supply system. Second, there is nothing in the free trade agreement that will interfere in any
Oral Questions
way whatever with the continuation of the non-profit system administered through the Canadian Red Cross, nothing.
The agreement imposes no obligation on Governments regarding the purchase of blood and blood products. Therefore, Governments will remain free to use the Red Cross as the sole supplier to the health care system. The non-profit blood system can be maintained.


INCLUSION OF COMMERCIAL BLOOD BANKS IN AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has confirmed that the free trade agreement will allow American commercial blood banks to operate in Canada. To clarify the matter, why did the federal Government put commercial blood banks in the agreement, if it is opposed to the commercialization or sale of blood in Canada? Why did they put commercial blood banks in the free trade agreement?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, one point which the Hon. Member should keep in mind is that the Canadian Red Cross today purchases about 70 per cent of blood content supplies especially for haemophiliacs from the United States and Europe. There is a use for purchasing offshore-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are commercializing blood.


John Horton McDermid: -and the Hon. Member should keep that in mind. I am sure she would not want to cut that off.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Blood for profit now.


John Horton McDermid: Second, the agreement does include commercial blood bank laboratories under its services chapter. This simply means that Canadian and American commercially operated blood banks, where they are allowed to exist, must be treated equally. That is all it says, nothing more and nothing less. The Hon. Member is chasing a pipe-dream with that one.


IMMIGRATION
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that prospective immigrants overseas have the right to an immigration hearing by telephone. This new procedure will cause a further delay in the existing backlog of cases. Will the Government appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada?

July 18, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Shields


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have always said that immigrants and refugees should have, and we have always made real efforts to provide, a fair hearing. The implications of this decision are still being examined by my Department and I will be getting back to the House with an answer as soon as we have gone through all the ramifications.


DEVELOPMENT OF HIBERNIA OILFIELD-STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the Hibernia Statement of Principles released today. This statement does not come into effect as a binding agreement until as late as March 31, 1989. That is after the trade deal will have come into effect if the Government is successful in its efforts.
My question is this. Is it because it comes into effect after the trade deal is in place that there is no binding commitment included in this statement with respect to performance requirements, Canadian content requirements, and the employment of Newfoundlanders on this project?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should first point out that the document indicates that the binding agreement embodying the Statement of Principles would be implemented as expeditiously as possible, but in any event no later than March 31, 1989. It is anticipated that it will be done much sooner than that since most of the hurdles have been overcome.
The conditions with respect to employment are pretty clearly outlined, as is the degree to which this activity will take place using Canadian supplies. Something in the order of 45 per cent to 50 per cent of the total project will be Canadian supplied. As well, there will be 14,500 person-years of direct Canadian employment. Indirect and induced employment would raise the total impact on Canada to 47,000 person years, almost 35,000 for Newfoundland alone.
It is all contained in the documentation and I would recommend the Hon. Member read it in full because he will then get a clear picture of what the deal is all about.


CANADIAN CONTENT-ABSENCE OF GUARANTEE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the document I have in front of me says the project owners estimate that two-thirds of total pre-production employment will be provided by Canadians. "Estimate"! There is absolutely no guarantee.
Can the Minister tell me why there is no guarantee, no commitment, no specific promise to this country and the people of Newfoundland with respect to Canadian content or employment? Is it not because we are unable to do that in the future under the trade deal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that last question is no.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that that concludes Question Period.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to Hon. Member's attention a matter of some importance which was raised on Wednesday, May 4, 1988, by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), and commented upon by other Hon. Members on both sides of the House. On that day the Hon. Member raised a question of privilege alleging that his rights and privileges as a Member of the House had been breached as a result of a lawsuit commenced against himself and other parties.
[Translation)
I have given this matter serious consideration and carefully reviewed the arguments offered by all the Hon. Members who participated in this discussion and I thank them for assisting the Chair. I have also consulted the relevant authors and precedents on the matter, and I am now prepared to make a determination on the question at issue.

For the benefit of Hon. Members and the public the Chair would like to summarize the facts as they were presented by the Hon. Member in his intervention. On October 14, 1987, the Hon. Member for Athabasca placed on the Order Paper Question No. 207, which reads as follows:
Since April 1968, have (a) grants (b) loans (c) loan guarantees (d) contracts been provided by the Government to Hurtig Publishers of Edmonton or other Hurtig enterprises and if so, how many and, in each case (i) on what date (ii) in what amount (iii) for what purpose?
In accordance with the rules of the House, the Government provided a written answer on January 27, 1988. Essentially, that answer indicated that certain government Departments and agencies granted various amounts of money to Hurtig Publishers Ltd. for the purposes of training programs, sales and marketing assistance, and feasibility studies, inter alia, as reported at page 15125 of Hansard for May 4, 1988.
At that point, so that everyone understands this, the Hon. Member had done what he was completely entitled to do. He

July 18, 1988

had used the written question procedure to ask the Government certain questions. The Government then responded to those questions.
The Hon. Member stated in his argument that, in late February, as a result of the answer tabled in the House, he received a letter from a law firm in Edmonton, acting for Mr. Mel Hurtig, which intended to proceed with a defamation action against the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member further advised the Chair that he then received a second letter in late March from another firm acting for Hurtig Publishers Ltd., stating that their client intended to bring an action against him pursuant to the Defamation Act. There is of course in each province an Act which sets out the law of defamation in that province.
The Hon. Member expressed the view in this Chamber that both letters were based on the information he had received in reply to his question on the Order Paper and that these two letters advising him of the intention to proceed with the lawsuit were, and I quote the Hon. Member:
-a deliberate attempt to intimidate me from seeking further information with regard to grants given by the Government to Mel Hurtig or Hurtig Publishers.
I understand that the Hon. Member has now received a copy of the Statement of Claim in the action referred to, and of course a copy has also been obtained by the Chair.
In his remarks the Hon. Member for Athabasca argued that his "privilege to speak freely without fear" in the House had been violated by the action brought against him which "goes to the very heart of a Member's obligation, a Member's right, a Member's privilege to ask questions in a free and unfettered way in the House of Commons".
The position as put forward by the Hon. Member for Athabasca was supported by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) who stressed that freedom of speech is a fundamental privilege and that, in his words, "Hon. Members are also to be free from intimidation or threats that would try in some way to direct their actions".
In the same vein the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) reiterated the principle that, as he said, "Nothing can impede the privilege of a Member to ask questions in the House, either by written deposition or orally during Question Period". The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier quoted from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 55, which reads in part as follows:

The privilege of freedom of speech is both the least questioned and the most
fundamental right of the Member of Parliament on the floor of the House and
in commitee. It is primarily guaranteed in the British Bill of Rights...
There can be no question as to the relevance and appropriateness of the principles invoked by Hon. Members in their interventions. Indeed, as all Hon. Members very well know, the privilege of freedom of speech is so fundamental that this
Privilege-Mr. Shields
House could not discharge its constitutional functions without it.

British parliamentary institutions, from which our own system was derived, were afforded the protection of the Bill of Rights three centuries ago. It is interesting that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is presently celebrating the three hundredth anniversary of the Bill of Rights at Westminster.
Article 9 of that Act clearly states:
The freedom of speech and debates, or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
Careful reading of that provision raises at least one particular concern in relation to the matter now before us. Essentially the privilege of freedom of speech protects "proceedings in Parliament". The question to be answered then is, what constitutes proceedings in Parliament?
This phrase has never been exactly and completely defined by statute, by the courts of law, or by the House itself. In its narrow sense the expression is used to denote the formal transaction of business in the House or in committee. Traditionally it covers both the asking of a question and the giving of a written notice of such question, and also includes everything said or done by a Member in the exercise of his or her functions as a Member of the House, either in the House or in any committee of the House in the transaction of parliamentary business. I refer to May's Twentieth Edition, page 92.
In its wider sense "proceedings in Parliament" is used to include matters connected with or ancillary to the formal transaction of business. Obviously, written questions placed on the Order Paper are to be considered part of proceedings in Parliament. In effect, they are time-saving substitutes for speaking in the House. As stated in May's Twentieth Edition, page 92:
While taking part in the proceedings of a House, Members, officers and strangers are protected by the same sanction as that by which freedom of speech is protected, namely, that they cannot be called to account for their actions by any authority other than the House itself.
I emphasize again, "while taking part in the proceedings of a House". The insertion of the term "proceedings" in the Bill of Rights of 1688 gave statutory authority to the privilege of freedom of speech, which was later clearly recognized in the law case of Dillon v. Balfour reported in 1887, 20, Irish Law Reports at page 600. The judgment stated that words spoken by a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons are absolutely privileged and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action in respect of them. I cite Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 28, page 52 as follows:
When Parliament is sitting and statements are made in either House, the member making them is not amenable to the civil or criminal law, even if the statements are false to his knowledge, and a conspiracy to make such statements would not make the members guilty of it amenable to the criminal law.

July 18, 1988
Business of the House

While a member of the House receives absolute protection and is free to speak as he sees fit during a debate in Parliament, subject only to the rules of the House, it is not so when the Member chooses either to speak or to publish his speech outside the House. The same privilege does not extend to statements made outside a "proceeding in Parliament" even if it is a reproduction of what was said in the House.

In the first edition of his book published in 1844, Erskine May expressed that reservation as follows:
-a Member may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character of individuals, and is protected by his privilege from any action for libel; but if he should proceed to publish his speech, his printed statement will be regarded as a separate publication unconnected with any proceeding in Parliament.
The same principle is reiterated in the Twentieth Edition at page 202 where it states:
-when a matter is a proceeding of the House, beginning and terminating within its own walls, it is obviously outside the jurisdiction of the courts ... But if a proceeding of the House issues in action affecting the rights of persons exercisable outside the House (as e.g., in the publication of a part of the proceedings of the House... ) then the person who published ... will be within the jurisdiction of the courts.
That does not mean, of course, that the person who published may, given the circumstances, be subject to condemnation by the courts. It only means that if published outside, that publication would be subject to the courts but all the defences which would be available to any other citizen would, of course, be available to the Member of Parliament if published outside this place. To make it very clear, when I use the word "publish" I mean either to publish in print or to express verbally to others by way of television, radio, or otherwise.
To expand on this further, in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Joseph Maingot states on page 38:
A member could not come to Parliament for protection if he was sued for having published to the world. One could not question what the member said in the House but publication outside the House was another matter. The protection afforded the member speaking in the House is, in law, spoken on an occasion of absolute legal privilege, that is to say, spoken with impunity to the outside world, but he publishes outside the House at his peril. Parliament protects him when he speaks in Parliament, but when he speaks outside, or publishes outside what he says inside Parliament, Parliament offers no protection; only the common law does, if it is offered at all.
In the case at hand there is no indication that the legal proceedings commenced against the Hon. Member for Athabasca are based on a proceeding in Parliament. From a close reading of the statement of claim filed in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta on April 26, 1988, it would appear that these proceedings relate to a newspaper article published in The Edmonton Sun and to the comments attributed in that article to the Hon. Member for Athabasca and to written information allegedly provided to employees of the Toronto Sun by the Hon. Member.
As this legal proceeding appears in no way to be based upon "proceedings in Parliament", but rather upon events which transpired outside of Parliament, the Chair cannot find, after long and very careful consideration, that the Hon. Member's privilege has been breached.
I want to add some comment to this because it is important. Nothing in this ruling should be taken to indicate whether the Hon. Member for Athabasca has or has not a defence to the defamation action taken against him. This ruling is confined to whether the Hon. Member's privileges as a Member of Parliament have been violated.
There is, of course, under the law of defamation outside this place, a defence of privilege. It is important to understand the distinction and to understand that my ruling in no way intrudes into the law of defamation or into the present action concerning the Hon. Member and others, and in no way affects whatever defences are available to that Hon. Member outside this place.
I want to apologize to the Hon. Member for Athabasca for being so long in returning to this House with this ruling. I have to say that the ruling gave the Chair a great deal of difficulty. I have decided it, I think correctly, but not without a great deal of concern. I thank Hon. Members.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it may be of assistance to advise the House of the tentative order of business for this afternoon and this evening. We intend to resume debate on the Government's response to the Senate's amendments to Bill C-103. Once that debate is concluded, we will proceed to the Government's response, which is essentially in the affirmative, to the Senate's amendment to Bill C-137, also known as the flowthrough shares Bill.
Once that is finished, we would call second reading of Bill C-139, the income tax reform Bill. Pending completion of the speech of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) on that Bill, we would call it five o'clock in order to allow for Private Members' Hour to proceed. There are several votes at 6.00 p.m., which will commence at 6.15. Pending success at report stage, we would then proceed, on consent, to third reading of Bill C-82 and Bill C-30, whichever order is most appropriate for those Members involved. Upon completion of those two items of business after the votes, we will call it ten o'clock.
Tomorrow at 11 a.m. we will resume debate on Bill C-139.
July 18, 1988



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the text of the Message made by the Senate to Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, because this House believes that in dividing the Bill, the Senate has altered the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of the grants of aid and supplies set out in the Bill, contrary to Standing Order 87, as recommended by Her Excellency the Governor General to this House, and has therefore infringed the privileges of this House, and asks that the Senate return Bill C-103 in an undivided form.
Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a motion that should not be debated. Indeed, we are having a debate in the House that should not be taking place at all.
The Senate of Canada should not have divided Bill C-103 because it has neither the right nor the privilege to do so. As the Speaker stated in his ruling on July 11, the Senate has in fact "infringed the privileges of this place", not just the House of Commons as an institution but the privileges of each and every Member of Parliament.
While we take up the valuable time of the House today to debate a motion disagreeing with the action of the Senate, all of Atlantic Canada suffers. That includes Cape Breton Island, whose fate the Senate now holds in the palm of its usurping hand.
One is truly amazed to sit in the House and listen to Liberal Members of Parliament defend the actions of their friends in the other place. Their strong words of support provide aid and comfort to the architects of the old discredited policies and programs of regional development in Atlantic Canada, those whose approach to regional development is embedded not in the belief of the individual entrepreneurs of Atlantic Canada and their ability to create new jobs but in the almighty transfer payment.
It was not the Senate that proposed to Atlantic Canadians the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It did not, because it remains the last bastion of the old Liberal philosophy of economic development based upon hand-outs. It could not because it would have had to create a money Bill, a Bill which is clearly beyond its prerogative.
Why is the Liberal majority in the Senate now attempting a constitutional end-run on the House of Commons when it has neither the moral nor the constitutional authority to do so? We can only put the answer down to simple partisan politics. Now,
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
in a thinly disguised veneer of caucus unity holding together the Liberal ranks, Liberal Members of Parliament support, in the name of fraternity for all, the action of Liberal Senators.
Bill C-103 was thoroughly debated at all stages by Members of Parliament. The first reading took place on December 18, 1987. Second reading took place in January, and that process took 11 hours, 4 minutes of House time. There were 26 Members who had a chance to speak on second reading, including six Members from the Liberal Party.
At the committee stage, the legislative committee travelled throughout Atlantic Canada because the Government felt it was essential that Atlantic Canadians had input on a Bill that was extremely crucial to Atlantic Canada and the welfare of Atlantic Canadians. That was the first time a legislative committee travelled. There were 34 hours and 20 minutes of hearings in which 73 witnesses had an opportunity to appear before the committee.
When that committee was in Halifax, in Port Hawkesbury and in Charlottetown, two Parties were represented: The Government Party and the New Democratic Party. Where was the concern of the Liberal Members of Parliament then? Where were they in Port Hawkesbury when we had a chance to be on site in Cape Breton to hear the concerns of the people from Cape Breton with regard to Bill C-103 and particularly with regard to the Bill to create the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation?
It was not, as we have heard since then, a major thrust against the division of Devco. If I remember correctly, there were two major concerns expressed at that time. One concerned the geographic area set aside for Enterprise Cape Breton and the fact that it did not match exactly with the area assigned for the tax credit purposes. The second concern was expressed by the very chairperson of DEVCO, and dealt with the division of the assets and whether the assets were divided appropriately. They did not debate the principles as much as they debated the logistics of how this Bill would be implemented.
Not only did we hear from the people of Cape Breton at that time, but in September, 1985, the Government had an opportunity to hear from the Cape Breton Advisory Committee chaired by Dr. Theresa MacNeil, the lady everyone else now quotes as being against what Bill C-103 does to DEVCO. In that report, the Cape Breton Advisory Committee suggested that several things happened. It identified barriers to development caused by the confusion of a multiplicity of development agencies. It felt that it was a barrier to economic development in Cape Breton. It recommended a new development agency, independent in matters of policy, management and operation from the coal side of the corporation, which is exactly what Bill C-103 does. We split DEVCO, and the Industrial Development Division goes to Enterprise Cape Breton and DEVCO retains its mandate with respect to the Coal Mining Division.

July 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
The report further recommends that there should become a one stop shop to the degree possible by encompassing the Industrial Development Division of DEVCO and DRIE. That is exactly what is done in Bill C-103. As a result, we heard from the people of Cape Breton. After that, of course, we came back once again to report stage in this House in March. At that time, four hours and 50 minutes was assigned to debate. Twelve Members of Parliament had an opportunity to speak. Third reading took four hours and 10 minutes, and another nine Members of Parliament had an opportunity to present their points of view. I was shocked when, on May 10, we had the vote on Bill C-103 and as I sat here as an Atlantic Canadian, I watched my colleagues, and I use the term loosely, from the Liberal Party, vote in favour of the Western Diversification Office and against the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. I could not believe that those Members felt differently about the economic development opportunities for western Canada and those for eastern Canada.
The Liberals took a stand in favour of new economic programs for western Canada and a stand against the creation of the very same for eastern Canada. That caused me concern. I think it caused everyone in this House concern because we realized that over the last 20 years, the Liberal regional development policies were concocted in Ottawa and bore no relationship whatsoever to the real needs of Atlantic Canadians. In Bill C-103, the Government gave Atlantic Canadians the opportunity to be involved in the economic decisions facing Atlantic Canada, but the Liberal Party decided it did not want to transfer the power from Ottawa to Atlantic Canada. When we scraped the surface, we found it did not want to transfer the power from the old-line leadership of the Liberal Party to people in Atlantic Canada who were capable of making decisions that would benefit the economy of Atlantic Canada.
The Liberals still want to hold hostage the economic opportunities of Atlantic Canada with a view that "Ottawa knows best". We had 20 years of that kind of rule in this country. We in Atlantic Canada were constantly told that Ottawa knew best. We have heard members of the opposite Party speaking today about the high unemployment rate in the past. They spoke about the lack of economic opportunities in Atlantic Canada. But those were the result of holding in Ottawa all the decision-making ability and power that affected Atlantic Canada.
Now, of course, here in Ottawa, the Liberal Senators, propped up by the Liberal Members opposite, are continuing to foster that point of view. The Liberals continue to be reluctant to let Atlantic Canadians make decisions for the benefit of Atlantic Canadians. Those Members say that what the Senate has done has not affected the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and its ability to function. That is not the case. There are provisions in Bill C-103 that ACOA can use to the benefit of Atlantic Canada which are not available under the existing mandate assigned by the Cabinet and
previously given to DRIE. If the Bill is split, Cape Breton would not have the benefits of a Crown corporation directly connected with the federal regional economic development agency that has the primary responsibility and resources for economic development in Atlantic Canada. In order to improve service to Cape Bretoners, the two federal economic development organizations should report to the same Minister and should have the same president. That would not be possible if this legislation is not adopted.
The reorganization that is provided in Bill C-103 will help both organizations be more co-ordinated in order to reduce duplication and confusion. If the ACOA Bill is not passed, Atlantic Canadians will be denied access to some very important economic development opportunities. Specifically, the Minister responsible for ACOA will not have the power to co-finance the projects of other Ministers that will improve the economic base of Atlantic Canada. The Minister will not have the power to designate areas of preferred treatment. ACOA will not have the power to take stock options in certain circumstances. Those are all provisions that are included in Bill C-103 as it is currently drafted.
We would not have those tools to put to work for the economy of Atlantic Canada if the Senate gets its way and this Bill is split. I think all Atlantic Canadians are concerned. The Atlantic Canada Chamber of Commerce has expressed its concern with respect to the tactics we are seeing displayed in this House in defence of the actions of the other place. I do not believe the Liberal Party is explaining to Atlantic Canadians exactly what it is trying to do, because I do not think it can explain what it is trying to do. I do not think it knows what it is trying to do.
There is one gentleman located in the other place who does not believe that anyone would have a new idea with respect to attacking the problems facing Atlantic Canada since DEVCO was created in the 1970s. But people do have new ideas and new solutions to old problems. We have had 20 years of the same kind of policy. We have had 20 years of that Party and that Government. We have had 20 years of those decisions being made here in Ottawa, and at the same time in Atlantic Canada we have had 20 years of high unemployment and limited economic opportunities.
What is the Liberal Party showing Atlantic Canadians? Is it showing that it wants to change the way the Government of Canada assists in regional development in Atlantic Canada? No, it is not showing that. Is it showing it is prepared to resist the status quo nature of the other place? No, it is not showing that either.
Is it showing that it is prepared to pave the way for new ideas for economic development in Atlantic Canada? No, it is not showing that. Is it prepared to show Atlantic Canadians that it is willing to accept new solutions to old problems? No, it is not. It is prepared to show what it has shown all along, contempt for Atlantic Canadians, and lack of faith in the
July 18, 1988

entrepreneurial spirit of Atlantic Canadians, lack of confidence in the ability of Atlantic Canadians to make decisions good for Atlantic Canada. That is what it is showing the people of Atlantic Canada. The Liberal Party is showing Atlantic Canadians that it is not prepared to accept reality, not prepared to face the fact that what it has done over the years has not worked in Atlantic Canada and that there are chances in Bill C-103 for greater success and economic development in the Atlantic provinces.
I think it is time Liberal Members of the House of Commons stood up to the old-line leadership, coming from the Senate. They should stop playing partisan games at the expense of Atlantic Canadians and their opportunities. They should realize that the division taking place in DEVCO is just what was asked for by the advisory committee in September of 1985. The Industrial Development Division will go to Enterprise Cape Breton. The Vice-President will be located in Sydney, and there will be a separate board, prepared and willing to make decisions to benefit Cape Breton. DEVCO will still retain its mandate with respect to the coal agency and the work it has to do in Cape Breton, work that was done successfully in the past. They have to recognize that this is one stop shopping to avoid the duplication and confusion that exists and surrounds past government policies as they relate to Cape Breton and its economic development opportunities.
I think it is time that the Liberal Members of this House recognized that Bill C-103, with the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the creation of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, is beneficial to Atlantic Canada and to Cape Breton. ACOA is good for Atlantic Canadians. Yet we are hearing today, as we have heard in the past, members of a certain Party standing up and saying that they are not in favour of what is good for Atlantic Canadians. They will have to answer to the people from the eastern part of the country who feel that ACOA offers a number of opportunities for Atlantic Canadians, opportunities for Atlantic Canadians to take advantage of federal government programs to complement the entrepreneurial spirit that exists in Atlantic Canada. They will have to answer to those people. They do not have to answer to members of the other place. They will have to answer to the people of Atlantic Canada when they say: "Why did not the 19 of you support the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency?"
I urge all Members of the House today to join in favour of this resolution to indicate to the other place that we do not accept what it has done, that what it has done is beyond its mandate and that it is not good for Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Binns:: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to listen to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) which he made in regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. However, I was somewhat distressed to find that he feels that the Liberal Members of this House were not supporting the agency, and he was questioning why. I am
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
wondering if the Hon. Member could tell me whether he is surprised that the Liberal Members in the House are not standing on their own feet in support of the agency instead of taking their cues from the Senate Leader, Mr. MacEachen.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. I guess I am surprised, although I know the temptation of that Party to go along with its leadership, which for years cracked the whip and kept its Members submerged under the previous leadership of that Party. However, I am surprised that they were not able to throw off the yoke of the old-line leadership and take away the partisan politics and recognize what is good for Atlantic Canada. They were not able to see beyond their smoke-filled back rooms and their bagmen to recognize that this agency offers Atlantic Canadians an opportunity to take advantage of federal government programs, create employment and allow Atlantic Canadians to capitalize on what the improved economy of the country has to offer.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) for a very impassioned address. I like to hear Members speak on behalf of the people who elect them, irrespective of what side of the House they are on. I want to congratulate the Hon. Member.
This question really focuses on the other place. It shows that the other place did something that it had no authority to do. It illustrates very definitely what we were trying to correct when I had a motion before the House for the creation of a Triple E Senate.
The present Senate is responsible to nobody. It can do anything that it likes and still get away with it. As the Hon. Speaker said the other day, it acted without authority. It does not have to account to anybody.
This demonstrates very definitely that if we are going to have a Senate, we should have one that is elected and responsible to somebody in that it would have to answer to the people. The present Senate is not doing that.
The second part of the motion which I moved would have given every province equal representation. In other words, the four Maritime provinces would have equal representation in a Tripe E Senate, just the same as any other four provinces. That would have given them protection for something that vitally affects their region.
The action of the Senate in this particular case illustrates very definitely why we need a Triple E Senate.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has said. It reminds me of an old saying which I have heard quoted a number of times with regard to the Senate and its efforts to thwart the efforts of the House of Commons. It is that even a fish cannot get caught if it keeps its mouth shut.
The more we see this type of action taken by the Senate, the more we see Senators defying the elected Members of the

July 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
House, the more we hear from Members such as the Member for Bow River, and other Canadians, expressing their concerns about the comfortable pew that exists in the other place.
[ Translation]


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question to put to the Member who has just spoken. Since this morning we have been hearing Government Members tell us that there are people in the other place, that is the Senate, who don't have to report to anyone, and who are not responsible to anyone.
How is it that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) chose one of those persons to direct that Agency?


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the reason was the affinity and the closeness of that particular Senator to Atlantic Canada and the fact that a brand new agency with as little political partisanship as possible was trying to be created. We wanted to answer the false accusations that it was a political slush fund. Thus the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appointed a gentleman who is well experienced in the affairs of Atlantic Canada. More important, he is the Minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs. One of the bylines, one of the main principles behind ACOA, is co-operation between the Government of Canada and the four Atlantic provinces, cooperation, I suggest, that was not available in the last 20 years of Liberal government rule. Members of the Liberal Government did not bother talking and asking the people of Atlantic Canada what they wanted. They did not go to the Premiers of the provinces. They just went out and said: "Here is what Ottawa thinks is best for you, now take it and like it".
I can tell Hon. Members that we did not like it. We did not advance because of it. We were held back because of it. I think of the Mitel plant in Buctouche. All of a sudden there it was, and the Premier of New Brunswick was not even consulted.
The only Government to spend money in the country to take care of that hollow election gimmick was the Government of the Province of New Brunswick. It had to upgrade the sewage system and build new access roads. That plant sits there, and the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) knows it sits there, as a monument to the failure of the past Government's economic development policies in Atlantic Canada. Thus it was logical to appoint the Minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs to be the Minister who could talk to the Provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, to co-ordinate programs, to co-ordinate the expenditure of federal dollars so that we could have a maximum effect, the maximum number of jobs created for Atlantic Canadians. I thank the Hon. Member for the question.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on Motion No. 34 before the House. Although I must say that I do not entirely
appreciate the wording and the structure of the motion, our Party will support it.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Senate proposal should be refused and that we have a responsibility to refuse it. It is very obvious that there is a very cynical approach to the Senate taken by Members of the Government. They stand up and shout about the bad things that the Senate does. Yet they go ahead and appoint a Senator to be the head of the organization which is supposed to be helpful to Atlantic Canada. They also have appointed a good number of their Members to the Senate. For many years our Party policy has been to abolish the Senate. The basis for our proposal to abolish the Senate has always been that it is not a democratically-elected body.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) made much of the fact that the New Democratic Party was supporting the position of the Government against the Senate. I know the Hon. Member recognizes that our opposition is based on our principles and belief in democracy and not necessarily in what we think is support of a flawed Bill which has gone through the House. Because of the majority that the Government has in the House it was able to pass it through and did not accept the rather pointed criticisms of people from the Maritimes, the New Democratic Party, and the Liberal Party about what was in the Bill and how it would affect future development in the Maritimes or in the Atlantic provinces.
We have many of the same concerns about ACOA as the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has, but we do not believe that the other place has the right to operate in this type of legislative or any other legislative area. Consequently, we will not back away from that principle in order to allow it to become a much greater power than it already is.
It is very significant that this particular move by the Senate is a power move. If it were allowed, the precedent thus established would give the Senate, an unelected body, the same ability to develop legislation and decide the direction of legislation as the House of Commons. In this process the Senate has taken a major step in attempting to establish itself as a legislative power. It does not have this power constitutionally. Therefore, it is important that we recognize the direction or what would have happened had the House and the Speaker not made the ruling that he made.
It is interesting to note that the Liberals did not challenge the ruling of the Speaker. The Speaker gave the House the right to reject or accept the Senate ruling, although the Speaker stated specifically that the Senate's doing so without requesting the permission of the House was an infringement on the privileges of the House.
The Speaker ruled that the splitting of the Bill is a matter of privilege, and the other place infringed on that privilege. If we want to allow the Senate to do that, the Speaker ruled that we may go ahead and do so. Consequently, if this resolution is
July 18, 1988

accepted it will send Bill C-103 back to the Senate to be passed again, hopefully, and established as the law of Canada.
We recognized that this Bill is a flawed piece of legislation, as have many people in the Atlantic provinces and in the Official Opposition. During the period that the Bill was going through second reading and committee stage, our member on that committee made several attempts to rectify some of those flaws. Perhaps it is not so surprising that many of the reasons the Senate gave for splitting Bill C-103 were the same reasons that we had for putting in amendments during the period that the Bill was going through the Elouse.
The idea that DEVCO would disappear in its present form and be replaced by the Enterprise Cape Breton was considered by ourselves and by the President designate of DEVCO, who was an appointee of the Government, as being a move in the wrong direction. It removes the Cape Breton Industrial Development Corporation from a position of independence and puts it directly under the Minister in charge. By the way, the Minister is not a member of the House, and consequently with a certain amount of cynicism I have to point to the position taken by the Government when it states that this is such a great democratic process. Then the Government makes the organization the responsibility of a member who is not elected, who is an appointee, and who resides in the other place.
Therefore, we felt that the legislation needed a considerable amount of work. We tried to make those changes. To some extent, we were happy to see that the Senate also recognizes those changes. The process is unacceptable to us. The Senate is not a democratically elected body and it does not have the authority or responsibility which it has taken unto itself. We do not want the Senate to develop that type of power in the legislative structure of Canada.
We have taken the position that we will support this motion to send the Bill back to the Senate with the request that it pass it in its original form. I think that it is rather sanctimonious of the Government to suggest, as it does in this motion, that the Bill it sent to the Senate was so perfect that it should not have been changed in any way. The Government must recognize, as do the rest of us and many Canadians, that the Bill was anything but perfect, and that it could have used a good number of changes.
We will support the Bill. We will support democracy. We believe that the Senate does not have the authority or the power, and should not have the authority or the power to make the type of changes that it is suggesting in this particular Bill.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Canadian Exploration Incentive program Act


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have been requested by the Acting Chief Government Whip to defer the vote until six o'clock tonight. Government Orders.


CANADIAN EXPLORATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM ACT
Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)) moved: the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-137, an Act to provide for incentives to assist in financing exploration for mineral resources and hydrocarbons in Canada and to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that these are technical amendments which have come back from the Senate. It is not our intention to speak to them at great length, but I understand that other colleagues may have short speeches which they may wish to address to the House. We would then proceed to call the question and directly thereafter move to the first speech on Bill C-139.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Government House Leader. I have indicated to him that I would appreciate it if this Bill was put back by a few minutes.

I would like to briefly comment the amendments and the issue of flow-through shares. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the amendments originating in the Senate are of a technical nature. This morning I had not had a chance to look at them and unfortunately, they were not in the order paper we have in our offices, but as I look at the amendments, I note that their purpose is essentially to ensure that the French version agrees with the English version, and so, generally speaking, we have no objection. But since this is the last opportunity we are going to have to discuss flow-through shares, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to underline with regret the impact of the Conservatives Government's delays on investment in the mining

July 18, 1988
Income Tax Act
sector, on exploration and the development of mining resources attributable to the flow-through share program.
Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the combined effect of two factors resulted in a sharp drop in the issuing of flow-through shares. According to the figures available to me, about 560 million dollars' worth of the shares were issued in Quebec in 1987, but this year it is expected that only about 90 million dollars' worth will be sold. In Canada as a whole, a decrease of approximately $1.2 million in the sale of flow-through shares is forecast, and a drop of up to $500 million is expected for all of 1988. Why, Mr. Speaker?
The answer is simple. On the one hand, last year's October crash had a particular impact on investment in mining exploration projects. That was something the Government could not have prevented.
But in addition, Mr. Speaker, the uncertainty created by the Government's decision in June last year as part of tax reform to abandon any incentive for investment in and development of our mineral resources had a very negative impact on flowthrough shares. This was because the Government announced in June 1987 that it was going to give up the mechanism that had yielded so much investment and given such impetus to the economy of regions like Abitibi and Schefferville and many others in Quebec. The Government maintained this position for a long time despite the pressure and representations from all over the mining industry, especially in Quebec but also in northern Ontario.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, after municipalities, exploration companies, stock exchanges, unions, educational institutions and other groups formed a coalition to save flow-through shares, progress started to be made.

It was the same thing in northern Ontario. We will see a very substantial drop in mining investment and exploration under the flow-through share program in 1988. One of the major reasons is the uncertainty which has been introduced into this program because of the Government's decision back in June of 1987, in the context of tax reform, to abandon the whole program of flow-through shares without putting anything else in its place.
As a result of a great deal of pressure coming from this side of the House, from the affected communities, and from the coalitions that were very broad ranging which sought to put these programs back in a way that would be effective and reasonable in terms of public resources and would continue the high rate of development and activity which was prevailing, gradually the Government has come around until we now have their proposals in this Bill.
After a period of more than a year we finally see third reading of this new proposal to replace what was effectively announced as being removed in June of 1987. When it is taken together with the impact of the crash in October of last year, it
has resulted in a very sharp, if not disastrous, cut in exploration. This is, interestingly enough, despite the fact that at this time the prices of base metals and of other metals which are sought through mining exploration have in fact risen substantially as part of the economic revival which has taken place within the industrial countries.
I wanted to note that fact while saying at the same time that the New Democrats are prepared to accept these amendments. Now that I have had a chance to look at them, I see that they are in fact technical and they show that, yes, the Senate can play some exceedingly modest but helpful role in an affair like this are.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977 and certain related Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to propose the second reading of Bill C-139 today. This debate gives me an important opportunity to review the principles on which the measures in the Bill are based and to remind all Members of the long, deliberate process of consultation and development which preceded the development of the Bill.

The primary object of this Bill is the implementation of the first stage of our government's tax reform proposals. It is the most sweeping reform of Canada's tax system in many years, and one of which we can be proud.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that tax reform is an integral part of this government's program of economic policies laid out in the November 1984 Agenda for Economic Renewal issued by the Minister of Finance. Since September 1984 we have been working to achieve the goal of sustained economic growth and the creation of productive jobs for Canadians. Tax reform is part of our larger vision for a dynamic, innovative and competitive Canadian economy.
With the passage of this Bill, Canadians will benefit from a fairer and more efficient tax system-a tax system in tune with the needs of Canada today, and which will assist individuals and businesses in meeting the challenges of a changing more competitive world.
July 18, 1988

As well as the tax reform measures, Bill C-139 also contains provisions implementing the measures announced in the February budget, as well as other provisions announced separately. I will return to these measures in a few minutes.
The measures that comprise state one of tax reform are not new-they have been before the House and the public for some time. Just over a year ago, on June 18, 1987, the Minister of Finance tabled in this House a White Paper outlining detailed proposals for comprehensive reform of the taxation system.
That White Paper was the result of consultations with Canadians, indeed from the beginning consultation has been an integral part of the whole process of tax reform. In developing the White Paper proposals the Government benefited considerably from the insights and recommendations of parliamentarians, representative associations, business, labour, and individual Canadians. When we tabled the White Paper we again invited interested groups and organizations to examine the proposals and present their views. The standing committees of both Houses of Parliament have undertaken extensive public examination of our proposals. In addition, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and I and officials of the Department of Finance have met individuals and representatives of many organizations across the country.
Those involved in this process-committee members, representatives of other groups, and individuals-have made a valuable contribution to the consultative process and to the refinement of the reform proposals. This has not been a process in isolation from them but together with them. In their respective reports both parliamentary committees have supported the main thrust of the reforms, and each committee has also suggested a number of specific changes to the proposals. Each of these recommendations, like those we have received from other sources, has been carefully reviewed and weighed against the often stated objectives of tax reform.
One objective is to have a balanced package of measures and a balanced tax system as a result. Another is to ensure that the net fiscal effect of the reform is neutral-a balanced package, a simpler system with a neutral fiscal effect. The December 16 draft of our proposals elicited further comment and allowed us to make a number of changes to the details of our legislation. As a result the detailed notice of Ways and Means motion tabled last month contains an appropriate, well drafted series of proposals.
The process of tax reform is not easy. This House knows that many previous Ministers of Finance have tried to reform the system to a greater or lesser degree and that they have had different degrees of success in their efforts. I believe that the present reform which is the largest one attempted since the reform that followed the Carter Commission report, owes its success to a thorough process of consultation.
Income Tax Act
Why reform at all, Mr. Speaker? Why did we embark on this large comprehensive process of reform? In the Government's view the urgent need for reform was clear and still is clear. In recent years Canadians have increasingly recognized the need for a fairer system and a more effective tax system. Serious problems have developed since the last major reform. Those problems have affected all parts of the system-the personal tax system, the corporate system, and the sales tax system.
Let me remind Hon. Members of some specific problems of the tax system which have been increasingly recognized in recent years. First, the proliferation of special tax preferences, loopholes, and boondoggles, all of which has put increasing pressure on the equity, the efficiency, and the revenue stability of the income tax system in this country.
Second, in the personal income tax area the growth in preferences, deductions and loopholes has led to an erosion of revenues and has contributed to a growing inequity among taxpayers with similar incomes.
Next, over the decade from 1975 to 1985, there was an increased incidence of high income individuals paying little or no tax. Canadians are not willing to go on supporting a tax system that allows those who are better off to shift the burden to those who are less able to carry it. This cannot and will not be supported.
Next, let us look at what has happened in the corporate income tax world. This was a world profuse with special rate reductions, tax credits, accelerated capital cost allowances, special accounting provisions, and growing tax avoidance. All this extra complex world of corporate tax preferences has not only led to an erosion of the tax base but has also resulted in a substantial variation in effective corporate tax rates across sectors. Some sectors of our country industrially pay very little tax; others much higher. As well, too many preferences have had a considerable distorting influence on investment patterns and business decisions which are too often made on the basis of tax considerations rather than profit potential or economic merit. Business decisions were being deflected from profit potential into taking advantage of tax considerations; in other words, putting the cart before the horse.
Then there is the federal sales tax system. It is antiquated and badly flawed. The problem with the federal sales tax system is that it is narrowly based. It is biased in favour of imports at the expense of Canadian producers. It is complex with high compliance costs and it has a widely different effect on prices. It increases the cost of investment and it places a hidden charge on our exports. It is difficult to think of a sales tax system that could be so badly designed for a country like ours.
Our over-all proposals, then aim to deal effectively with these problems in the tax system. The personal, the corporate, and the sales tax have grown to the point where they seriously compromise opportunities for economic growth, development, and job creation. These problems of the tax system are

July 18, 1988
Income Tax Act
increasingly undermining the foundation of equity on which a well functioning tax system must rest.

From the outset we knew that to deal with the problems I have outlined, a reform had to meet certain objectives. Canadians want and need, first, a tax system
-That is fair and progressive, that imposes little or no burden on those least able to pay, and that levies similar amounts of tax on individuals in similar economic circumstances; second,
-That has a broader base and lower rates, that encourages individual initiative and in which all high-income individuals and profitable corporations pay their fair share of tax;
-That supports our ability to compete internationally, creates employment, creates employment opportunities and assist our regions to grow and prosper.
Finally, that is more understandable and reliable in producing the revenues needed to finance public programs.
Our reform meets these objectives, Mr. Speaker. Looking just at the personal income tax for a moment, it lowers income taxes for 9.7 million households, over 85 per cent of all households in Canada, and it reduces the taxes of about 850,000 lower-income Canadians to zero.
Tax reform reduces taxes for about 1.3 million of the 1.4 million households with at least one person age 65 or over. Tax reform reduces the variation in taxes paid by persons in similar circumstances and with similar incomes. That is a summary of what is accomplished by tax reform on the personal income side.
In the corporate sector, tax reform means that the number of profitable corporations not paying tax will be more than halved. The financial sector will pay significantly more. Other low rate sectors will see their taxes increased, and very high rate sectors such as the retail sector will see their tax burden reduced modestly. Continued general preferences for the mining sector which promote exploratory activity in many parts of Canada will be maintained.
What is more, the rate of tax on the return from new investment will be reduced and incentives to research and development maintained. This will strengthen the incentive for firms to invest in profitable ventures. The already low rate of tax for small business will be further reduced and remain below that for large corporations.
How have we made these reforms possible? How can this be done? The key to all these improvements is the fact that we are broadening the tax base and lowering the tax rates. This two-pronged attack, broadening the base and lowering the rates, will make our tax system one that encourages initiative and strengthens competitiveness, growth, and job creation.
As we have maintained from the outset, lower rates are the best incentive for Canadians to work, invest, and raise their living standard. They will also support our international competitiveness and increase employment opportunities available to Canadians.
When I speak of the broader tax base, what does that mean? It means there are special tax preferences, fewer loopholes, fewer boondoggles for avoiding the payment of tax. It allows lower rates and ensures that high income individuals and profitable corporations pay their fair share of tax. Canadians will have a fair and progressive tax system where the tax burden reflects more fairly the situation and the ability of the individual to pay. Individuals in similar economic circumstances will be subject to similar amounts of tax.
Reform means, too, that the system will promote the growth and prosperity of all regions of Canada. The reformed taxation system provides a more reliable and broader tax base. It provides a secure source of revenues to finance public programs.
Finally, I want to reiterate that these reforms of the taxation system have been carefully designed to be fiscally neutral. How is this possible? It is done this way. The corporate tax measures contained in this Bill largely pay for the reduction in personal income taxes. When combined with the sales tax measures already passed in Bill C-17, the over-all fiscal effect is neutral. The measures in this Bill will not have to be paid for at some later stage.

I want now to go over in very general terms the major provisions of Bill C-139.
One of our goals was to make the tax system fairer and easier to understand. In a move towards such a system, the Bill implements the conversion of personal exemptions and many deductions to credits, and eliminates or restricts other deductions, credits and exemptions. It thereby makes the entire system more progressive.

As a result of these changes, most taxpayers will find that their effective rate of tax is lower than under the existing system. Those who have been using special preferences in the existing system, those who have been taking advantage of all these special preferences, which this Bill reduces significantly, are the ones who will see their taxes increase. There is no doubt about that. I believe that is appropriate.
Restriction or elimination of a number of deductions in the corporate tax means that the corporate tax base is significantly broadened. This means that many more profitable corporations and a higher proportion of their income will now be part of the tax base. This broadening of the base has allowed us to lower rates. It has allowed us to maintain an internationally competitive system. At the same time, it has allowed us to


July 18, 1988

increase the amount of revenue being raised from the corporate tax system. Other measures will ensure that financial institutions will also pay their fair share of tax.
This Bill also introduces a general anti-avoidance rule to remove the tax advantage of transactions that involve misuse of the tax law. These are carried out not primarily for bona fide purposes but for the simple avoidance of income tax.
Bill C-139 also brings forward a limited number of changes not directly related to the tax reform proposals of last June. First, it contains the income tax changes announced in the February 1988 Budget. The most significant are the increases in the child care expense deduction and the increase of the refundable Child Tax Credit to implement the taxation aspect of the national strategy on child care. I should also mention that the amendments to tighten up the rules used to determine whether corporations are associated with one another for the purposes of the Income Tax Act are also in this Bill.
Second, this Bill includes amendments announced on September 25 and October 1, 1987. The former prevents tax avoidance through the abuse of the rules relating to capital dividend and dividend refunds, and the latter implements changes to the taxation of trusts and their beneficiaries.

Bill C-139 is an important piece of legislation. Many measures in it have been in the public eye for over a year. The Bill has benefited from extensive input from the standing committees and taxpayers. An earlier draft of the Bill has been scrutinized by the committees and by tax professionnals to ensure that it was technically satisfactory. This has been an important and useful process, but it is time consuming. The result is the complete and technically sound bill we have before us today.

I do not think I can exaggerate the importance of this Bill to the tax system, the economy and, above all, to the average Canadian. Our tax reform measures as embodied in the Bill now before us will contribute to building a stronger, more just and more vibrant economy. This is comprehensive reform. This is reform for the average Canadian as well as for the economy as a whole. These measures are based on a solid assessment of today's needs and will help us build a better tomorrow.

As evidence of the Government's commitment to assist further speedy, thorough examination of the Bill, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has agreed to appear before the House Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs as soon as possible, to help them begin their final consideration of the measures in the Bill.

I am proud of tax reform. I am proud of the provisions of this Bill. It is historic in its scope. It is vital in what it means to the future of Canada. I call on Members of this House to
Income Tax Act
respond to my own sense of urgency and the urgency felt by hundreds of thousands of taxpayers, both individuals and corporations, and proceed quickly with this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is appropriate to ask for unanimous consent to call it five o'clock. The House Leader said that there may be such a disposition, but I am in your hands in that regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre on the same point of order.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Not on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on debate.


Richard Grisé: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe there was unanimous consent among the Parliamentary House Leaders for the Chair to call it five o'clock and to proceed now to consideration of Private Members' Business. All three Parties gave their consent, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm what the Parliamentary Secretary just said. The Leader of the Government in the House consulted us, and it was understood that once the Minister had finished his comments, the debate on Bill C-139 would be suspended and we would proceed to Private Members' Business because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition which is supposed to follow the Minister, is according to our custom entitled to forty minutes. I believe that tomorrow, the Government intends to call Bill C-139 at eleven o'clock, to resume debate.


Richard Grisé: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Liberal Whip, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), just said, there is unanimous consent for reverting to the same Bill at eleven o'clock to resume debate, so that the Official Opposition critic will have the same speaking time the Minister had today.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, that may well have been discussed between the Liberal and Conservative Parties but I, as the Deputy House Leader of the New Democratic Party, was not consulted on calling it five o'clock after the Minister's speech. Not having been consulted on that, we did not agree to it. I assume we are going to continue until five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Member and the House Leader should consult at this time.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the Hon. Minister was going to speak until very close to five

July 18, 1988
Auditor General Act
o'clock. For that reason we thought it would make more sense to call it five o'clock and then, at five o'clock, proceed with Private Members' Hour. The second speaker in the debate, which will be called at eleven o'clock tomorrow, will be the spokesperson for the Official Opposition. I think it would be more appropriate to handle it that way. In that way no one will be inconvenienced.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   AUDITOR GENERAL ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Stanley J. Hovdebo: that Bill C-288, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I have put this Bill or legislation very similar to it before the House. Under ordinary circumstances I may have given up by now and said that it was not worth the effort. However, when I presented this Bill in the House last April, it was seconded by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) and the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) who are the chairman and vicechairman respectively of the Public Accounts Committee. I therefore decided that in order to keep this before Parliament and keep it alive it was worth while to present it once more.
This legislation has a long history. On July 18, 1980, the Public Accounts Committee presented a report to the House which suggested that the Auditor General use his power more often to make special reports to the committee so that the committee would be able to examine current issues more often. As a result of the procedure of the Auditor General in reporting only once a year, we often found ourselves dealing on the Public Accounts Committee with subjects which were two and sometimes even three years old, and quite often with audit reports which were more than a year old. We were always after the fact and very rarely dealing with current situations.
In 1981 there was an agreement among all Parties of this House. The then President of the Treasury Board, House Leader of the Official Opposition, and Leader of the New Democratic caucus agreed to allow legislation to come before this House which would do exactly what I am suggesting in this Bill today, that is, allow the Auditor General to report intermittently rather than only once a year. This legislation
was submitted to the Government early in 1982 but did not proceed at that time and, consequently, was not passed. Since then I have submitted this Bill in 1985, 1987, and again this year. In each case it was either talked out or did not receive the consent of the House.
The Bill's purpose is very simple and straightforward. It would allow the Auditor General to report intermittently rather than under the present structure of once a year. All that is required is a very small change in the Act. The words "the Auditor General shall report at least annually to the House of Commons" are added as well as some subsequent changes which are required in order that the rest of the Bill will make sense, as is quite often the case in an amending Bill.
This small change in the Auditor General's Act has been recommended by the Public Accounts Committee, as I have indicated, on three separate occasions. It has been recommended by the Auditor General's office and also by a private sector committee which has been advising on accountability in government. In addition, it has been recommended by a crosssection of Members of the House from all three Parties. It would seem, therefore, that we should proceed with it but we have not done so.
In each case that this legislation has been presented to the House it has been talked out and consequently dropped from the Order Paper. This may be my last opportunity to bring the Bill before the House for passage into the committee which can decide whether to let the Bill proceed or be amended to address any government concerns. However, I know that many government Members agree with the Bill in its present form.
It has been suggested that the Government would not be opposed to quarterly reports. Such a policy would not even require a change in the Act and could take place with the changes I have suggested.
The committee could also decide that the Bill is unacceptable in its present form and recommend that it be withdrawn. I would be quite willing to do that.
I would also accept a government Bill instead and would withdraw mine on that occasion. That may be the best way to deal with it. Any of these suggestions are possibilities we should consider.
Why should the changes be made? One of the concerns of the Public Accounts Committee, and other Members of Parliament, is that it cannot deal with current issues. When the Auditor General makes his report in the fall, the Public Accounts Committee must suddenly deal with five or six Departments whose comprehensive audits have been reported in the annual report. As well, a number of audit notes have to be studied along with other areas of concern. We must decide which of these items we will discuss for the rest of the year until the next Auditor General's report is tabled. If this tabling could be made intermittently, we would be dealing with many
July 18, 1988

more current items in a much more effective order for the Public Accounts Committee.
Governments of many other countries use a continuous or intermittent reporting system as suggested in this Bill. In a 1984 report to the House, the Auditor General said that the Auditor General's office had considered what its counterparts in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia had done. Each of these legislatures receive periodic reports in one form or another. The Auditor General's office is convinced that this is more cost effective, as well as allowing it to report more frequently.
He also stated that until the next legislative changes were introduced it was impossible for the Auditor General's office to report intermittently. It believed it had to retain the schedule that was established by the Act.
While one section allows the Auditor General to make special reports on particular subjects, such reports could only be made in an emergency. This Bill would allow the Auditor General to make a report at the end of each audit, rather than tabling them together in an annual report.
The Governments of the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden have continuous reports. The British Parliament has a report approximately every week. My suggestion is not new or unusual, but it is highly acceptable and a widely practised procedure. It would improve the accountability of Governments in Canada. I believe this is a possible solution to a serious problem. If this Bill could be sent to committee, we would be taking a step toward that end.


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-288, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act. Before commenting on the Bill, I want to reflect for a moment on the importance of this opportunity for Private Members to propose amendments to existing statutes and take initiatives that are of importance to all Members and all Canadians.
The Bill today deals with the functioning of the Auditor General's office, particularly with the frequency with which the Auditor General must make reports to the House of Commons. All Members fully appreciate the important role that the Auditor General plays for Parliament.
The Auditor General is an officer of Parliament who watches the spending habits of Departments. From time to time he calls upon Ministers to explain the spending of Departments and answer questions that pertain to the authorizations for spending and whether the Departments are functioning within the legal limits and guidelines prescribed by Cabinet and by statutes.
Members of Parliament have the services of the Auditor General and the Auditor General's office which has substantial staff and expertise pertaining to the whole question of evaluating the spending of government Departments.
Auditor General Act
I believe the amendments presented for debate today are largely redundant. The existing statute provides in Section 3(b)(i) that the Auditor General may make a special report to the House of Commons on any matter of pressing importance that in his opinion should not be deferred until the presentation of his annual report. It is very clear that the existing statute fully authorizes and gives the Auditor General total discretion with respect to a matter that should be brought by way of a special report.
I believe it is important that the discretion in these matters stay with the Auditor General. We do not wish in any way to restrict that discretion, to impair the functioning of the Auditor General, given the important role that he plays.
The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) talked about the need for a special provision that would give greater guidance to the Auditor General. Clearly that is not required under the statute. The Auditor General and his staff can respond in special circumstances. It is important for the staff to know that it has an annual report to make and that the annual report will be comprehensive in providing its evaluation of the respective Departments.
What kind of Parliament would we have if every week a report came sliding into Parliament for parliamentarians to comment upon. One week it could be the Post Office, and the next week it could be the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
It is obvious that all these alternatives were considered and the decision was made that the reports should be annual. I believe it also provides the necessary focus to the public servants who work in the Auditor General's office. It is a practical thing. Most Departments, if not all, provide annual reports, and there is accountability of the Departments before the permanent committees of this House. There are other ways, such as daily Question Period, for instance, where the Ministers and Departments are held accountable for the spending within the Departments.
I believe the amendments are unnecessary. I believe they put the Auditor General in a position of perhaps responding to ongoing political climates. If there is an ongoing debate in the House, pressure mounts and demands are made by politicians of whatever Party to the Auditor General to investigate and report immediately to the House of Commons on one matter or another. Perhaps the demand might be tomorrow that the Auditor General should report on the advisability of the very ambitious Hibernia project, to which this Government has committed itself and which is welcomed by Atlantic Canadians, should that dominate Question Period this week.
Should the role of the Auditor General become totally political? Should he be at the disposal of Members of Parliament with all the political pressures that dominate the business of this House? I do not believe so. I believe we have to

July 18, 1988
Auditor General Act
maintain the professionalism that has prevailed in the functioning of the Auditor General's office. It is clear that the system is working, and the Auditor General is obviously very pleased with the improved accountability of our Government. His latest report was very supportive of the efforts of this Government to improve the accountability and spending habits of government.
That is not to say that any Government is perfect. No Government can be perfect. However, the Auditor General has certainly given this Government high marks. We want to continue to give the Auditor General that flexibility. The Auditor General's office must know that over a period of a year it has the responsibility to do audits and provide substantial reports on all these Departments, but not to give passing commentaries or short-term analyses about one project or another.
Surely we can understand how in any given week the spending of the Government could become a political and partisan issue. The Auditor General's office could then be put in a position where it might become an agency of partisanship. We do not want that and we do not need it. One week the Opposition might want an audit of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Department of Agriculture. It might want an audit of land claims. The list is endless. We do not want the Auditor General's office subjected to that kind of political pressure.
It was clear today in Question Period how the Opposition is particularly perturbed about the great step forward the Government has taken in Hibernia. There is a substantial commitment by the Government of Canada to the people of Atlantic Canada with respect to developing the Hibernia oil field. We in Atlantic Canada welcome that. We do not want it politicized and made part of a political issue in this House.
Today we saw the Opposition really attempting to make the issue other than a very sound economic decision by the Government of Canada. We do not need the Auditor General pulled in this week perhaps to slow down the process of economic development in Hibernia. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. I congratulate the Hon. Member on his initiative, but on reflection I find that the changes he proposes are constraining on the Auditor General, are unnecessary, would really place the Auditor General's office in a difficult position and perhaps, in the long term, compromise the professionalism of that office.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-288, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act. This is the third time the Hon. Member has tabled in the House an amendment to the Act which would allow the Auditor General to report to the House more than once per year. The purpose of the Bill, according to the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill, is as follows:
At present the Auditor General Act requires the Auditor General to report to the House of Commons annually. The purpose of this Bill is to allow the Auditor General to report annually and as often as he deems necessary.
I was listening to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) who said that it was not a good idea because the Auditor General would go too far and table a stack of reports that might be embarrassing to the Government and make Government operations excessively transparent. Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with this position, because we know perfectly well that the Auditor General, who is a reliable person, who is accountable to Parliament and an agent of Parliament, would never abuse the powers conferred on him by Bill C-288, namely to report once or several times a year.
I can inform the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) who sponsored this Bill, and who also sponsored Bill C-250 in October 1985, and Bill C-262 in October 1987, and who today is sponsoring Bill C-288, that the idea is a good one. In fact, in the spring of 1984, the principle was approved by the Liberal Government at the time, by the Official Opposition and even by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who in his report to the House of Commons had suggested that this initiative be approved by parliamentarians. Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee at the time was none other than the Minister of State (Treasury Board) (Mr. Lewis), and Government House Leader in the House of Commons. In his report, and I will read it word for word, because it is rather interesting, and considering that today he is a Minister, one would have thought he would be able to convince his Cabinet colleagues of the excellent motives for introducing this Bill and the need for such a measure.
In the Fifth Report to the House of the Public Accounts Committee chaired by the eminently qualified Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board) and Deputy House Leader, we read as follows:
Your Committee favours the reporting of comprehensive and other audits on a completion-date basis. This will enable your Committee to deal with the Auditor General's findings in a timely manner and to exert its remedial influence as soon as possible after the audit is completed. The Auditor General endorses this approach because it provides for greater efficiency and flexibility in his reporting to Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, it's fairly simple and it is actually a good idea for the Auditor General to occasionally report more than once a year. It seems to me when one is in the important and complex business of administering a country with $120 or $125 billion annually, one should from time to time ask someone who is objective and independent, and who is accountable to Parliament, whether this business is properly managed. It seems to me that a Cabinet that is thorough and competent would be able to live with this kind of open government and with regular scrutiny by Parliament.
[DOT] (noo)
Mr. Speaker, I remember that at the time the Member for Simcoe-North (Mr. Lewis), the Chairman of the Committee, now a cabinet Minister, had attempted to obtain the consent
July 18, 1988

of all parties not only because he believed that this proposal was a good one, that it would make Canadian public administration much more effective, but also because he felt it would bring an added measure of efficiency to administration as well as greater transparency, through a regular audit of public accounts and expenditures.
In his comments in June 1984, he stated that there was agreement, that the then Liberal Government and the Opposition parties were of one mind on the issue. Unfortunately, an election was called and we know what happened. The Conservative Government that was elected put this proposal aside, and judging by the comments I have heard from Conservative Members on Bills C-250 and C-262, for instance, it seems they think it would be a terrible thing to ask, demand, or allow the Auditor General to table more than one report per year.
As we know, he must table his report before January 31. Custom has it that when the annual report of the Auditor General is published, members of the media study this quite lengthy document carefully, and look for flaws, flagrant examples of unwarranted expenses, and perhaps even stupid expenditures the Government might have indulged in. It is the Auditor General's role to raise them, to direct public attention to them, and to make appropriate recommendations to have these administrative wrinkles ironed out quickly.
As it happens, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General himself is in favour of this proposal. He feels it would allow him to cut the period up, so to speak, so that instead of having to wait one year, sometimes even two, to read the report on the previous years' activities, we could, in a business-like way and on a regular basis, obtain periodic reports on current issues, major projects, on the administration of federal affairs generally, which to my way of thinking seems like an entirely sensible and reasonable way of doing things.
And I would like to say to the Member for Prince-Albert that I am very impressed by his tenacity and persistence in trying to get this government to understand ordinary common sense.
The fact remains that it is hard to get this Government to move. They always wait for someone else to get the ball rolling. One has only to look at the major questions. Today is July 18, and some major issues have been dragged out for three or four years.
It takes time, but I encourage the Member to continue to be persistent. Perhaps one day the light will dawn on the Conservative dark ages and they will see the simple wisdom of allowing the Auditor General to make regular reports, without abusing the process, with all due respect to the Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, because I do not think that the Auditor General would abuse it; he could then submit regular reports to the House, reports that would help to improve the administration of the country, that would make public servants accountable to the Canadian public, that would be conducive to the openness and transparency we and public
Auditor General Act
opinion are seeking in order to ensure that each tax dollar that is spent is well spent on serious pursuits.
Mr. Speaker, I don't have much more to add except to say to those who are listening that they must read the speeches that were made on Bills C-250 and C-262 to see clearly and realize that this is not a bad idea. It is a very good idea. All we need is some good will and a little action.
In conclusion, I will be supporting this measure, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I too express appreciation for the opportunity to make a few comments on the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). I appreciate his sincerity in this matter coming as he does from the Province of Saskatchewan, my native province, and for pointing out that it has been a number of years since he first introduced this proposal.
He does so out of extensive discussions that have taken place over the past number of years before the Public Accounts Committee with respect to the timing of those reports coming forward as they do from the Auditor General. During those discussions very often the topic for consideration by the Standing Committee was dated, the mistakes had been done and corrected, the past performance had been such and remedied. What was left for the committee to do?
Its actions were rather limited. It appears logical, then, that permitting an Auditor General to bring forward a report as often as he or she chose, other than the annual report, would be appropriate. It would render more accountability to the process.
As has already been mentioned, Section 8(1) of the Auditor General Act gives all the powers and authorities to the Auditor General to act as immediately or as promptly as the person in that office chooses to do.
The Hon. Member who spoke just before me referred to "as often as necessary", as stated in the explanation clause in the Bill being proposed. Are those words any different from the existing clause which states that the Auditor General may make a special report to the House of Commons on any matter of pressing importance or urgency that, in his opinion, should not be deferred until the presentation of his annual report? Does this not give him the authority to present a report as soon as he or she considers it necessary?
I want to bring a number of other factors to the attention of Hon. Members of the House which must be taken into consideration as well. I refer to the initiatives taken by the Government to reduce the number of problems that have come before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. One of the most important initiatives arose out of the great work done by the former Hon. Member for St. John's East through the establishment of a special committee of the House of Commons charged with the responsibility of examining the powers,

July 18, 1988
Auditor General Act
the procedures, the practices, the organization, and the facilities of this House. This committee was known as the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons. It performed its work well, and it was valuable work indeed. The committee examined many matters, some of which included matters relating to the Auditor General. I would like to highlight some of those reforms in order that Members of the House will keep them before them when they vote on this issue.
The actions of the committee tended to minimize the number of changes that should be made to the Auditor General Act. These reforms have far-reaching effect in the House committee system and must be considered before any additional change is made as a result of the proposal today. I submit that the Auditor General is fully clothed with the powers requested.
Let me turn to more pertinent changes stemming from the actions of the committee on reform that we so often talk about, that is, those that have an impact directly on the issue of timely reporting and meaningful information in the concept of proactive intervention by Members of the House. These changes made it possible for those of us under those revised rules to take an active part. The changes directly affect the issues that we are dealing with today in that they provided a vehicle by which Members could more easily obtain relevant and timely information. All Members of the House are now able to perform a more meaningful role through increased participation and influence in the formation of policy and legislation. This leads to a more effective House of Commons, a more relevant House of Commons, and reduces the need for the proposed amendment.
The standing committee structure now mirrors as much as is practical the organization of government. A standing committee can now choose to become expert on a particular matter before it, or the activities of a particular Department. It has before it the full departmental policy array of opportunity to review and report, as well as a Department's expenditure plans for its activities, and the achievements of the Department measured against its objectives. The standing committee also has more freedom to review the operations of government Departments and to choose for themselves the matters which they wish to examine closely. Standing committees and legislative committees are now empowered to examine and inquire into all matters referred to by the House and to report back to the House. They may call for the appearance of Ministers, of departmental officials, of outside witnesses, and for the production of department documents and papers.
They have the opportunity to question witnesses, seek details of particular programs, question Ministers with respect to policy, and seek administration information on matters from different officials of each Department, or particularly the Department under examination.
As a result some parliamentary committees have called before them the Auditor General himself to respond to certain inquiries about Part III of the Estimates, such as the departmental performance in achieving its objectives from a value for money perspective. The committee can use this testimony in arriving at its assessment of the assessability and the acceptability of departmental expenditure plans.
Concerns about the need for more timely information for Members of Parliament have surely been reduced by this enhanced role of standing committees and Members of Parliament. Accountability has been improved through the automatic referral of annual reports to Departments, Crown corporations, and agencies to the standing committees concerned, and the Public Accounts Committee found that the lack of timely information had been greatly alleviated.
Recently the Public Accounts Committee has been focusing on the adequacy of actions taken in response to the Auditor General's recommendations and has instituted regular followup reporting. This is a positive approach and recognizes the need to ensure that improvements are effected. I am just as interested as any other Member in more timely, more effective, and more relevant information on which to base assessments. I agree with the initiative to see that each and every one of those goals should be attained. However, I believe the way to do it is through the reform already implemented by Members of the House and by Parliament and through urging the Auditor General to use the powers vested in him if an earlier reporting is necessary.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words in support of Bill C-288. I would like to make a few brief points. First, I would like to thank Your Honour for the respect you are showing for Private Members' Hour by recognizing me at the present time. You have a list of speakers in front of you, Mr. Speaker, and I do not happen to be on that list. The list was submitted to you by the Government. Notwithstanding that this is Private Members' Hour, I am not on the list because I indicated that I would be speaking in support of this Private Members' motion, and apparently the Government does not appreciate that.
Second, the focus of this Bill is to allow the Auditor General to report to Parliament more frequently than he is doing now. At the present time he reports on an annual basis. Some Members have attempted to make the point that the Auditor General does not have to report more than once a year because there is some logic, some routine, or some magic to reporting only once a year, if he reports only once a year, he does a more thorough job than if he were to report on a more frequent basis. Other Members, like my friend, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), seem to be under the conception that by the time the Public Accounts Committee gets the report of the Auditor General all the mistakes have been corrected and there is nothing for it to do.
July 18, 1988

As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, and as the Hon. Member for St. Catharines is well aware, if he had not been only looking at a speech prepared by the staff of the President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney), that is a far cry from the facts. It is important that the reports of the Auditor General are submitted to Parliament, to the Government, and to the Public Accounts Committee long before they are now.
What happens at the present time is that the Auditor General and his staff start preparing these reports perhaps two years before they finally see the light of day in the House. That is far too long when the primary objective surely is to cut out government waste. Surely that is the objective of everybody in the House, whether it is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), a member of the back bench, or a member of Cabinet. Nobody wants to see public funds squandered and wasted. That is what the reports of the Auditor General are all about. Surely what we should be doing is trying to get the reports of the Auditor General before us more promptly in order that we can ensure taxpayers' money is spent efficiently, effectively, and not wasted flagrantly. That is what the whole process is about.
Reference has been made to the fact that the Auditor General already has the authority in the Act to report more frequently than once a year. Quite frankly, I too believe that is the case, but for some strange reason the Auditor General and the lawyers who advise the Auditor General have come to a different conclusion. They feel that unless it is an emergency, unless the Parliament Buildings are burning down or something of that nature, the Auditor General does not have the power in the Act to report more frequently than once a year. That is the reason the Auditor General states: "No, I cannot do this unless I have specific authority".
In the questioning before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts a few weeks ago, the Auditor General stated that he did not have the authority either to do international auditing but that that did not stop him. Here too the Auditor General claims he does not have the authority to do this, but in fact it does stop him. That presents a big question mark as to why, if he does not have the authority in one case, he would go ahead and do it anyway but if he feels he does not have the authority in another case he will not go ahead and do it anyway. Regardless of who is right, who is wrong, and what are the legal opinions on this, the Auditor General made it quite clear that unless he gets authority to report more frequently he is not going to do it. That leaves it up to this House, up to Private Members like you and I and all other good Private Members in the House who do not want to see public funds wasted. We are here and are elected to make sure that they are not wasted and to do our best to help the Auditor General to get those reports before the House as frequently as he possibly can.
Does it make sense that he should have the right to do this? They do it in the United States. The government accounting office in the United States does it all the time. They do it in
Auditor General Act
the United Kingdom; the Auditor General of the United Kingdom does this all the time. They do it in the Netherlands; the Auditor General in the Netherlands, the President of the Court of Audit there as it is called, does it all the time. They do it in West Germany; the President of the Court of Audit in West Germany does it all the time. The Auditor General or the President of the Court of Audit in Sweden does it all the time. What is so revolutionary about doing it in Canada when they do it already in the States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, West Germany, and Sweden, to name just a few? It is certainly not revolutionary.
In discussing this matter with the current President of the Treasury Board, it has been indicated to me that she thinks that there might be some merit in allowing some sort of more frequent reporting as long as it does not come too frequently. There is a feeling that maybe four times a year, when the President of the Treasury Board and her officials could know in advance that something was going to drop on them from on high, would be all right as long as the dates were known. In fact, after I took that back and had a little chat with the Auditor General about the same issue, he said: "Gosh, four times a year. I would be happy to do it even three times a year".
It is clear that there is some room for movement if there is goodwill on the part of both sides. What I am left with, however, is a feeling that perhaps there is no real commitment to goodwill, commitment to seeing that the taxpayers' money is going to be looked after very carefully, as we are all here to do, and not wasted or squandered. In fact it has been suggested to me by staff of the current President of the Treasury Board that this is not a priority item.
Surely, it should be a priority item for you, for me, and for every Member of this House to make sure that taxpayers' money is spent as effectively and as efficiently as possible and not wasted.
The only way we are going to do that is to make sure the Auditor General can report to us as frequently as he possibly can to get the facts before us and to cut out that waste which I am sure the Prime Minister wants to cut out, which I am sure the President of the Treasury Board wants to cut out, and which I am sure you and I and every other Member of this House wants to cut out. Heaven's, let us all support this Bill!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to hear what was said in the House about when, and especially how, the Auditor General should report the results of his audits. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I myself had some problems with the tabling of certain investigations by the Auditor General, but on the whole, I would say that in 1980, the previous Government, lethargic though it was, supported the Public Accounts Committee which had recommended that the Auditor General report more frequently.

July 18, 1988
Auditor General Act
Between 1980 and 1984, nothing happened, owing to the lethargy of the previous Government, as I just said.
Since then, however, our Government made recommendations in 1984, in 1986 and even this year, in 1988, to improve the situation. We are not afraid of the Public Accounts Committee or the Auditor General's reports. In fact we support them. However, the Auditor General himself, Mr. Kennet Dye, recommended on several occasions that the Auditor General's Act should be amended to allow him to report immediately on certain specific audits, right after completion. He made the point that this would speed up work in his office and improve efficiency. At various times, all parties represented in this House supported at least the principle that amendments were necessary to authorize the Auditor General to report more frequently and on a completion basis.
The reasons in favor of such changes were that tabling of reports immediately upon completion of audits would give the Public Accounts Committee and parliamentarians a better chance to discuss the issues involved while they were still very current and thus corrective action could be taken far more quickly and more effectively.
I would like to point out that the purpose of this Bill is not to table reports on very urgent matters. The Auditor General may at any time make such reports, Mr. Speaker. There is no limitation on the subject matter of such reports. Today, however, we are talking about questions that are not judged by the Public Accounts Committee to be of vital importance or extremely urgent.
It is claimed that this change advocated by this Bill would have the advantage that the public servants called to testify before the Public Accounts Committee would more likely be those involved when the Auditor General made his observations. That is true, Mr. Speaker. However, I sincerely do not believe that the turnover is significant enough for this Bill to apply, It is believed that all these changes will make the Government more accountable to Parliament and thereby to the taxpayers, which is an objective that we all support.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that in spite of the support expressed for changes that at first seem simple and uncomplicated, there has not been unanimous support in this House for the changes proposed to the Auditor General Act. As with many issues brought up in this House, I believe that this question is more complex, much more complicated than people seem to think. Personally, I see some negative effects that could result from it and far outweigh the advantages described.
As I see it, the question we must really ask is what the impact of these changes will be on the Auditor General's effectiveness. I would not want to support changes that would in any way compromise the effectiveness of the Auditor General's Office by imposing on him a host of complications that would make his work more difficult.
The issue of the efficiency with which the Auditor General's Office can produce its reports is in reality secondary. The cost is relatively insignificant compared to the fantastic savings that result from the Auditor General's work. We would not want to compromise his effectiveness for relatively unimportant savings. It has been recognized for a long time that the Auditor General should have the resources he needs to do his job effectively and freely.
Mr. Speaker, in my mind there is no doubt that the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee do important work. In fact, when this matter was discussed in the House last October, the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) pointed out quite rightly that the Auditor General's findings have become more encouraging and that he recognizes that progress has been made in solving the problems described in previous reports. Mr. Speaker, it clearly follows that our Government is responding well to the recommendations of the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. And before anyone accuses me of being partisan-I certainly am not and I hope I did not give that impression-I think Hon. Members should compare the present tone of the reports to those tabled in the early eighties.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has never been as laudatory in his comments as he has been since this Government came to power in 1984. Previously, the Auditor General's reports were a catastrophe for all Canadians. Our policies have been revamped, and we welcome his reports instead of hiding from reporters when the reports are tabled, which was the case between 1980 and 1984, Mr. Speaker.
I think the system works very well, and in fact it is improving, and that is what we are here for. I agree that completion-based reporting would make it possible to obtain the conclusions several months earlier. However, that alone would not resolve the problem of timeless, if there is such a problem. It is a fact that in many cases, carrying out a comprehensive audit within a department may take up to two years.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, in Parliament and in the departments, we welcome the Auditor General's comments which make it possible for us to improve the situation as we go along, without having to wait for the final results several years later. Mr. Speaker, this new approach to government is that of a businessman who has been involved in politics and not of politicians who think they can do business, as was the case with the previous Government.
We must not forget that audit results are discussed with management as they are drafted. In government, managers must deal with problems on a priority basis as soon as they are brought to their attention. They cannot wait until the final report. Corrective action is generally taken well before the annual report is tabled.
Mr. Speaker, this is a new approach. It is ongoing management and no longer disaster management as was the case before.
July 18, 1988

Under the new system of increased departmental authority and responsibility established by Treasury Board, ministers and senior officals are even more strictly accountable for the measures they take to correct deficiencies in the management of taxpayers' money, and for doing so as they are detected, instead of letting them go on for a couple of years and waiting until the final report to apologize for past mistakes, after officials have left or politicians have been replaced. That was the old way which our businessmen's government cannot accept.
There already are mechanisms to ensure that attention is given quickly to matters of a pressing nature raised by the Auditor General. In fact, the Auditor General, as I said earlier, already has the authority to bring urgent questions to the attention of the House, and to do so at any time. He is not prohibited from speaking out before he tables his final report. He may, at any time, draw the attention of the Prime Minister and Parliament to any matter he deems appropriate.
Mr. Speaker, I believe nevertheless that it may not be advisable to table audit results automatically, upon completion. It is reasonable to suppose that the Auditor General would be given a short-term investigative function that could be used to fuel the controversies of the day. The risk would increase if Bill C-271, allowing standing committees to ask the Auditor General to examine specific questions, were adopted. The Auditor General might then have to investigate some questions that would impede him in carrying out his heavy responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General must still have the right to choose what he considers pertinent to investigate and not simply accede to all the frivolous requests from sensationseeking Opposition parties.
Mr. Speaker, we have a high quality audit bureau that reports to Parliament and it seems to me that we should look very closely at the consequences of the proposed changes to the Auditor General Act before implementing them. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Bill is unacceptable because of the lack of measures in it to preserve the Auditor General's independence.
Mr. Speaker, in this whole matter, we must judge the operations of the Auditor General on the basis of the powers conferred by our party since we took power and the responses we make to the deficiencies that he has discovered in our system. We do not wait four or five years or two years or for an election before realizing that things are not right. We correct them as we go along and we intend to continue to do so like the good businessmen we have always been.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
Air Canada SITTING SUSPENDED


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The sitting is suspended until six o'clock p.m.
At 5.35 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 6 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! It being 6.00 p.m., the House will now proceed to recorded divisions on Bill C-121, C-110, C-92, C-82, C-30 and on the message received from the Senate concerning Bill C-103.
Call in the Members.


AIR CANADA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, July 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret that Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.


ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, July 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
(Provencher)
Ferland
Finestone
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gauthier
Gormley
Graham
(Timiskaming) MacKay MacLellan Mailly Mantha Martin Mazankowski McCuish McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKinnon Minaker
++NAYS
Mitges
O'Neil
Oostrom
Paproski
Pennock
NAYS	Bosley	(Saint-Jacques)	PetersonBouchard	Hamelin	Pietz(Roberval)	Hardey	PlamondonBoudria	Hicks	PorterBrightwell	Hnatyshyn	RedwayCaldwell	Hockin	ReidMembers	Champagne	Hopkins	Reimer(Champlain)	Horner	RicardChartrand	Isabelle	St-JulienAllmand	Guilbault	Nystrom	Clark	James	SchellenbergAngus	(Saint-Jacques)	Riis	(Brandon-Souris)	Jepson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Benjamin	Harris	Robinson	Cochrane	Jourdenais	SchellenbergerBlackburn	Heap	Rodriguez	Comeau	Kaplan	(Wetaskiwin)(Brant)	Hopkins	Skelly	Copps	Kempling	ScottBlaikie	Hovdebo	Waddell	Corbett	Kilgour	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Boudria	Isabelle	Young-29	Crosby	Landry	ScowenCopps	Kaplan	(Halifax West)	Lanthier	ShieldsDewar	Keeper	Darling	Lawrence	SiddonDingwall	Langdon	Desjardins	Lesick	TaylorFinestone	MacLellan	Dingwall	Lewis	TremblayGauthier	Manly	Domm	MacDonald	(Quebec-Est)Duplessis	(Kingston and	TremblayEdwards	the Islands)	(Lotbiniere)Ellis	MacDougall	Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner
Winegard-103
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please rise.
During the taking of the vote:


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Since we have already started, we will proceed with the vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.
July 18, 1988

Canadian Wheat Board Act


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL ACT
[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
Members
The House resumed from Thursday, July 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-110, an Act to establish the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and to amend and repeal other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?
Angus	Heap	RobinsonBenjamin	Hovdebo	RodriguezBlackburn	Keeper	Skelly(Brant)	Langdon	WaddellBlaikie	Manly	Young-20Cassidy	Murphy	Dewar	Nystrom	Harris	Riis


Some Hon. Members:: No.	Mr. Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.	Bill read the third time and passed.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
[Stage Direction]
(Division No. 478)
++YEAS
Members

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, July 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mayer that Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.


LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, July 15, consideration of Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to the talcing of the deferred divisions on Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee. We will vote on the deferred motions as listed on the Order Paper. The first question will be on Motion No. 4. Mr. Rodriguez moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-82 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 11 and 12 at
page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"may be;
(e) the fee charged by the individual for performing the activities described in subsection (1); and
(0 such other information relating to the".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.			[DOT] ?; * *


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise	on a point of order. I	
think you would find consent to the following proposal, that			
the vote just taken be applied to Motion No. 6 in the name of			
the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), Motion			
No. 7 standing in	the name of the Hon. Member for Glengar-		
ry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria)		and Motion No. 8	
standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. I			
will deal with concurrence after that.			. '
			$ NX- jr;- [DOT] 1
			I
July 18, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Elouse has heard the suggestion of the Elon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question in on Motion No. 6. Mr. Rodriguez moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-82 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 30 at page 5 and
substituting the following therefor:
"graphs 5(1 )(a) to (0, that employee shall,"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 7. Mr. Boudria moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-82 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 38 to 41 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) the name of the employee;
(b)	the name and address of the person or organization by whom the employee is employed; and
(c)	the proposed subject matter of the meeting or communication, as the case may be."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Mr. Rodriguez moved:
Martin	Redway	TremblayMazankowski	Reid	(Quebec-Est)McCrossan	Reimer	TremblayMcCuish	Ricard	(Lotbiniere)McDermid	St-Julien	TupperMcDougall	Schellenberg	Turner(St. Paul's)	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	(Ottawa-CaMcKinnon	Schellenberger	ValcourtMinaker	(Wetaskiwin)	VankoughnetO'Neil	Scott	VezinaOostrom	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	VincentPaproski	Scowen	WarnerPennock	Shields	Winegard-93Peterson	Siddon	Pietz	Stevens	Plamondon Porter	Taylor	
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-82 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 41 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"employed;
(c)	the proposed subject matter of the communication; and
(d)	the summary of the costs incurred by the person or organization while performing the activities described in this subsection."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-30.


Mr. Angus:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the debate taking place on the report stage amendments to Bill C-30 on July 15, as shown at Hansard page 17631, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Government House Leader indicated that the Government was prepared, with unanimous consent which was given, to set aside the issue of Motion No. 10 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) in order to give the Government time to consider the process. Is the Government prepared to accept that very specific amendment relating to the Carmanah watershed area?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend giving me notice of his intention to raise this point of order. He is correct in his comments with respect to what the Parliamentary Secretary said he would do. I would reiterate that it is the feeling of the Government that Motion No. 9, which was approved, gave broader coverage than Motion No. 10. We feel it has the same effect but would not foreclose on the option of the province taking all or any responsibility for preserving the valley. For that reason we will hold with Motion No. 9.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first question will be on Motion No. 3. Mr. Caccia moved:
Motion No. 3:
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 18
at page 2 the following:
"(2) Immediately following subsection 3.1(5) of the said Act the following is added:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
When shall the Bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Benjamin:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make it abundantly clear to the House that the front benches of the NDP caucus are not on both sides of any issue and that the vote of the front bench of the NDP caucus will apply to the second time we voted.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: How many votes do you think you get for a nickel?
"3.2(1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, designate a site containing a unique or rare natural feature of phenomenon, or a site of high scientific value and public interest, whose protection is feasible as a Canadian Landmark.
(2) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, establish criteria for the selection, administration and management of Canadian Landmarks."


NATIONAL PARKS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, July 15 consideration Bill C-30, an Act to amend the National Parks Act and
Members
Allmand	Dewar	HopkinsAngus	Dingwall	HovdeboBenjamin	Finestone	IsabelleBlackburn	Gauthier	Kaplan(Brant)	Guilbault	KeeperBlaikie	(Saint-Jacques)	MacLellanBoudria	Harris	ManlyCassidy	Heap	Murphy
July 18, 1988
National Parks Act
Nystrom
Riis
Robinson
Rodriguez
Skelly Waddell Young-29
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Attewell
Bernier
Binns
Bosley
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Brightwell
Caldwell
Champagne
(Champlain)
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cochrane Comeau Corbett Crosby
(Halifax West)
Grise
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Horner
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
Kilgour
Landry
Lanthier
Lawrence
Lesick
Lewis
MacDonald
Pennock Peterson Pietz
Plamondon
Porter
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Ricard
St-Julien
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon
"4.(1) The Governor in Council may set apart any land the title to which is vested in Her Majesty, as a National Wilderness Park."
"(2) National Wilderness Parks shall be administered, managed and controlled in a manner consistent with sections 5(9) and 5(10) of this Act, and with preservation of the wilderness character of the Park as the only priority."
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you will find there is a disposition to apply the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 13. I understand that if there is a negative vote on Motion No. 6, that it would necessarily have to be negatived also on Motion No. 8. Although we would be affirmative on all these questions, I take it the Government would maintain its position.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Always.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal made by the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 4. Mr. Caccia moved:
Motion No. 4:
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 18 at page 2 the following:
"(2) Immediately following subsection 3.1(5) of the said Act the following is added:
Champagne
(Champlain)
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cochrane
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
Kilgour
Landry
Lanthier
Nystrom
Riis
Robinson Rodriguez Skelly Waddell Young-29
Darling	(Kingston and	Stevens	Dingwall	rvccyjGi MacLellan	Desjardins	the Islands)	Taylor	Finestone	Manly	Domm	MacKay	Tremblay	Gauthier	Murphy	Duplessis	Mailly	(Quebec-Est)	Edwards	Mantha	Tremblay	NAYS	Ellis	Marin	(Lotbiniere)	Ferland	Martin	Tupper	Fontaine	Mazankowski	Turner	Members	Forrestall	McCrossan	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Fraleigh	McCuish	Valcourt	Fretz	McDermid	Vankoughnet	Andre	Grise	PennockFriesen	McDougall	Vezina	Attewell	Hamelin	PetersonGagnon	(St. Paul's)	Vincent	Bernier	Hardey	PietzGormley	McKinnon	Warner	Binns	Harvey	PlamondonGraham	Minaker	Winegard-93	Bosley	Hicks	PorterGray	O'Neil	Bouchard	Hnatyshyn	Redway(Bonaventure-iles-de-	Oostrom	(Roberval)	Hockin	Reidla-Madeleine)	Paproski	Brightwell	Horner	ReimerCaldwell	James	Ricard
St-Julien Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
Comeau	Lawrence	(Hamilton-1Corbett	Lesick	ScowenCrosby	Lewis	Shields(Halifax West)	MacDonald	SiddonDarling	(Kingston and	StevensDesjardins	the Islands)	TaylorDomm	MacKay	TremblayDuplessis	Mailly	(Quebec-Est)Edwards	Mantha	TremblayEllis	Marin	(Lotbiniere)Ferland	Martin	TupperFontaine	Mazankowski	TurnerForrestall	McCrossan	(Ottawa-CaFraleigh	McCuish	ValcourtFretz	McDermid	VankoughnetFriesen	McDougall	VezinaGagnon	(St. Paul's)	VincentGormley	McKinnon	WarnerGraham	Minaker	Winegard-93Gray	O'Neil	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	Oostrom	la-Madeleine)	Paproski


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 5. Mr. Caccia moved:
July 18, 1988

Motion No. 5:
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 7 to 14 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"The Governor in Council may, by order, amend Schedule III to designate a portion of Banff National Park in the vicinity of Mount Norquay a commercial ski area, but that schedule is not subject to subsequent amendment by the Governor in Council."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
National Parks Act
The next vote is on Motion No. 6. Mr. Caccia moved:
Motion No. 6:
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 8 by adding immediately after line 14 at page 12 the following:
"10. Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, or any rights conferred by land claim settlement with aboriginal peoples within a National Park."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Stevens	Tupper	VincentTaylor	Turner	WarnerTremblay	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Winegard-93(Quebec-Est)	Valcourt	Tremblay	Vankoughnet	(Lotbiniere)	Vezina	
The next vote is on Motion No. 8. Ms. McLaughlin moved:
Motion No. 8:
That Bill C-30 be amended in Clause 13 by adding immediately after line 42 at page 13 the following:
"(2) Nothing in this Act or the National Parks Act in any way derogates from or abrogates the aboriginal and treaty rights that are already constitutionally recognized in subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 13. Mr. Caccia moved:
Motion No. 13:
That Bill C-30 be amended in Schedule III thereof by adding to the description under Banff National Park immediately after paragraph 1 at page 41 the following:
"(b) The whole of Parcel DD according to Plan 67271 in the Canada Lands Surveys Records at Ottawa, a copy of which is filed in the Land Titles Office for the South Alberta Land Registration District at Calgary under number 8011493, said parcel containing 918 hectares, more or less."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	(Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)	Martin Mazankowski	Shields SiddonHon. Don Mazankowski (for the Minister of the Environ-	Grise Hamelin	McCrossan McCuish	Skelly Stevensment) moved that the Bill be concurred in.	Hardey	McDermid	TaylorMotion agreed to.	Harris Harvey	McDougall (St. Paul's)	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)Heap	McKinnon	Tremblay


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By unanimous consent, later this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the deferred division on the motion concerning the Message to the Senate in relation to Bill C-103.


CANADIAN ORGANIZATION ACT, ATLANTIC CANADA, 1987 MEASURE TO ENACT-NON-CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the text of the Message made by the Senate to Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, because this House believes that in dividing the Bill, the Senate has altered the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of the grants of aid and supplies set out in the Bill, contrary to Standing Order 87, as recommended by Her Excellency the Governor General to this House, and has therefore infringed the privileges of this House, and asks that the Senate return Bill C-103 in an undivided form.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I want to put those discussions on the record. The Government will now call Bill C-30 at third reading. When the debate is finished, if there is a division requested, it will be deferred until 6 p.m. tomorrow and the House will call it ten o'clock.
Andre
Angus
Attewell
Benjamin
Bernier
Binns
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Bosley
(Division No. 491)
++YEAS
Members
Brightwell
Caldwell
Cassidy
Champagne
(Champlain)
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cochrane Comeau
Corbett
Crosby
(Halifax West) Darling Desjardins Dewar Domm Duplessis Edwards Ellis


NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Philip Derek Lewis: that Bill C-30, an Act to amend the National Parks Act and to amend an Act to amend the National Parks Act, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

July 18, 1988
National Parks Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Hear, hear!


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) supports this Bill very enthusiastically, as he does everything I do in the Government and in the National Capital Region. He is a great credit to this region. He is going to work for me in the next election.
I am pleased to have been chosen to speak on behalf of the Government on this extremely important and timely piece of environmental legislation. As you know, Sir, I am one of the legislative committee chairpersons and I have a personal policy of not wanting to get involved in debates on any Bill I had chaired or was going to chair. However, as a former National Parks employee I am making an exception because I am intensely proud of that past and our expanding National Parks system. Also, the legislative committee proceeded in a very non-partisan way on what we all agree is a very non-partisan but important national issue.
A short time ago the Canadian Environment Protection Act was the first comprehensive federal environmental legislation in this country's history to be passed by Parliament. On behalf of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and his Parliamentary Secretary, I have the honour of speaking to another tremendously significant environmental initiative as it comes before this House for third reading, namely, the long overdue amendments to the National Parks Act.
In 1974 the Act was amended in a minor way. The Act which was originally created in 1930 by this Parliament is now being amended in a significant way, 58 years after it first came before this House.
The Environmental Protection Act is aimed at safeguarding us in our homes, our businesses, our industries, and our urban areas. In short, it protects the people of Canada where we live and work.
The National Parks Act is aimed at safeguarding special islands in an urban sea for the times we leave our normal surroundings and wish to revive our spirits-places where we surrender control and manipulation of our environment and let nature itself dictate the terms of our visit.
I am sure you will agree, Sir, that we all need and deserve clean, unpolluted surroundings for the enjoyment of our everyday lives. We need and deserve the refreshment of nature when we depart from our routines. This is what the quality of life in Canada is all about. How many times have you told yourself that you want to get away to somewhere quiet, somewhere clean?
Canada is often called the country of the great white north. God bless the great white north. Let us keep it strong and free. These revisions to the National Parks Act will significantly enhance those opportunities, not only for our people but for those around the world who visit our great system.
CEPA and the National Parks Act will work side by side to keep the quality of life in Canada one of the highest in the world. In the case of the national parks, even those unfortunate people who have never visited one must take pride that this nation has the sensitivity to preserve such magnificent examples of our national heritage. Last year over 19 million individuals, mostly Canadians, visited the national parks system in our country.
The National Parks Act amendments are strong simply because they must be strong. It is a great credit to the legislative committee members who reviewed Bill C-30 that they recognized this need and worked long and hard to reshape and add to the original proposals. I commend the opposition Members on the committee whose reasoned analyses of the issues led to many important changes being adopted in the report.
Over 30 individuals and groups who made consistently thoughtful and insightful oral or written presentations on behalf of their specific interests are also to be commended for their input to Bill C-30.
Participation ranged from environmental organizations such as the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society-and here I wish to congratulate Kevin McNamee, the conservation director for that society, for the tremendous work that he and his society did toward helping us making this a better Bill-to groups representing the native peoples of Canada and tourism-oriented agencies such as the Chamber of Commerce in Jasper.
All of their very thoughtful presentations included some suggested changes to the Bill. We could not accept all of them, but we certainly satisfied many of the requests they brought forward to make it a stronger and better Bill. Through that process of consultation, this committee can be very proud of the work it did.
One of the most significant changes to the original Bill concerns the addition of the legislated requirement to produce management plans for each national park. It was evident from the committee hearings that the wide range of viewpoints and the passionate concerns of interest groups must inescapably be considered in preparing such plans. The parks service has a very good record in conducting consultation, but the committee decided that a greater accountability was needed.
The committee therefore proposed that all plans be tabled in the House, that such plans be reviewed every five years and retabled in the House with any changes. That proposal was accepted. Through that process of consultation, the framework of the actual purpose of the national parks which is outlined in Clause 4 can and will be maintained clearly and consistently. Clause 4 states:
The National Parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment... and shall be

July 18, 1988

maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
It reminds me of when I worked in Africa at the national parks in Tanzania. The sign at the entrance of the Serengeti National Park read: "Here the world is still young and fragile, held in trust for your sons and ours". We can apply a similar philosophy to the national parks in our great country.
A significant amendment that was accepted by the committee was put forward by the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). It links directly to the importance of having those management plans tabled and approved in Parliament. His amendment read:
Maintenance of ecological integrity through the protection of natural resources shall be the first priority when considering park zoning and visitor use in a management plan.
Another important amendment states that the Minister of the Environment will table a document in the House every two years reporting on the state of the parks and progress toward establishing new parks.
Other changes made as a result of the process of consultation on Bill C-30 relate to the additional protection in a second schedule of certain wildlife species. We also incorporated at report stage reference to national marine parks, the first one being on the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario.
This new national marine park reference signals the start of an ambitious program of conservation aimed at protecting significant examples of the salt and freshwater environments.
The Minister will use this new found authority to push on with important initiatives related to establishing marine parks in South Moresby, the Saguenay and many other parts of Canada.
Another provision of the Bill which has been requested since the first Act was proclaimed in 1930 is the change to penalty provisions that were drastically out of date. Bill C-30 has now established the highest fines in the world for the protection of endangered and trophy species in our national parks. For example, fines of up to $150,000 can now result from convictions of those killing threatened species such as polar bear and bighorn sheep. Fines could be up to $10,000 for persons convicted of killing protected species such as wolf or elk in our national parks.
In order for the parks employees to enforce these new measures of protection, they will need more help from the Ministry of the Environment. I encourage the Government and the Minister to allocate the help that the enforcement officers will need to catch those who are destroying our wildlife.
Bill C-30 will also ensure continued protection for wilderness areas. Within Banff and Jasper National Parks in particular, it will give a clear rationale for defining limits to commercial and urban development.
Aside from the Bruce Peninsula National Park and the National Marine Park amendments introduced at report stage,
National Parks Act
Bill C-30 will establish Ellesmere Island National Park Reserve and give proclamation authority for Grasslands National Park in Saskatchewan.
I am proud to be speaking on behalf of the Government. I congratulate the Minister and, particularly his Parliamentary Secretary who worked long and hard and showed excellent leadership in ensuring that Bill C-30 has come to pass. The committee did an excellent job. Most important, the officials and the staff who helped us throughout our deliberations did a superb job. I congratulate all of them.
Parliament will have its final say on behalf of our people and our parks. This is a very proud moment for me because I first went to our national parks system as a labourer. Now I am speaking as a legislator.
In 1967, when I went to Banff National Park to work as a labourer, I recognized the magnificence and beauty of that park. I know the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is proud to say that that part of his wonderful province has been entrenched in law for over 100 years. I recall that Jack Nicol was director general of Parks Canada and Jean Chretien was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at that time. I give him credit for initiating new national parks during his mandate.
Pierre Lesaux, presently one of the commissioners at the Public Service Commission of Canada, worked for the parks system. Pierre Desmeules was involved in the resource inventory task force. All of us worked hard to make sure that our parks systems would continue to grow.
It is my honour, looking back over 21 years of national parks interest, service and dedication, to have this last word before our National Parks Act is amended and greatly strengthened by this Parliament.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-30, an Act to amend the National Parks Act. First, I want to congratulate my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for the excellent work he has done in this area. We know that the Member was an excellent Minister of the Environment and is someone who really cares about environmental issues. Unfortunately, he cannot be with us today because he is representing our country at an international conference on environmental issues. Again, he has our interest at heart.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) described this Bill as a major piece of legislation. While our national parks system is a major issue, this legislation itself does not qualify as the type of legislation described by the Member for Ottawa-Carleton. After all, this is a Bill that was introduced in a previous Parliament, by the Hon. Member for Davenport when he was Minister of the Environment. Since the previous Parliament dissolved in July, 1984, one wonders why the new Minister of the Environment waited until December, 1986, to reintroduce what is essentially the

July 18, 1988
National Parks Act
same Bill. One cannot help but wonder why the Bill was allowed to gather dust all that time. Nevertheless, the Hon. Member for Davenport and I are very pleased the Bill is proceeding now. After all, it was a Bill he introduced.
As I indicated moments ago, the Bill was introduced in this House in December of 1986. One would have assumed the Government would have dealt with it expeditiously, trying to advance the legislation and make progress so that it could wind its way through the different processes. However, interestingly enough, the Bill which has just been described as landmark and super important by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton was not even touched by the Government for 16 months. Sixteen months after it was introduced in the House in December of 1986, remembering that it had gathered dust for 30 months before that, the Government began to proceed with second reading debate.
During those 16 months there were urgings by Members of this House, particularly the Hon. Member for Davenport, that the legislation proceed and be enacted into law. Nevertheless, there was a considerable delay. One could ask why there was a delay. According to the Edmonton Journal of December 5, 1987, Bill C-30 was "held hostage by the Tory Alberta caucus". The ransom demanded for allowing Bill C-30 to go through Parliament was the expansion of tourism and resource development in national parks, particularly the four mountain parks in British Columbia and Alberta. Those, of course, are Yoho, Banff, Jasper and Waterton.
According to R.V. Rasmussen of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society in Edmonton, the Minister of the Environment had the people of Alberta on his side. In a letter dated January 10, 1988, to all Members of Parliament, Mr. Rasmussen wrote:
The Alberta caucus is very much out of touch with Albertans on this issue.
I have a copy of that letter in front of me, in fact.
Letters and editorials are unanimously against the development stance. In
fact, there has not been a single letter (to the editor) supporting the stance
of the Alberta caucus.
With the public on his side, we all hoped that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. MacMillan) would stand up to some of those Members of Parliament, and I do not know whether the Member opposite is one of them. I can only report the information we received from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Instead, the Minister retreated. He supported the removal of the boundaries of the Sunshine Valley Ski Village from Bill C-30 instead of leaving it to Cabinet to decide on the degree of expansion to allow for the ski area.
In other words, the original proposal would have called for Parliament to decide on the boundaries of this particular ski village. That decision can now be taken by Cabinet. We feel this was a watering down of what otherwise could have been stronger legislation. This was the price the Minister agreed to
pay in order to get the co-operation of some of his colleagues in getting Bill C-30 through Parliament.
I would like to speak briefly about the improvements to Bill C-30. Witnesses in front of the legislative committee put forward some excellent suggestions to improve the Bill. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton has referred to some of those. The committee accepted a number of amendments proposed by the Hon. Member for Davenport and others to make Bill C-30 a better piece of legislation. The Canadian Heritage Fund was dropped. This scheme proposed to solicit money from individual Canadians to improve national parks, but the fund would be spent at the direction and discretion of the Minister. There had been no consultation with nongovernment groups who were seen as the instruments to collect the money for what appeared to be little more than funds that could be used for political motives.
Fortunately, the committee was convinced to remove this measure from the Bill and we urge the Minister of the Environment to take up the offer of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and immediately initiate discussions with all interested parties to determine how best to set up a cooperative funding scheme that would be acceptable to all parties concerned and, most important, lead to the development of a capital fund for the acquisition of new parks in Canada.
Ecological principles will be made the first management priority for national parks as a result of an amendment to Bill C-30. This important amendment was suggested by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society so that the National Parks Act would reflect the principles laid out in the 1979 Parks Canada policy. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, government members on the committee initially refused to support this amendment which legislated parks policy until interventions were made by interested parties. In other words, government members refused to go along with this proposed amendment.
Overnight, a number of people, particularly the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, lobbied and convinced the Minister that this amendment was worth while. Overnight the officials of the Department redrafted the same amendment- with a few different words, of course-and when government members came into the committee room the next day, and looked at the brand new amendment, they noted how much better it was than the previous one. Of course, it was exactly the same but with different words. The amendment passed unanimously.
Another amendment adopted by the committee will require the Minister to prepare and table in the House a park management plan for new parks within five years of their proclamation. There is now also a requirement for public participation in the preparation of management plans, as appropriate.
The Minister will also be required to report to Parliament every two years on the status of the national parks system and the progress made toward establishing new parks. That again
July 18, 1988

was referred to previously today by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton.
We all know the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton is indeed an expert in this area. As he indicated, he has been a park warden both in this country and abroad. I have often chatted with him about such issues and I can indeed attest to the fact that he is very knowledgeable in the area of the functioning and management of parks.
There are still things missing in Bill C-30. We voted about an hour ago on amendments to Bill C-30 which would have made the legislation far better. The Canadian Landmarks program was approved in principle in 1979 when the present Speaker of our Parliament was Minister of the Environment. The 1984 land claims settlement of the Inuit of the western Arctic established the pingos of Tuktoyaktuk as a Canadian landmark to be managed by the Minister of the Environment under the National Parks Act. For those who are not familiar with "pingos", they are a very unique feature. It is a form of outcrop coming from the land which is caused by heaving. It is similar to what we might find in our driveway in the spring with the exception that they are much higher. I am told they can be 60 to 70 feet high. They are a very unique and distinctive formation. They are indeed something that is very special. They have been identified as a landmark.
The present Act makes no reference to Canadian landmarks, even though there was an amendment proposed to have those landmarks identified. Parks Canada is having some difficulty in finding a way to carry out its mandate with respect to the pingos of Tuktoyaktuk. The Hon. Member for Davenport put forward a motion to include the Canadian landmarks in the Act. The Minister wrote back to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport, saying what a great idea this is. As a matter of fact, I have a copy of a letter undoubtedly written by officials in the Minister's Department. There are a few handwritten notes in which the Minister tells my colleague, the Member for Davenport: "P.S. Charles, you can count on my full support of the idea. I'm eager to pursue it with you. Might we discuss how the program could be launched in a way that will work and that won't violate the fiscal rules to which I am subject..." The Minister of the Environment responded to my colleague, suggesting that it was a neat idea to identify and protect the landmarks. "I am glad you are putting up this amendment. Isn't this great. Don't know what I can do about it, but I am glad you are bringing it up. Why don't we meet and discuss it sometime".
The interesting thing is that Canadian landmarks are already part of the Parks Canada policy. In other words, the Parks Canada policy which governs the Minister's own Department covers the landmarks. Seemingly the Minister did not know about this when he wrote that letter to my colleague.
National Parks Act
I have a copy of "Canadian Landmarks" component of Parks Canada policy. Page 59 of "Canadian Landmarks" states:
Parks Canada Objective for the Canadian Landmarks System. To foster protection for all time of exceptional natural sites of Canadian significance in a co-operative system of Canadian landmarks, and to encourage public understanding and appreciation of this natural heritage so as to leave it unimpaired for future generations.
1.0	Proposed Criteria for Inclusion in the Canadian Landmarks System.
1.1	Canadian landmarks must be exceptional natural sites of Canadian significance identified according to the following criteria:
i)	the sites must contain a natural feature or phenomenon which is unique or rare in Canada or the world, or the sites must be the best example of a particular natural theme component in Canada; and
ii)	the sites must have experienced minimum modification by man or, if such modification has occurred, the main feature must be unaffected and the sites must have potential for restoration to a natural state.
There are pages here describing the landmark system.
You will recall what I just quoted from the handwritten note of the Minister saying what a great idea it is to talk about these landmarks, and what could we do to promote it. One can now attest to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister did not seem to be too much au courant of the policy of his own Department, the policy which is supposed to govern what he does, by the way.
I want to talk briefly about the non-derogation clause. A little earlier this evening we voted on the amendment which was proposed by the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin). The Tungavik Federation of the Nunavut brought to the attention of the committee that there was a potential for conflict between the National Parks Act and Section 35 of the Constitution Act dealing with aboriginal rights. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Prairie Treaty Nations Alliance supported and reinforced the submission of the Nunavut. As a result, the offending clause of Bill C-30 was amended. However, Professor Brad Morse of the University of Ottawa Law School pointed out that there could be a conflict between Section 6(1) of the National Parks Act which is not affected by Bill C-30, and section 35 of the Constitution Act. For this reason he suggested that a nonderogation clause be moved at report stage to protect the rights of aboriginal peoples in the event of a conflict between Bill C-30 and the Constitution. That essentially is the amendment that we were voting on tonight as proposed by the Hon. Member for Yukon.
Interestingly enough the Government chose to vote down that amendment. What bothers me is the fact that we pass legislation on a fairly frequent basis relating to resources or lands that contains a clause identical or fairly similar to the one proposed by my Hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Yukon. If the Government states that that one was not appropriately worded, why did it not propose one of its own, so at least the Bill would have contained that non-derogation clause which we should include more and more in legislation,

July 18, 1988
National Parks Act
particularly when we are dealing with resources or with land issues.
Finally, I want to talk about the Sunshine ski area in Banff. I have been to that area. As a matter of fact, like most Canadians, I probably see the national parks in the context of making a short visit to Jasper or Banff, as I did last year. My family and I skied at Sunshine Village. It is a very beautiful area in which to ski. I am sure all Canadians want us as a country to have those facilities in that beautiful setting in Banff. I believe that is in the constituency of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). I am sure he must be very proud of that area. It is absolutely beautiful. It was the first time that I visited the Sunshine Village. I am sure the Hon. Member and all his constituents must be very proud of it. Of course, all of us want that type of enterprise to succeed, and we want to attract tourists. We favour the proper development of that type of an area.
There boundaries of the ski area were agreed to in 1979, following a number of years of public consultation. That is the way in which it should be done. There should be public consultation. We must always ensure that the ecological concerns are taken care of before developing or increasing the size of a development. The commitment was made then to legislate these boundaries so that only Parliament could, in its collective wisdom, expand the boundaries of the ski area. It was the reneging of this commitment by the governing Party that resulted in the situation that we now have where Bill C-30 has changed that wherein in the future Cabinet unilaterally can make that type of change. We believe that the Bill would have been far better had the Government stayed the previous course of having that type of change made by the House of Commons.

So, Mr. Speaker, to conclude, we, for our part, support Bill C-30. As 1 indicated earlier, this Bill was delayed by the Government for a very long time. As I said, the Bill was put on the back burner for about two years, and was then introduced to the House and stayed on the shelf for another long while. We, however, do not want to delay the Bill's possible adoption in any way. I do regret, as does my colleague the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) that the Government has decided to amend the Bill with regard to the Sunshine Village Ski Area in Alberta, as I said earlier.
Nevertheless, I support the Bill. The others members of my party intend to support it, and there would be no advantage to delaying this Bill tonight.
I will conclude with that, Mr. Speaker, and I do hope that the House, that Parliament, will pass the Bill shortly.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to make a contribution to the closing moments
of the debate on Bill C-30. I want to start by indicating that I, like the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner), have a fairly lengthy background in parks but not to the same exotic degree as has the Member for Ottawa-Carleton. He has been involved in parks outside Canada, outside this continent. My experiences are primarily within municipalities and within the Province of Ontario.
I give the Government credit for what it is doing today. It is taking that next step in our growth as a nation, in our understanding of the importance of our wilderness areas and of the important aspects of our history from the point of view of human beings as well as geological and marine to ensure that we provide the necessary protection of our natural environment.
On the one hand it is there for the purposes that we need it for and, second, it is there for all of us, whether we be Canadians or visitors to this country, to enjoy nature at its best. Whether it is parks in or close to the urban settings of this country or parks that are long distances away from people, it is extremely important to do.
I want to speak for a moment about the myth that we so often hear about. I hear it in my constituency. There was a newspaper report this morning talking about an attack on a wilderness park operated in the Province of Ontario by people who basically believe that if we cannot cut it, if we cannot dig it out of the ground, if we cannot sell it, it has no value. That myth has no basis in reality. There are some things that we cannot buy or sell. There are some things that should not be cut, some places that we should not dig up. Part of what Bill C-30 does is provide that protection. It also provides the ability to expand that protection. I will come back to that in a moment.
In terms of the wilderness park, there are some who believe that wilderness parks are only there for an exclusive group, be they physically able or financially able to travel to distant points to access these wilderness parks or the national parks. In terms of a mental attitude just because they do not want to use them does not mean that they are important. They forget that there is another value, the real value about parks in general but wilderness parks specifically. On one hand they operate as a bench-mark. I use the term "bench-mark" because I used to be an employee of the Ontario Department of Highways, as a surveyor. My hon. colleague from Bow River will know of what I speak when I talk about a bench-mark being a point of reference, a point that one can measure up or down. Our wilderness parks provide that. They provide it in an ecological sense, so that we can measure the changes in wildlife, the changes in our vegetation, the impact of acid rain, and any other atmospheric pollutants or water pollution. We can measure it and compare it with what the natural should be. That is one important issue of wilderness parks.
The more trees we cut down, the less oxygen we are producing and the less carbon dioxide is being absorbed. This is becoming more and more crucial every day. We are getting
July 18, 1988

into a crisis point because of the greenhouse effect, because of the attempt by the so-called industrial world, the so-called leaders of the economy of the world who are now encouraging those with rain forests to cut them down, to eradicate them. What we are doing, over time, is destroying life on earth as we know it.
Wilderness parks are an extremely small component of the land mass and the vegetation of this world, not only this country. I am sure that if we put all national parks that exist in Canada today in northwestern Ontario from where I come from, we would barely be able to see them. In fact, they probably would not be any bigger than Lake Superior, one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world. They would disappear. It is not as if we are going out there and destroying the economy of the Rockies or northern Ontario or Atlantic Canada; we are protecting something for the future, and it is extremely important that we continue to do so.
It also provides for those that we share this earth with, those so-called less intelligent beings, and I know there are some who will dispute who the most intelligent is.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The animals are.


Iain Francis Angus: We have done a pretty good job of screwing up the earth. They have not had that chance. As we look at them and see how they operate, we know that the fur bearing creatures and feather creatures are in sync with the environment, whereas man, the so-called intelligent species, seems to go out of his and her way to destroy. In fairness, I think we have to say that most of the blame has to be passed on to the males of history, because they are the ones who made the decisions, the mistakes. We have gone out of our way to destroy what existed and what should exist.
The wilderness parks, the national parks, provide an incubator-again another bench-mark-which on the one hand allows us to see the changes elsewhere but on the other hand ensures that those species that we have come close to eradicating for trophies on walls, for souvenirs, or even for food, have a chance to come back. I think of the buffalo in western Canada. I think of the American eagle in the United States.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Golden Eagle.


Iain Francis Angus: The Golden Eagle. I think of ducks and the fine work being done by Ducks Unlimited, in the sense of restocking. It is not just ducks, but geese. In the area where I live we had not seen geese for years. Now, thanks to Ducks Unlimited, they have been transplanted and we have a very large flock based close to my place in Thunder Bay. It is great to see them. Wilderness parks provide a place for them to live and survive, to grow, to re-establish their species; for another reason, it is important to set that area aside.
Now we can move on and appreciate one of the amendments that was put forward by the Government at the late stages of report stage debate providing for the marine parks, the water
National Parks Act
component. Whether it is in the County of Bruce or elsewhere, we can take a look at our undersea neighbours, our underwater neighbours, to ensure that their species can be protected.
There are things we would have liked to have seen changed in the Bill to make it better and to make it less sensitive to the commercial instincts which the market-place tends to place on us. Unfortunately, the Government did not see the wisdom of the proposals. We also wanted to ensure that the aboriginal peoples, the first people of this nation, in no way were infringed by any element of this piece of legislation so that nothing in the Bill could take away something that by treaty, by agreement, was made between the Government of Canada and their nation. Again, it is unfortunate that the Government did not feel it appropriate to provide that specific override in the legislation. There will come a time when we will ensure that this legislation is improved that much more. Just as we build a nation we will build and develop our parks. I use the term "develop" very loosely. I am not talking about ski resorts or major commercial entities. I am talking about the development of the boundaries to ensure that there are boundaries and about the protection that is necessary to ensure that sites are protected for as long as we are here and for our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, and so on.
I want to speak to another specific element of the Bill which provides yet even more growth-the ability for us as a Parliament of Canada and for the Cabinet of the day no matter which Party is the governing one, no matter whether it is this year, 10 years or 20 years from now, to have the power to designate national parks. We did that on Friday for four areas of this country: the rural municipalities of Val Marie and Old Post in the Province of Saskatchewan, the County of Bruce in the Province of Ontario-we have also provided specific reference to marine parks in that case-the District of St. Barb and Humber West in the Province of Newfoundland, and the District of Thunder Bay in which I reside. That one, of course, is appropriate to my area and is of specific interest to myself.
I live at the tip of a mountain range. It is a mountain range in northwestern Ontario but you have to appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that it may not be the same size as the ranges in the neighbourhood of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). This mountain range is called the Nor'westers. It has been a dream for years that that range, which runs along the edge of Lake Superior and stretches down to the Pigeon River where the Voyageurs went from Lake Superior up to Lake of the Woods and into western Canada, could be protected forever from development by declaring it a national or a provincial park. This amendment brought forward by the Government, and I do thank the Government for it, was as a result of an initiative taken by the City of Thunder Bay Parks and Recreation Department.
About six years ago, when I was still there as a park planner, we entered into a master planning process to see

July 18, 1988
National Parks Act
where we should be going in the next 10, 15, or 20 years in parks and recreation planning. An item that came out of that study and an analysis of the needs and wishes of the people of Thunder Bay was the need for a wilderness park type facility along the Nor'westers. The report went to the council and it was recommended that we look at it. The City of Thunder Bay wrote to the legislative committee asking to be heard. It saw Bill C-30 as a part of the process which would allow the City of Thunder Bay at the very least to ensure that at some point should the citizens of Thunder Bay agree with the proposal that they would have the opportunity to be heard. Regretfully the committee decided what it wanted was outside the scope of the Bill and declined to invite them to appear. Because they had raised the matter with the committee on my suggestion, it came to the attention of the Government and through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Browes) a motion was brought forward which included the District of Thunder Bay in that opportunity. It does not mean that the District of Thunder Bay will get a national park. It may not. At some point, even if the community decides or the community of communities decides to make an approach, the Government may say: "I am sorry, we cannot afford it". But it opens the door for the process to begin.
There are some very good restrictions in the process. The land has to be owned by the Government of Canada. This means that private land holders who exist within the broad stretch do not have to fear that somebody will draw a park boundary line which all of a sudden includes their land, preventing them from doing with their land what they have done with it for years. It requires notification so that people have an opportunity for input. It gives the City of Thunder Bay the opportunity to begin discussions with its neighbours to the south and east, the Fort William Indian Band, with its neighbours to the south and west, the Municipality of Neem-ing, and perhaps even farther away to the Municipality of Paipoonge.
We can now begin to talk about how that could work and whether or not there is agreement to bring forward a specific proposal to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) that is well thought out, well supported with a clear idea of the finances involved, letting the Government of the day react. The ball is now in the court of the parks and recreation department of the City of Thunder Bay. What we have done with Bill C-30 is to make sure that the City of Thunder Bay knows the door is open. It is an important step.
The same thing can apply to Newfoundland, to Saskatchewan, to Bruce County, and elsewhere in Ontario because those places too now have that door open to them. They do not have to worry about how to convince Cabinet to bring in a separate Bill to do this when it has a loaded agenda. If it is four years from now we will be bucking against a possible election with people trying to go home for the summer, maybe! This is a good tool. It really does make it easier for representatives of those four areas to put forward their concepts.
It also does not preclude the powers that be in Thunder Bay from saying: "No, it doesn't make sense. We were wrong. However, we might want to make a deal with the Province of Ontario and turn Sibley Provincial Park, which has the famous sleeping giant, into a national park. Everything is wide open within the District of Thunder Bay as a planning tool. That is extremely important, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank Members for the opportunity to participate at third reading on Bill C-30. I know at least one of my colleagues wants to speak about the proposal for the Grasslands Park in Saskatchewan. Perhaps other Members might want to speak.
We will be supporting this Bill. It is good legislation. It could have been better, but we will have our turn to make it even better at some future date.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was looking at the Bill and I could only find one small reference in it as it pertains to the Prairies, leaving out the references to Banff, Jasper, Elk Island, and a park in Manitoba.
I want to remind the House that it is now about 15 or 16 years ago that I was invited by the then federal Minister of the day and the provincial Minister of the day to a great ceremony and celebration which was held in the City of Regina. Officials were there from the Provinces of Manitoba and Alberta and the States of Montana and North Dakota.
All the wildlife and naturalist people from western Canada were there. Authors and artists were there. Two or three hundred people attended that celebration because it was the announcement of agreement on the Grasslands National Park. My good friend, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), will appreciate that because he has a lot of grasslands in his riding.
Once that had been accomplished, then all the naysayers took over. Every Government since, provincial and federal, of the three different Parties, have procrastinated, waffled, horsed around, delayed, and found every excuse imaginable to avoid having that park proclaimed and instituted.
On the last page of the Bill, in the second last subclause, I saw the rural municipalities of Val Marie and Old Post in the Province of Saskatchewan are mentioned. Those two municipalities, of course, could be part and parcel of a much larger area which will be the Grasslands National Park. Maybe the coming of another drought and the terrible difficulties that our grain and livestock producers are going through will produce over the next several years some great good, because hundreds of those people have already left the area. There is no doubt that hundreds more will do so. Sad to say, what is left of some of the communities in that area are dying. So I suppose it is somewhat ironic that a large area of the Prairies could be returned to mother nature to turn it back into its natural state. Tens of thousands of acres of marginal or submarginal lands that should never have been farmed or ranched in the first
July 18, 1988

place, but thanks to the Hudson's Bay Company and the CPR and a few others like them, they were settled and farmed.
It has always been next year country in that part of my province, if not my whole province. The grasslands is a heritage fast disappearing in Canada and the U.S., the Soviet Union, and parts of Asia where they have vast tracts of grasslands. Yet in those other parts of the world they have much denser populations. There is a unique opportunity here for Canada, if we move fast enough, to allow nature to restore in its natural habitat and environment a truly great prairie grasslands national park. I know my hon. friend from Saskatoon West has been down in that part of the province a lot of times and he knows something about it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know it like the back of my hand.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If you have never been there, Mr. Speaker, you should go. It is the kind of area where farsighted people come from. You stand on a small hill and you can see straight ahead for three days.
It is not only a question of preserving the grasslands and the wildlife. I want to list a number of species of wildlife that I came up with in my own amateurish manner. All but a couple of them are endangered species whose natural habitat is the Prairies. They are not going to restore themselves unless we make certain there is a territory for them to do it in.
There is the kit fox, kangaroo rats, prairie dogs, sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, prong-horned antelope, and the prairie buffalo. That is not the wood buffalo. The prairie buffalo are the big ones. Even elk. Most people do not know that the elk are not native to the mountains. The elk were and are native to the Prairies and if you ever took the trouble to read the journals of the northwest fur traders and the Hudson's Bay fur traders, the ones who went up the North and South Saskatchewan Rivers in their canoes and rafts and came out above the river valley and on to the Prairies, they talk about the tens of thousands of elk and deer and antelope and buffalo that roamed those Prairies. Yet people are surprised when you mention the word elk in connection with the Prairies. They are native to the Prairies, not the mountains. We forced them up there.
Then we have, would you believe, things like cactus? Would you believe even rattlesnakes? I know we have had trouble with rats and snakes there from time to time. It is like trying to get rid of the Liberals and Tories. I am just teasing my good friend from Bow River.
So we have cactus and rattlesnakes, hawks and eagles, burrowing owls, and a host of wildlife and plants and flowers that were always natural to that area. Over the last 20 to 25 years, Sir, we have allowed that wildlife and that natural growth to be devastated with herbicides and pesticides. We have continued to cultivate submarginal land that should never be cultivated. We have continued to allow it to be overgrazed. If there is any one argument that I have had with ranchers it concerns overgrazing. They would overgraze their land all
National Parks Act
year, through the spring, summer, and fall. They would cut hay off the bottom land and then would come running to the provincial Department of Natural Resources, either in Alberta or Saskatchewan, and demand special permits to shoot the elk and moose and deer that came down into their haystacks. What else were those poor beasts supposed to do? I watched elk being slaughtered up in the Crowsnest Pass country when ranchers got their way and got a special permit. They would even run cattle and sheep and horses up above the timber line and graze the meadows down to nothing. As soon as there was a little bit of snow the wildlife came down and got into the haystacks and the ranchers got permits to slaughter them. That is unforgivable. I have no time or patience for those who run livestock and misuse the vegetation or the wildlife. If they are going to keep domestic animals, they have a responsibility to look after them rather than leaving them to fend for themselves at the expense of the wildlife and, later, the expense of the taxpayers.
We have a great opportunity to allow nature to restore to the state it was in when we came here one of the few grasslands areas left in the world. The Indian people moved with the wildlife. When grass and water was in short supply, the wildlife moved and the Indian people moved with them. The area they left was able to restore itself. This grasslands national park must be big enough to allow an element of that to happen.
The Indian people never took more than what they needed for themselves. The white man, who came mostly from Europe, in order to make a buck failed to conserve. I think my friends opposite cherish the word "conserve". If there is one crime which society as a whole has committed, it is our failure to conserve the national elements of our country and, in this instance, our beloved Prairies.
If I had my way on the issue of proclaiming and developing national parks, and I do not know if my own Party would agree with me, I would not let the private sector in on it at all. I wouldn't mind if they put up a couple or three motels and a couple of the chintzy hotdog stands they have in so many of our parks outside the park border, but beyond that they would not be allowed to do anything else. Their primary purpose is to make some dollars and they, like so many of us, want to make dollars at the expense of the natural environment and the wildlife.
The Queen Charlottes, the grasslands, our streams, Rocky Mountains, and rocks in northern Ontario are things which we have no right to leave in a mess for our children and grandchildren to clean up, if possible. There should be no question about the purposes for a national park for our people and for nature and wildlife. Those who are selfish and thoughtless and oppose this sort of thing should be able to have their say. However, unless they can present an overwhelming case, we must proceed with this anyway.

July 18, 1988
National Parks Act
I wish to invite all of my colleagues to spend an evening camping on the Prairies and to get up before dawn. They will hear a meadow lark sing and a gopher squeak. They will see some hawks and eagles. They will hear a coyote howling from a hill nearby. They will hear the beat of a sagegrouse or sharptailed grouse. They will watch the beauty of a herd of antelope galloping at speeds up to 60 miles an hour. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, and all my colleagues to experience that. If you do so, I expect that we will get an even bigger and better grasslands national park than we are presently envisaging.
I hope this legislation will allow whoever is governing this country to implement this initiative. We will support it in the hopes that that will be accomplished. I hope that Hon. Members will not think only of the Queen Charlottes, northern Ontario, Atlantic Canada, or northern Canada, as beautiful and as great as they are. The most sadly neglected area has been our Prairie grasslands and there is not much time left for it to be rejuvenated. I hope the present Government and all governments succeeding it will ensure that it it preserved.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support my colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), in the splendid speech he made on grasslands. His remarks reminded me of the first school district in which I was engaged to teach. I was raised in the hills of Drumheller. Around the hills there is a lot of prairie grassland. However, not as much as there was at Lake McKee.
One morning I got up and looked out of the old granary which was serving as a teacherage. I saw about 15 prairie chickens doing I did not know what. I watched them in fascination. They were going through various movements as if they were in a dance or a drill. That lasted for about 15 or 20 minutes. I have never seen anything like it. I wish I had had a camera to take pictures of those prairie chickens which I believe are now extinct on our Prairies.
They are extinct because we destroyed their habitat and also because they were so patient. I remember a friend of mine taking a shot at a prairie chicken when I was just a boy. He missed but the patient prairie chicken gave him a second chance. It sat there and let him shoot it. That is another reason it is extinct.
I love hunting but I have never shot a duck when it was sitting on the water because the very thought of my friend shooting that helpless prairie chicken which was patient enough to give him a second chance always brought horrors to my mind.
I want to support this matter of the grasslands. They are a beautiful thing. During a terrible flood in the Drumheller Valley a nurse came to help us out with some of the tragedies which were taking place there in 1940.
I took her up to the top of a hill to show her the beautiful view of the Nacmine area which the Hon. Member for Regina
West would know well. You could survey the whole valley. I asked her if she did not think it was a beautiful sight, even though it was flooding. She thought it was weird, not beautiful. I said: "Sister, you do not know what beautiful is". Every hill, every blade of grass is beautiful as far as I am concerned. People ask what we see in the grasslands. I will not try to duplicate what the Hon. Member for Regina West said, but everything he said about the grasslands is true.
As a Member representing Banff, where the first national park was formed in Canada, I want to say a few words about how Bill C-30 affects that area. National parks and protection are synonymous and must be kept that way. The meaning of national parks is protection.
The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) mentioned wilderness areas. I too am very fond of wilderness areas and believe they should be protected in their natural state. National parks exist for people to enjoy wilderness areas. Many people enjoy walking, others enjoy riding horses, while others enjoy driving.
People said in the early 1900s that it would be horrible to let a car enter the Banff National Park. While it may have been necessary to cut down some trees for railway lines and roads, without those roads or railway lines it would have been impossible for hundreds of thousands of people to enjoy the beauties of the national park. Today, some people question the necessity of an airstrip in Banff National Park, which has been there for some 15 or 20 years. It has not killed any animals. It is a safety feature for airplanes that get lost in the mountainous area where weather changes rapidly. It brings people in so that they may enjoy the national park.
I agree that national parks need protection, but I think we have to realize that in order for everyone to enjoy the national park there must be means for them to get there, whether it be by train, by car, by horse, by walking, or even by airplane. That is why I would support keeping the airstrip at Banff National Park.
Recently a vote was held in the townsite of Banff. The people voted by a large majority to have local government. Since its inception, the people of Banff have been governed by a "mayor" living 2,000 miles away, the Minister of the Environment. He has had to contend with municipal problems like sewers, roads, snowdrifts, water lines and so on. The people of Banff have not had the privilege of governing themselves.
Now they will have that opportunity and I want to thank the Minister and his staff, as well as the superintendent in Banff and his staff, the school board and their staff and many others in that area who worked together in order to obtain self government. Some may say that an elected council will operate in a way that is not in harmony with the protection provided by national parks. I do not believe there is anyone more anxious to preserve and protect the national park than the people of Banff who live there. It is their livelihood and their joy. It is their life. Consequently, I am sure that no council in Banff will do anything to hurt the national park.
July 18, 1988

There will be two administrations: The town council and the park administration. I believe the two will work together in harmony to solve any problem that may arise in the interest of protection of national parks.
Some people do not favour tourism, but tourists have made Banff National Park what it is today. We want people to continue to enjoy Banff National Park. This means different things to many people. A skier needs a place to ski, and the ski hills must have competitive facilities to attract the skiers. The Hon. Member mentioned Sunshine Village. It is a wonderful site, and unless those facilities are equal to those found south of the border or in British Columbia, people will not visit.
I agree that national parks means protection. We must also make sure that we provide facilities for the people who visit. I do not want a Coney Island in the town centre of Banff, nor do I think anyone in Banff wants that. However, they want facilities that will attract people and let them enjoy the scenery.
Occasionally Banff has closed off trails and hostels. We must be very careful about that. For instance, Shadow Lake is a place to visit for people who are unable to walk very far. They can travel part way up the mountain by car and walk a mile or two to a beautiful place called Shadow Lake. Many people are unable to walk 12 or 14 miles up a mountain. However, I have seen aged people and crippled children travel the last mile and a half to Shadow Lake where they could see Mount Eisenhower and the beautiful scenery which is thrilling to anyone who sees it. I do not want to deny that to the aged or handicapped who cannot travel far. We should provide those facilities so that they may enjoy the scenery as well.
Many of our youth have visited our hostels in Banff. I have received a mass of letters because one hostel is being closed. The facilities must be competitive as well as in harmony with the parks. The people of Banff are just as anxious to achieve that as anyone else.
I want to say a few words about the people who live in Banff. They often feel like second class citizens who cannot enjoy the same rights under the laws of Canada as Canadians who do not live in a national park. Sometimes this is true.
I recently sent a letter to the President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney) because civil servants and RCMP in Banff are required to pay rent and live in houses that belong to the Government. The fact is that the rent for houses in Banff is the highest of any park in Canada, some three or four times the rent paid in eastern Canada or central Canada, and twice as much as they pay in Jasper.
National Parks Act
These people are citizens of Canada. Some may say they should save enough to buy a house but there are no houses for sale in Banff. They live in a different community because the national park must be careful about how much land it uses for developing single houses. The rents are excessive, and I have been asking the President of the Treasury Board to consider this problem. These people should not be treated that way, and I think we will solve these (ground rents) through the town council and an arrangement with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). I think that is an essential item as well. Some of the commercial operations are being taxed excessively. They all want to pay their taxes but not in such excessive amounts that they cannot even make a living. These are the things I think we have to look at very carefully.
There are many, many things in Banff that we could talk about which would be interesting and worth while, but I want to say that I have found the people of Banff to be protective oriented. They want to protect the environment, but they also want the same rights as every other Canadian citizen, and I want them to have the same rights as citizens of Calgary, Drumheller or Toronto. They are citizens too. They should not be penalized because they live in a national park.
We want to bring more and more people to these parks. I wish every person in Canada could enjoy the beauty described by our Liberal friend a few moments ago. I want to thank the Members who worked on the National Parks Act, those who are protecting our environment and our habitat and, most of all, making our national parks-and I am thinking of Banff because that is the one in my riding-a place where people love to go and return to again and again because they enjoy the scenery and the excellent facilities.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the arrangement made earlier this day, we will call it ten o'clock. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8.57 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, July 19, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers