1988-05-10

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the fishermen at Port Morien, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, are in desperate need of improvements to their harbour. The existing facility was constructed over 40 years ago to accommodate 20 small boats and approximately 5,000 lobster traps. Today it accommodates 48 very large vessels and over 10,000 lobster traps. At present, boats have to tie up five to six abreast. All boats use gasoline or diesel fuel, and if a fire should erupt aboard any one of those vessels all the fleet could be lost.
I call upon the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister responsible to provide the necessary money to construct an additional 150-foot extension on the end of the existing wharf, and a 150-foot finger wharf. The request by these fishermen is both reasonable and well thought out. It is time for the Government of Canada to act positively on such a reasonable request.
* v *


NATIONAL NURSES' WEEK
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, for over 300 years dedicated and competent nurses have been serving Canadians. They have played an active and valuable role in the development of our national health care system since the time of Jeanne Mance, the first lay nurse in Canada, during the early years of the 17th century.
The importance of nursing in our health care system is illustrated by the fact that more than 200,000 practising nurses in Canada constitute over 50 per cent of our health care
professionals. Nurses serve the community by caring for all groups of people. Their presence is felt in a variety of venues as they provide care in homes, occupational settings, clinics, hospitals, and in nursing homes.
The nursing profession touches everyone. In recognition of this important contribution I am sure that my colleagues will join me in recognizing National Nurses' Week, and May 12, Florence Nightingale's birthday, International Nurses' Day.


FINANCE
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party continue to be profoundly dissatisfied with the manner in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has handled the problems arising out of the eligibility list relating to the Northern Residents Tax Deduction. The Minister of Finance has refused to meet, even at his convenience, with the presidents of the northern Ontario municipal associations or with groups of elected municipal leaders to hear their concerns surrounding the matter.
Unable or unwilling to put forward a solution which will include all northern isolated communities on the eligibility list, the Minister is asking a $2.8 million task force to find the solution. This task force is being given a year and a half to report, which is far too long for communities not on the list to wait.
Six months of staff time was spent to produce the 14 pages of regulations that led to this problem, regulations which anyone with 15 minutes and a map could have determined were going to create divisions. Now we need $2.8 million and 18 months to solve the problem.
Members in this House, too, were led to believe by government Ministers that communities to be added to the list would receive the benefit retroactive to 1987, not 1988 as the press release now states.
Another concern is that the task force proposals are to be essentially revenue neutral. The Minister of Finance must reconsider the mandate of the task force before an already inequitable situation is compounded.

May 10, 1988


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, this year's round of Order of Canada investitures included three Edmontonians, of whom we are not only very proud but to whom we wish to pay tribute.
Krishan Joshee, Chairman of the Alberta Gaming Commission, is a retired teacher who is widely known for his volunteer work and his dedication to a long list of committees which have fostered multiculturalism in Edmonton and all of Alberta.
Dr. Elenry Kreisel is an author, scholar, teacher, and administrator. A former Vice-President of the University of Alberta he has contributed greatly toward the development of the Eleritage Language Institute.
Mrs. Mary Lobay has, over many years, given most generously of her time to a number of community projects as well as to the University of Alberta, the Edmonton Police Commission, and the Canadian Ukrainian Museum and Archives.
On behalf of Canadians, it is an honour to salute these three distinguished Edmontonians.


APARTHEID
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, Rev. Allan Boesak, President of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the leader of the United Democratic Front, was in Montreal last weekend urging the Canadian Government to act on its promises to impose more rigid economic sanctions on South Africa.
Rev. Boesak warned that the ultra right-wing Conservative Party in South Africa, which is gaining in popularity, and which totally opposes any reform of apartheid, is able to point to the promises made by the Canadian Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) as empty threats that South Africa can ignore without fear of reprisal.
Rev. Boesak also warned that if Canada fails to act on its promise, extremist groups which advocate the use of violence will gain more followers at the cost of moderate groups like the UDF.
When will the Canadian Government act on its promises? As we in the Liberal Party have long stated, mandatory, all-encompassing sanctions must be imposed on South Africa now.


CANADIAN EXPLORATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on May 6 in Val-d'Or, on behalf of the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) and the Hon. Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew), I announced that a review office under the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program would be set up in Val-d'Or. At the same time, the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) announced that an office would be established in Kirkland Lake, not far from Rouyn-Noranda.
On page 3 of a letter dated May 5, 1988, the Rouyn-Noranda SDE wrote, "We serve northeastern Ontario since we are connected geographically to this neighbouring mining region."
Mr. Speaker, by setting up review offices in Val-d'Or and Kirkland Lake, thus drawing closer to the people of Abitibi, Temiscamingue and northern Ontario, the Government of Canada is greatly facilitating mining exploration, which makes a large contribution to the Canadian economy.

[DOT] (MIO)


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, where does one picture workers being searched and harassed as they enter or leave their place of work? Where does one envisage the stigmatization of all employees as thieves or drug addicts? What kind of society would ban handbags or purses on the job and force workers to ask permission to retrieve personal belongings? Would it be the Soviet Union, or maybe South Korea? No. It is Canada Post.
Canadian postal workers, especially women, face this degradation and invasion of privacy every day because of Draconian new regulations within the Post Office. Canada Post wants to curb mail theft and loss which amounts to a fraction of one per cent of all mail handled.
But why single out postal workers in heavily supervised plants? Why does Canada Post not look at its network of privatized post offices, none of which have security? Finally, why does the Minister responsible for Canada Post not call a halt to this needless harassment of Canadian workers?
May 10, 1988


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the guarantee of property rights is a most important and fundamental right, and one that was neglected by the Liberal Government when drafting the Canadian Charter of Rights.
The sad fact is that, without a guarantee of property rights, the Charter remains a flawed document and a great disappointment to many Canadians.
The recent passage of a Private Member's Motion calling for the inclusion of property rights in the Charter is a clear indication that members of this Government are prepared to offer Canadians such rights, while the NDP, who voted unanimously against the motion, along with 20 per cent of the Liberals, would deny them.
Clearly, the Progressive Conservative Members of the House have reflected the concerns of Canadians through their strong endorsement of property rights. I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to take up this call for action and ensure that property rights are included on the agenda for the next First Ministers' Conference.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Bill Andrews of the West Coast Environmental Law Association reports that, according to the federal records, both the federal and provincial Governments are not enforcing pollution laws for British Columbia's 22 pulp mills.
Environment Canada's records show that 21 mills consistently failed to comply with federal limits for one type of pollutant, and 18 mills went over provincial limits for another pollutant.
It would appear that every day last year the 22 mills dumped 2.5 million cu. metres of oxygen-depleting substances and toxic contaminants which end up in the food chain. Yet, Andrews could find no record that either level of government laid charges against even one pulp mill last year in British Columbia for exceeding limits on continuous discharges of pollution.
All this went on under the nose of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) who likes to talk tough on polluters. The Minister should get on top of the situation in British Columbia and across Canada, and start practising what he preaches.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, why is it that every time a meeting is scheduled between the native groups and the federal Government a timely leak develops? Whether it involves funding or aboriginal rights, it seems to be too much of a coincidence. Are these leaks happening to ensure that native representatives will be sufficiently angry, thereby guaranteeing failure?
Are these leaks designed to ensure that the process fails and is doomed before native leaders have even met with government officials?
Whenever Indians and Inuit are scheduled to meet with the federal Government, only negative aspects are brought out by the media, so that by the time the leaders sit down at the negotiating table everyone is angry and the whole thing falls apart, with the Indians coming out smoking.


FORESTRY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to our forest industry one thing becomes crystal clear-we must have more value added associated with our timber resource. For years Canadians have said that we must process more of our timber into finished or semi-finished products. Yet more and more raw logs are exported each year.
For example, in 1985 British Columbia exported 2.5 million cubic metres of logs. Last year British Columbia exported 3.4 million cubic metres of logs. This means that we are exporting jobs, since most jobs in the forest industry are associated with timber processing and not with the harvesting of the resource.
It is time we made more of an effort to add value to our Canadian resources. Reducing the volume of raw logs exported would be a major step in the right direction.
I urge the Government to communicate this concern to the Government of British Columbia, and urge it to curtail the export of British Columbia jobs by curtailing the export of raw logs. The sooner the better.

May 10, 1988
Oral Questions POLITICAL PROTEST


VIOLENCE OUTSIDE NEW BRUNSWICK PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVES' ANNUAL MEETING
Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, with this statement I will present you with a resolution that was passed unanimously by the New Brunswick PCs at our annual meeting last Saturday in Moncton, and a newspaper article dated May 7, 1988.
What we witnessed outside was a most disgusting incident involving a handful of disgruntled individuals who felt obliged to make up for their lack of numbers with violence.
Canada is a nation of fairness and tolerance. I think most Canadians do not approve of the actions taken by these protesters. I know that New Brunswickers are not very proud of the shadow which has been cast upon our good character and our warm hospitality.
All political leaders should ask themselves if this kind of behaviour is what we should expect as a sign of things to come in the forthcoming election. I urge all political leaders to denounce this type of violence publicly and to serve notice that it will not be tolerated.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the face of poverty in the country is changing. It is now the face of the child.
I had an opportunity last week to meet with constituents in my riding who are delivering a program in downtown Hamilton, a program on which I served at one time as a member of the board of directors. It has a drop-in centre for the down and out, those disadvantaged in our society who have nowhere else to go.
When I was on the board it served primarily older men, those who had dropped out for a number of reasons. Now, on average, 10 children a day drop into the centre. Four children, on average, under the age of one are brought into the centre. These are children who are part of a situation in which one in five in the country is living in poverty and has nowhere else to go but a drop-in centre. At one time this centre was a haven for the downcast, what we would call the downtrodden, the down and outers. Is this what society has come to?
Unfortunately, our own Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare has refused to study the question of child poverty, even though the cry has been ringing from one end of the country to the other to look at this question in a compassionate way to find solutions so that our children do not have to go to school hungry.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 3, the Progressive Conservative Government announced the creation of a new Canadian Exploration Incentive Program through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) and the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew). This new program (CEIP), which will last at least two years, will take effect on January 1, 1989. It provides for federal participation of some $210 million annually to generate private sector investments of around $700 million.
Given the importance of mining exploration for a region like Abitibi-Temiscamingue, this means hundreds of millions of dollars invested in our regional economy for several more years.
What good news for Abitibi-Temiscamingue! Many thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for this new program!
Once again, it shows how sensitive our Government is to regional economic development and prosperity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In the last general election all three national party Leaders favoured a minimum tax on wealthy Canadians. Indeed, the Prime Minister said during a nationally televised debate, and I use his words:
It is unfair that an individual not pay a minimum tax ... Anybody in this country of wealth-should pay tax and it should be a handsome tax ... I have said it many times.
Would the Prime Minister explain why it is that he has broken his promise to the country declared on national television? Could he explain why, according to the latest income tax returns from Revenue Canada, more than 5,000 well-off Canadians did not pay a single cent of tax in 1986? Will he explain why dozens of people who made more than a quarter of a million dollars a year in income did not pay a single cent of tax?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the minimum tax has been introduced, as the Prime Minister
May 10, 1988

promised in 1984. That minimum tax is having an impact resulting in a clear reduction of those people who are in the higher income brackets who are not paying taxes.
When the minimum tax was introduced I made it quite clear that there would be some reasons why there would be some people who would not pay tax. The reason for that is because people have real losses.
The Eton. Member for Hamilton East is nattering away back there. I do not think that she quite understands that when people have real losses, the tax system in this country states that they should be able to carry those losses forward.
If the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is saying that we should not allow these losses to be carried forward, then let him say so. That was the principle that he lived by when he was Minister of Finance and that we are following right now, because we think it is only fair. It is those people who are in those circumstances who are not paying tax, but many other people are directly affected by the minimum tax.


ELECTION PROMISE
John Napier Turner: The
Minister, in effect, has admitted that his minimum tax is a phoney. When the Minister introduced it in this House, we said it was a phoney. We condemned it because there were loopholes that were not covered. We pointed out that even those Canadians who might pay a minimum tax in year one could get a refund in year two.
We said it was a scam, even though the Leader of the New Democratic Party said on December 4, 1985, as reported at page 9137 of Hansard: "I am pleased by what has been announced today-and I compliment the Minister of Finance..."
We saw through the scam, even if the NDP did not.
I do not wish to interrupt any consultation between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, but I ask the Prime Minister the following. Why did he make yet another promise that he did not intend to keep?
Why do more than 5,000 well-to-do Canadians not pay a dime, a nickel, or a single penny of income tax, while income taxes on people who make less than $15,000 a year have gone up by more than 24 per cent since the Government came to power?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if there is any political Party that understands tax scams, it is the Liberal Party of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: The scientific research tax credit, which was one of the first things that we cancelled when we came into office, cost the taxpayers of Canada $2.5
Oral Questions
billion when the previous Finance Minister had stated it was only going to cost $100 million. Instead of $100 million, it was $2.5 billion.
We have changed many elements of the tax system to make it fair and to remove some of the reasons why people were not paying taxes, culminating in tax reform which starts this year.
The Hon. Member is bleating a lot about 1986 figures. They are a great improvement over 1985, and in 1988 when tax reform comes in, we will see a major change still. We have taken out practically every one of those unfair tax gimmicks that he and subsequent Finance Ministers of the Liberal Party of Canada introduced during their term of office.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let it be noted that the Minister of Finance has virtually admitted that his so-called minimum tax is a phoney. He has not answered the question. He has not dealt with the numbers. He has hoped to create a bit of subterfuge over it, but Canadians are not fooled. The Minister and the Prime Minister misled them in the last general election, and the Minister misled the House of Commons.


EQUALITY IN INCOME TAX
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party promised it would protect the rights of Canadian taxpayers. Instead, the Prime Minister has introduced a policy that favours taxpayers in the upper tax brackets. Only 1 per cent of the wealthiest Canadians in this country pay less income tax under this Government.
How does the Prime Minister or how does his Minister justify the fact that people earning less than $50,000 annually have seen their income tax increase by more than 62 per cent, although the Conservative Party promised it would not raise taxes?
Why are the Prime Minister and his Minister squeezing middle-income Canadians, when 5,000 well-off Canadians don't pay any income tax at all?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is saying that the people of Canada were being misled. That could not be further from the truth. We have stated absolutely clearly what the minimum tax would do and what it would not do. What we did was go to the heart of the problem. Why are people not paying tax? Because of loopholes that he and subsequent Ministers of Finance from the Liberal Party put into the tax system. We changed those systematically, from scientific research tax credits, to carve outs, to the income attribution rules, limited partnerships, all of these things.


John Napier Turner: That's a phoney.

May 10, 1988
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition says it is a phoney. I wonder how phoney it was when he was recommending to his clients as a private sector lawyer to take advantage of all of these. He was the one who was probably advising his clients to take advantage-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. I have in my possession a set of departmental discussion papers which propose to severely restrict government services to Indian people. As I read these documents, I noted how closely they parallel the philosophy and spirit of the Nielsen Task Force report on Indian programs, code-named the "Buffalo Jump" of the 80s, which I thought the Prime Minister had repudiated some time ago.
This document admits that social and economic indicators for natives are among the worst for any social group in Canada. Despite this admission, these papers say the Government should carefully avoid expanding the scope of responsibilities for aboriginal people. How can the Minister expect the aboriginal people of Canada to trust the Government when this kind of callous, cynical thinking is going on behind the closed doors of his own Department?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's question because it gives me an opportunity once again to enunciate what is government policy. Government policy is decided by Cabinet and announced by Ministers. Officials may discuss.
The Hon. Member was quite fair in saying he has something in his possession that was used as discussion for officials. But the Member should also know, when it talks about limitation, that the departmental budget increase for DIAND since 1984 is over 40 per cent main to main. The increase this year is 10 per cent plus. The Hon. Member should then recognize there is no curtailment of services to Indian people in Canada by this Government.


CONDITIONS IN INDIAN COMMUNITIES
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, we heard this morning from Queen Beatrix of Holland that Members ought not to forget the problems that exist in the Third World. The House and the country and the Government should know that Third World conditions, and worse, exist in many Indian communities across Canada. So if the Minister is saying he rejects the philosophy of these papers, I want him to tell the House when he is going to announce accelerated
programs to overcome the serious backlog of housing needs in Indian communities? When is he going to announce that good quality schools will be built in Indian communities where they are so badly needed?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member has a real concern and I appreciate it. The Hon. Member can also recall that within the last 12 months in one province alone, the Province of Manitoba, $55 million was spent in northern Manitoba on school construction for Indian people, the largest single construction undertaken in education facilities by any federal Government in the Province of Manitoba.
The Hon. Member also knows and has to be aware that when we sat on the aboriginal affairs committee there was a proposal and discussion about the death rule, including discussion on Bill C-31. Regardless of what is in the story and regardless of what is in the paper, I asked for assistance. I would like to quote from the committee report. On March 17, 1988-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Speech.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but some Members in the Opposition do not wish to have this discussed.


George Albert Proud: It is still a speech.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I said:
I would be very pleased if all Parties sitting around this table would be able
to sit together and find a way of addressing that failure ... I would appreciate
the opinion of all Members from all Parties on a way to do that.


B. Keith Penner: It is irrelevant.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Member says it is irrelevant. The death rule is very, very important to aboriginal people under Bill C-31, and we hope to have the co-operation of two Parties to address it.


George Albert Proud: You are the creator of it.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance about the fairness of the tax system. The Minister will recall that the minimum tax was brought into this House so that average Canadians would know that when they paid their share of tax, people who were wealthier than they were were also paying their fair share. Now we find out that 5,200 Canadians earning over $50,000
May 10, 1988

paid no tax in 1986, and on the Minister's hit parade, the top 40 earning over $250,000, paid no tax at all.
Can the Minister say what is fair about a minimum tax that still allows wealthy Canadians to arrange their affairs so as not to pay a nickel in income tax in 1986?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question which was put by the Leader of the Opposition. I would also point out to the House that both the Member and the Leader of the Opposition are using figures that have not been published. They have not been officially released so they should not be commenting in any formal way about them.
I want to remind the Hon. Member that, out of one side of his mouth he is saying you have to make sure that people pay more tax, while out of the other side of his mouth he is saying you cannot do anything about flow-through shares; you cannot make any changes in flow-through shares. It is the tax loopholes with flow-through shares that were changed in tax reform.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about the minimum tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. You cannot say you cannot touch any of these things in the tax system, and yet say that people have got to be paying more tax. We have changed things. We have changed the tax system incredibly over the last three and a half years. The result is there are far fewer people who are getting away with the gimmicks that were put in the system as a result of about 15 years of Liberal Government.


John R. Rodriguez: You fooled me.


FAIRNESS OF SYSTEM-MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has changed things so effectively that dozens of people earning over a quarter of a million dollars a year avoided paying any tax in 1986, and thousands of other Canadians avoided paying any tax in 1986. Average Canadians say that is not fair.
I want the Minister to tell me what is fair, now that we do have these preliminary reports, about a tax system where the average income of tax filer earning under $15,000 fell and yet his or her tax rose between 1984 and 1986. What is fair about a tax system that has increased the tax on these low income Canadians while at the same time the tax on those with incomes of over $50,000 actually fell? The Minister of Finance may believe that that is fair, but is there a single other Canadian who can say that that is fair when poor people pay more in tax and wealthier Canadians pay less?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is probably a classic example of the old adage that figures lie and liars figure.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is a misuse-


An Hon. Member:: That is an old adage.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Minister did not want to impute any wrong motive to the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: No. Absolutely no!


Mr. Speaker:: I would invite the Hon. Minister to continue his answer, of course making it clear that no improper motive was attributed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is certainly no attempt to attribute motives, Mr. Speaker, but it is a very astute adage.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre could ask another question.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CHANGE MINIMUM TAX SYSTEM
Michael Morris Cassidy: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that rather than trying to answer the question which the average Canadian wants answered, the Minister decided to resort to abuse.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Go back to Ontario, Mike.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I am in Ontario now.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will complete his question.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is quite simply this. Since we are talking about fairness in the tax system, is the Minister satisfied with a minimum tax which still allows more than 5,000 Canadians earning over $50,000 a year to pay no tax? Or is he prepared to bring in changes to the minimum tax system in order to ensure that wealthy Canadians all pay their share to the Treasury of Canada?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer that I wanted to give to the previous question, where the New Democratic Party Member said that in the under $50,000 a year group taxes went up from $1,605 to $2,394, that is an increase which is significant, but the amount I think should also be taken into account.
I would also point out to the Hon. Member that since 1984 the increase in personal taxes paid by Canadians was 80 per cent as a result of growth in the economy.


John Napier Turner: That is nuts. That is not right.

May 10, 1988
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the Opposition is starting to mouth off again.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If he checks the figures he will see that 80 per cent is as a result of the growth in the economy and 20 per cent is as a result of tax changes.
The specific answer to the question as to why there are still some people who are not paying any tax is this. I have said it before and I will say it again. We do not include alimony in the minimum tax. We do not include real losses in the minimum tax. There are other items such as that which are not included in the minimum tax. If the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is prepared to stand up and say that we should include real losses and alimony, let him do it. If he wants a fair tax system, he will agree with the way we have done it. He will agree that by not including those items it is the fair and equitable way of treating people in the tax system today.


SUGGESTED LIMITATION ON TAX DEDUCTIONS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who disputes the published 5,000 plus figure but has not offered us another figure. However, clearly a large number of Canadians paid no tax in 1986 and, therefore, the Government has not kept its promise to make the system fairer.
Why did the Government not adopt the proposal of the Official Opposition for a simple and straightforward mechanism to limit the total amount a taxpayer could deduct for tax incentives so that everyone would pay a share of tax?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said I have not answered the question. First, I do not comment specifically on unofficial figures because these figures will be made official and at that time I will be quite happy to do so. I have commented very specifically on the reasons that these numbers, which she and others have quoted today, have been leaked to a newspaper. We have kept our promise.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: There are such figures, you admit it.


John Napier Turner: Are the numbers right?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the Opposition asks if the numbers are right. They are unofficial. I do not know whether they are right.


John Napier Turner: You certainly do, one way or the other. Come one, one way or the other, you know whether they are right.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Trinity has asked the question and I would ask her colleagues to co-operate in letting the Minister reply to her.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have taken a number of actions to improve the fairness of the tax system. We have eliminated the scientific research tax credit. We have gone to the heart of the reasons why people are not paying tax including the SRTC, the carve-outs that the oil industries used, the drilling depletion funds, MURBS, the allowable business investment losses, mining depletion, and the changes to the dividend tax credit.
All of these changes go to the cause of the problem the Hon. Member is referring to, and surely she should be on her feet saying that this is bringing fairness to the tax system, and congratulations should go to the Government. Possibly she might like to say that we should be doing more, but at least she should acknowledge the major changes that we have brought about over the last three and a half years in improving the fairness and equity in the tax system.


TAX SIMPLIFICATION-MINISTER'S POSITION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am overwhelmed by the Minister's modesty.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister also promised tax simplification and has in fact delivered a more complex form than previously. Now even Canadians with very modest incomes are paying to have their tax forms completed. Does the Minister intend to address this question at all?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said that she was overwhelmed by the statements that I have been making. I would be overwhelmed if she would stand up and acknowledge some of the good works this Government has done in dealing with the problems she has recognized.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has said that we promised tax simplification and we have done nothing about it. I regret to tell her that we have done something about tax simplification, in two ways. First, we have made a number of changes in the tax system, going from exemptions to credits, making it much clearer to Canadians what they get out of the tax credit. There is a change in the number of tax brackets from 10 to three so it is easier to understand.
As well, dealing with the problem the Hon. Member recognizes, that people feel that they have to go to tax practitioners to get their forms filled out, my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, and I, have made a number of changes in the tax guide this year and we will make further changes next year. We have put in a number of tax tips to help
May 10, 1988

Canadians identify which parts of the tax guide and which parts of the tax form affect them, and which do not. It is much easier for people to use that tax guide when filling out their tax forms.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. Three years ago the then Deputy Prime Minister, Erik Nielsen, produced and introduced what was known as the "Buffalo Jump" of the 1980s, the Conservative blueprint for the assimilation of Indian, Inuit, and Metis people.
When the Minister and the Government came to office there was a backlog of over 10,000 in housing units required for aboriginal people in Canada. That has grown since the Minister has been in office. The Minister's own documents now reveal that there will be fewer schools produced rather than more, and they have all kinds of ways of describing those as being better schools without talking about there being fewer schools.
On Bill C-31, the Minister above all knows that the budget that he has before the House right now is totally inadequate. Again, there are tens of thousands of aboriginal people being denied housing, medical coverage, and all kinds of other benefits. When will the Minister do something about Bill C-31, something about housing and something about schools, something good for aboriginal people rather than all this bumf and assimilation?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, not being an expert on bumf, I will leave that to the Hon. Member.
The Hon. Member must be aware that the report about which he talks, the Nielsen report that called for cut-backs and was made public, came since 1984, but at the same time the budget for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has increased 40 per cent. The Hon. Member must also take some credit and some responsibility, because when Bill C-31 was introduced in the House it was supported unanimously by all three Parties.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED BUDGET
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question stems from the Minister's own Estimates, hardly a secret document. It proposes cuts in human resources development by 50 per cent, cuts in renewable resource development by 85 per cent, and cuts to self-government, to comprehensive claims, and to economic development on lands, reserves and trusts. These are cuts to a group of Canadians who are the worst off in Canadian society according to the Minister's own
Oral Questions
documents, individuals who have a life expectancy 10 years lower than Canadians generally. When will he come forward with a budget that will address these issues-now or after the next election?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member identifies some programs which were sunsetted, programs which expired, and he calls those cuts. The Hon. Member must know about legislated programs, though I know that the NDP has not had the experience nor will it likely have the experience of administering a Government. If it did, it would realize that some programs are sunsetted.
Regardless, I know the Hon. Member has copies of releases provided within the last month indicating initiatives taken by this Government, including Indian child care. There has been consultation with Indian people in the provinces to establish Indian child care and return it to Indian people who are best able, in my opinion and I am sure in the Hon. Member's opinion, to handle Indian child welfare.
The Hon. Member recognizes that we are putting forward $20 million to assist Indian men and women who are on social assistance to be productive. We have taken these initiatives at a time when the budget has increased, and we are continuing to meet the needs of Indian men and women in Canada to the best of the ability of this Government.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Science and Technology) and I would like to draw his attention to the dwindling share of federal funding for research being allocated to Quebec. This time, I think the figures are quite clear. In 1984-85, when the Progressive Conservative Party had just come to power, Quebec received 20.2 per cent of research contracts. The following year, it was down to 10.5 per cent, and the year after, to 9.94, while last year there was a slight increase to 12.2 per cent. This means that despite formal protests from the Government of Quebec, the province continues to receive only crumbs in terms of research contracts. I would like to ask the Government what it intends to do to give us the assurance that Quebec will receive its fair share of research contracts from the federal Government.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member's question. The figures indeed do not lie as he has quoted them, but they only reflect the transfers from the expenditures of one Department of Government, Supply and

May 10, 1988
Oral Questions
Services, which is involved in only 6 per cent of the total expenditures involving grants and contracts of the Government of Canada. Therefore, the figures are badly distorted.
I do have some real figures here involving all government transfers. In 1985, Quebec received 34 per cent of all of the transfers and Ontario 38 per cent. These are the true figures.


SPACE AGENCY-MONTREAL
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister, who seems to be quite comfortable with all those figures, could explain what is happening in space research. We have heard that in March, $9.2 million worth of research contracts in the space sector were allocated by the National Research Council, but none of these went to Quebec. It should come as no surprise to the Minister that Montrealers are concerned, and I would like to ask him whether he now realizes why the people of Montreal want the space agency to be located in their city. When could the Minister inform the House when the location of the space agency will be announced, and is there still hope that Montreal will get the space agency?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Hon. Member mentioned the figures for one month. When we consider government expenditures, I think it is only fair to look at a period of more than 30 days. I realize that it may suit the Hon. Member to talk about a period of 30 days, but 1 think that in this particular area, we should consider the spending that has taken place over the last twelve, eighteen or twenty-four months, so as to have a more accurate picture of the geographical distribution of these expenditures.
As regards our activity in the space industry, quite recently we announced we would be taking part in the American space station. We have reiterated our participation in the European space agency, and we have said several times-and I am merely repeating what the Prime Minister said before-that we will have a space agency. The parameters of the program have to be determined, and as soon as Cabinet will be able to decide on the location, I should be delighted to make the announcement, if the Prime Minister will let me.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AGREEMENT IN UNITED STATES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the United
States informed Canada that part of the trade agreement is unconstitutional in the U.S. and therefore it wishes to have changes in the wording of certain sections for implementing legislation purposes?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. informed the trade negotiation office, I believe last week, that there could be some problem with the agreement. However, they have not confirmed that it is unconstitutional and have not asked for any amendments at this time.


SHIPMENT OF ALASKAN OIL
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this morning on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Senators Byrd and Bentsen acknowledged that the provision concerning oil shipped via Canada to the Lower 48 from Alaska was unconstitutional. In view of that admission on the part of those Senators and on the part of officials in the Department of Energy here in Canada, what is the Canadian Government going to do in response to a serious situation where the U.S. seeks changes in the wording of the agreement and we have not been prepared to make such changes ourselves?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my earlier answer, the U.S. has not made any formal presentation to Canada. The question is purely hypothetical until we get that request so there is no sense making a definitive statement at this time.
* *
*


MINES AND MINING
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and Member for Manicouagan. Thanks to the new measures announced last week by his Government, flow-through shares will again be available as an incentive to mining exploration, and the new Canadian Exploration Incentive Program will have a very special impact on Quebec and Canada.
Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether this new program was designed to maintain an adequate level of mining exploration by small companies and whether it meets the economic needs of mining communities in Quebec and Canada? Thank you!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the question was also addressed to me by the Hon. Member for Abitibi in my capacity as Member for Manicouagan, and it is with great pride that I draw the attention of the
May 10, 1988

House to the presence in our gallery of the Mayor of Baie-Comeau.
In fact, I must congratulate the Hon. Member for Abitibi on his exceptional work in connection with the flow-through shares program. I would like to point out that-obviously the Liberals are not interested in flow-through shares-the Association ... Mr. Speaker ...


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister may proceed.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter for Quebec and for northern regions generally. I am surprised at the tumult among Opposition Members, because the Prospectors Association of Quebec has stated that it believes these measures will ensure continued employment, a climate of confidence for investors and a more stable climate for businesses. That is the result of the action taken by the Government and the Hon. Member for Abitibi!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


Mrs. Finestone:: Mr. Speaker, it would be nice to hear some real questions answered.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Would you mind sitting down, then?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could put a real question.


Sheila Finestone: I will be happy to, Mr. Speaker. Can you guarantee a real response?


IMMIGRATION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, of the 47,416 refugees in Canada, we now have a backlog of 13,900 ready to be processed by the Government. However, only 16 of the 27 officers of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee are left to rule on the claims. I suggest that the delays are unacceptable and sad human tragedies, causing emotional hardship to individuals and families. Why has the Minister laid off 11 of the most qualified refugee claims officers since March if the Conservative Government is really serious and wants to, as it says, speed up the claims processing system? It just does not make sense.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first, there are no hold-ups as a result of this because, as the Hon. Member well knows, the Immigration Appeal Board stage, whose appointments are now before the courts, has essentially slowed down the process. That resulted in fewer cases coming to the refugee group and they are dealing with those on a priority basis.
Oral Questions
Let me say as well that if we had our Bills we would not be in this position.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: To my knowledge the Government has an obligation to apply the laws that are on the books. If the Government wants to pass humane, intelligent, and sensible legislation, we will adopt it.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member to put her question, please.


REQUEST THAT CLAIMS OFFICERS HAVE CONTRACTS EXTENDED
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not extend the contracts of these 11 highly respected, top-notch individuals in order to keep the process going at a time when there are thousands of refugee claimants? She knows that she should be hiring more rather than cutting half the staff.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me say first that we did not lay off these people, as the Hon. Member knows. Their terms expired and their appointments are currently under review.
In addition, I would like the Hon. Member to be just as eloquent before her colleagues in the other place.


SHIPBUILDING
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. According to a CBC report last night the Coast Guard's ice-breaker, Henry Larsen, which was launched in January, 1987, has not moved under its own steam in the last 15 months owing to the cyclo-electric engine system that is in it.
Based on this success, the Canadian Government has recently commissioned a second ice-breaker, four times as large, the Polar 8, with the same kind of system, against the recommendations of the Bruneau Committee which recommended that this was not an appropriate technology for this kind of ice-breaker.
In light of the failure of the power system for the Henry Larsen, why did the Government ignore the Bruneau report and its recommendations?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Hon. Member for Yukon mentioned the word "failure" in connection with the Henry Larson. I

May 10, 1988
Tabling of Documents
think that is incorrect. Two problems were identified. The first problem concerned the engine and it has been solved. Another problem is being dealt with and it concerns the transformers. Normally, the ship should be operational by July.
As for the Bruneau Report, I believe that far from being ignored, a number of recommendations were accepted. The report did not put any particular emphasis on the propulsion system but on other considerations, and basically, as concerns the kind of technology applied here, we must rely on the expertise of the Canadian Coast Guard which insisted on having this type of propulsion on the Polar 8.


SALE OF ICE-BREAKERS TO AMERICAN COMPANY
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not told us which July. However, we do understand that there are two proven technologies under discussion. One has proven that it does not work and one has proven that it does.
Given this, why is the Government allowing the sale to an American company of six Canadian ice-breakers which work, while spending millions of taxpayers' dollars for a system to power the Polar 8 which does not appear to work at all?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, my colleague does not have accurate information. The six ice-breakers to which she is referring have this exact kind of electrical propulsion. We want to put the same system on the Polar 8 as was on the Henry Larsen. It did not fail. Two problems were corrected, and the Canadian Coast Guard considers that the best technology we can have for propulsion is the electrical one which is to be installed on the Polar 8.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Minister of the Environment. As we all know, Sir, each spring the Rideau Canal is refilled with water from the Rideau River, and this spring was no exception.
However, the sudden and untimely lowering of the Rideau River level this year exposed and killed most of the freshly laid pickerel eggs in a critical part of the river, angering all of the conservation clubs in the national capital region.
Why was this allowed to happen? Can the Minister assure the national capital regional conservation authorities that this will never be allowed to happen again?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton knows very well, the water flows and levels in the Rideau River
and Rideau Canal system are very closely regulated because of a number of competing uses for water, including recreation, navigation, and water supply but, above all, to ensure that the environment and natural fish stocks are properly maintained and managed.
This year we had an inordinately low level of snow pack, some 35 per cent lower than average. In the two critical months when the spawning occurs, that is, April and May, the volumes of water were very much lower because the run-off was lower.
I am advised, on behalf of the Minister of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources for Ontario, which manages these matters, that these are the reasons for the low level of flow and some 20 per cent reduction, at maximum, in the spawning of pickerel this year. It is not expected to be a serious problem in the over-all spawn of this particular species.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I am pleased to table copies, in both official languages, of the report of the Commission of Inquiry concerning certain matters associated with the Westbank Indian Band.
*	* v


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-124, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, I have the honour to report the Bill to the House, in both official languages.
Your committee has considered Bill C-124 and has agreed to report it without amendments.


AGRICULTURE-SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee, I have the honour and duty to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture concerning the regulatory process for farm chemicals and pesticides.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
May 10, 1988


PETITIONS
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a number of petitions signed by 526 constituents of the national capital region, on behalf of the Ottawa-Carleton Chapter of the Canadian Friends of Schizophrenics, calling our attention to the fact that much greater research efforts into this serious illness are desperately needed in Canada.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege as the Member of Parliament for the federal constituency of Moncton to present, pursuant to Standing Order 106, this petition signed by a number of my constituents, particularly from the parish of Notre Dame de Lorette in Dieppe, expressing their concern with regard to the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada as it applies to the Criminal Code and abortion.
They urge this House to take immediate action in order to rectify this situation so that there will be limits placed upon such procedure in Canada.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty, pursuant to Standing Order 106, to present a petition from a number of residents of the constituency of Spadina who point out that one of the purposes of the Immigration Act is to facilitate the reunion in Canada of Canadian citizens and permanent residents with their close relatives from abroad but that many Canadians from Vietnam find that it takes many months or years to bring in their relatives.
Therefore, they ask the House of Commons to ensure that the Canadian Government negotiates actively with Vietnam to secure an agreement providing for closer co-operation on immigration, including quicker action on Canadian sponsorship.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from a number of residents of the City of Toronto who point out that the trade deal between the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States threatens the sovereignty of Canada and has no mandate from the Canadian people. They say that it would in fact reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social, and cultural programs we need and would integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base.
Therefore, they ask Parliament to ensure that a national debate takes place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and that this debate results in a national general election before such an agreement is finalized.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty, on behalf of constituents from Stump Lake, Shellbrook, and Debden, to put a petition before the House.
Because the Government does not have a mandate regarding the free trade agreement, and for various other reasons, the petitioners call upon the Government to reject the free trade agreement or to allow the people of Canada to reject it during a national general election.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that 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, be read the third time and passed.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to debate Bill C-103, an

May 10, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Act to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. We are at the final stages of this debate and, as New Democrats, we certainly intend to vote in favour of the legislation.
However, I want to qualify that support for the Bill. While we believe this Bill is a step forward, it is not a major step. It falls far short of what one would like to see. We support it because it has the potential to do some good toward diversifying the economy of Atlantic Canada.
When the Economic Council of Canada released its quarterly report in September, 1987 it said that while the overall economy of Canada will expand, one of the challenges we will face is the uneven expansion of that economy. We were forewarned of the continuing boom conditions in certain areas of central Canada where a very high level of prosperity has been generated. However, other parts of Canada have experienced very little growth and, in some cases, no growth at all. While the prosperity in areas of central Canada will continue, the regions of Canada in the Atlantic, the West, and the North will still face economic challenges.
In August, 1987, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development released its report. This organization, composed of the 15 wealthiest western nations, studied the western economy and also found that regional disparity was especially noteworthy in Canada. When one considers that geographically Canada is the second largest country in the world, perhaps it is not surprising that we would not experience uniform economic growth and development across the country. However, even this report points out that the Government of Canada would have to face this challenge.
The most recent unemployment figures show that there is a 7.8 per cent unemployment rate in Canada generally, which is a modest decline in the last number of months.
While we are pleased with that downward trend, let me remind the House that the unemployment level in Newfoundland was 17.8 per cent. This suggests that a little over 80 per cent of the people in Newfoundland are employed but included in that number, as many as 50 per cent in some areas, are parttime employees. Many of them are part-time employees because there is no alternative. While they would prefer fulltime employment, they are stuck with part-time work.
Therefore, in real terms, the unemployment rate in Newfoundland is much higher than 17.8 per cent if one takes into account the number of people who are seeking full-time employment.
Newfoundland is one province in Atlantic Canada where regional disparity is most obvious. The difficult economic times continue in spite of the relative prosperity which parts of central Canada are experiencing.
In 1976, the unemployment rate in Newfoundland was 13.4 per cent; increased to 16.8 per cent in 1982; and reached 18.9 per cent in 1983, just before the federal election. In 1984, the year of the federal election, it was over 20 per cent and went up to 21 per cent in 1985. In 1986, the unemployment rate was
20 per cent today and is down to 17.8 per cent. I suggest that it is irrelevant whether the unemployment rate is 17.8 per cent or 20 per cent. It is obviously excessively high.
It has been stated for years that something must be done to address this tragic unemployment situation in Newfoundland. The Government had an opportunity to do something when it decided to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. However, I am afraid that it will fall far short of the objective to remove regional disparity in that area. It will fall far short of creating economic development and business growth in order to employ those thousands of Newfoundlanders and others in Atlantic Canada who are seeking employment.
This becomes most obvious when one considers the financial contribution to ACOA. A minute amount-15 per cent of 1 per cent of the national budget-is being invested into ACOA, which I know you would think unreasonable, Mr. Speaker. It represents $200 million spread over five years, an obvious drop in the bucket.
While this is a small step in the right direction, the financial resources are not available for ACOA to do the job that is necessary.
A particular concern that many Atlantic Canadians expressed to the legislative committee when it travelled in Atlantic Canada was whether this would be new money or money that would normally go into the development of harbours or other economic development initiatives.
We saw in western Canada how money that should have been spent from a soils budget, a fishery budget, or parks budget was coming out of the Western Diversification Office. That is wrong.
Atlantic Canadians are concerned that funds which should come from the fisheries budget, the harbours budget, or another budget will go into the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. They are concerned that it will not be new money but a regurgitation of existing government programs.
I was most amazed to see that the final draft of the legislation for third reading contained no goal to reduce regional disparity, which I thought was its primary objective.
The Government frequently states in the legislation that it may carry out certain initiatives. We need legislation which states that the Government shall support small business, shall support the fishery, shall support the mining sector, and shall support farmers. Governments have an uncanny ability to use the word "may" very creatively. It sounds like it will do something when it has not made the commitment to do so. There is no goal to reduce regional disparity. There is no assurance of equity or fairness among the provinces.
Atlantic Canada is a region comprising several provinces. Is it possible that the Province of Prince Edward Island, for example, could get all or most of the funds from ACOA for one or two years at the expense of other provinces? In terms of
May 10, 1988

our shared jurisdiction and the relationship that the federal Government has with provincial Governments, there ought to have been some inclusion that the funds would be disbursed on an equity basis. In this way every province would know that it is getting its fair share of the financial entitlements associated with this legislation.
I think that we would all agree that $200 million a year over five years is simply not enough. It is inadequate. It is a drop in the bucket. The total budget would be a little over $1 billion. That is simply inadequate when we consider the horrendous challenges that must be overcome to bring down the serious levels of unemployment in Atlantic Canada.
I am very troubled by the fact that Senator Lowell Murray said at the beginning of this process that he would be making the final decisions on who will be receiving the finances. He will be making the final decisions on who will be supported by this legislation. That reeks of political patronage and political favouritism. That is something about which we have to take extraordinary steps to get around. We must get away from the political manipulations of these funds so that the decision making is made on business, economic and industrial terms as opposed to political terms which favour one Party, one person, or one firm over another.
I know that this would shock you, Mr. Speaker, but there is no mention of single industry towns in this legislation. What are we going to do with all the single industry towns that are struggling to survive as their major business phases out or phases down?
What about affordable housing? Is there anything in the legislation which talks about housing? No.
Is a community initiative fund mentioned in the Bill? No. As a matter of fact, infrastructure for communities is eliminated. If you lived in a community, Mr. Speaker, that wanted to develop its industrial infrastructure, better sewage facilities, better water facilities, better streets, better lighting, or better harbours, it could not use this money for those purposes. The one thing that virtually every municipality in the country calls out for is federal government sharing in terms of the development of municipal infrastructure. That is prohibited. Again, it is a real shortcoming.
The Bill does not make much mention at all of a youth initiative fund. As a matter of fact, I can say that it does not make any mention at all of one. The whole matter of the youth of Atlantic Canada is not addressed. This is another serious oversight.
There is nothing in terms of assistance for technological change adjustment. With respect to companies which are modernizing, upgrading, and introducing technological change, there is nothing in the Bill to provide additional funds for training and so on of employees or future workers.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Primary industries are overlooked in the Bill. There is no mention of the fishing industry. There is no mention of agriculture. There is no mention of mining. It is rather amazing that forestry and all these other areas were simply left out. These have been some of the major mainstays of Atlantic Canada's economy. To think that we are not introducing special initiatives and special attention concerning them, I find quite amazing.
Obviously environmental clean-up which is a problem in a number of the Atlantic Canadian municipalities was purposefully left out of the Bill-another major oversight.
If the Government really wants to help Atlantic Canada, then we need to have more financial resources available to do so. Perhaps we need to have a rethinking or a rejigging of our monetary policy.
In the newspaper today there is an article with respect to the Bank of Canada's high interest rate policy that is in place to dampen the inflationary fires of pockets of prosperity in central Canada. Goodness knows, there are very few pockets of extreme prosperity in Atlantic Canada that are driving inflation up. Interest rate policy that may be appropriate for the booming and healthy economy of pockets in central Canada act as a retardant in Atlantic Canada by keeping economic development and business development down. In fact, it is very difficult to jack up real business activity there, to kick-start a local economy back into life, with interest rates being as high as they are.
The article states:
While interest rates were intended to take some of the steam out of domestic
spending in Ontario, they have bitten just as hard in provinces like Newfoundland, where there is no steam and unemployment is 17.5 per cent.
This indicates that a shift in monetary policy would do a great deal to help Atlantic Canada.
With respect to government procurement, Governments at the federal, provincial, and local levels could make a combined effort to be procuring more of their goods and services from Atlantic Canadian suppliers. This causes some of us in the Opposition a great deal of concern, because the trade deal signed with the President of the United States will prohibit the Government of Canada from participating in a number of regional development programs and also from having procurement programs just for Atlantic Canada. They will have to be opened up for all of continental North America, which means that the Americans can bid on our government contracts in terms of federal government procurement. Goodness, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the Americans identified 50 different government programs which they said subsidized the groundfish industry of Atlantic Canada. If that is the attitude of the Americans, then once this trade deal goes into effect and they can identify 50 different programs which they say subsidize the groundfish fishery, it means that we will be slapped with countervails and other retaliatory action.

May 10, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
In closing, I want to say that the legislation is a minor step in the correct direction. There is much to do and a long way to go. I hope we all recognize that this is the first step. Perhaps the next Government of Canada and, more accurately the next New Democratic Party Government of Canada, will be able to follow up very quickly to overcome the shortcomings in today's legislation.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-103 which relates to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will not do the job of providing economic assistance to Atlantic Canada. It is unfortunate since a great deal has been said about this legislation. A great deal of hope has been created in Atlantic Canada because of it. It was felt that this would be the piece of legislation or the agency that would finally do something about regional disparity in the country.
When we look at all the legislation and the programs that have come forward to try to deal with regional disparity, and when we look at the situation today and find that regional disparity is actually widening, it is incredibly deflating and demoralizing. In a country such as Canada the Government has announced and repeated its wish to reduce regional disparity and then we see what the results are. The results are a widening of regional disparity.
This Bill was based upon a report that the Government commissioned to try to find, through somebody who knew something about regional development, a way to deal with regional disparity, a way to deal with economic difficulties in Atlantic Canada. What the Government did was take the report and change the terms of it that were most important for getting the job done. The report calls for independent directors, people who would be above politics, people who would be interested in the particular application and who would be interested in the project being suggested. Yet what do we have? We have a board of directors that has been appointed and which consists mainly of Progressive Conservative people, those who have been involved in that Party and who have lent support to it.
How are we to get an independent consensus of what a project stands for, if the directors are more interested in passing something that will help people of their own political persuasion? That is not at all in the interests of Atlantic Canada. How will we bring people to Atlantic Canada and have them establish industries in areas that badly need these industries, if we cannot have infrastructure as part of this legislation? There is no allowance for money to be spent on infrastructure. Therefore harbours or services cannot be constructed under this particular legislation. If that cannot be done, we will find that the people, although they are willing to come to Atlantic Canada, will not come unless the services that they want and have every reason to take for granted in other parts of the country are provided in Atlantic Canada.
That is very unfortunate, because services are a very real part of regional development.
The Government seems to be backing away from the concept of regional development. This is seen constantly. For instance, it is seen in the free trade agreement. To the very core the free trade agreement is discouraging and killing the concept of regional development. With the free trade agreement we will be moving to a market economy, which is what the United States wants us to do. If we move to a market economy, we move away from a mixed economy which has been so successful for Canada since the Second World War. The medical programs, the health insurance programs, and the concept of regional development are parts of the fibre of that program, but, the Government wants to back away from that.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has asked what will we do about one-industry towns. There are 800 one-industry towns in Canada. Without the concept of regional development and aiding those industries that need assistance to make them viable, providing that they can be viable, we will lose not only the industries but the towns.
The Government believes that the private sector can do it. That is not the case. The private sector is not doing it. A good example is a recent Small Businesses Loans Act report for the 12-month period ended March 31, 1987. This report was issued a few weeks ago in April. Not only do we have a report which shows that the Government's programs are not working, but the Government cannot get the report out until more than a year after the end of the period dealt with in the particular report.
In the report it shows that the Small Businesses Loans Act, which gives government support to the lending institutions to guarantee that losses under these loans will be a certain small percentage, is not assisting the areas that need it most. The 85 per cent guarantee the federal Government puts on moneys lent by the chartered banks of Canada is not going to the customers who really need this assistance. If we look in the report we will see that the four Atlantic provinces together only receive 6 per cent of the money allocated under the Small Businesses Loans Act. That is a travesty. One cannot say that the private sector will do the job of correcting regional disparity, and then allow the banks to provide these loans to their privileged customers and not to the people who need this assistance. The idea of that program was to guarantee the major part of a loan to those who would not ordinarily qualify because they were somewhat of a risk. It turns out that the loans are not going to these companies or these people at all.
An interesting aspect of Bill C-103 is that the first part deals with the establishment of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The second part deals with the Cape Breton Development Corporation. This Bill deals with two entirely separate things. It also deals with the Government's intention to do away with the industrial development division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and to establish a new
May 10, 1988

Crown corporation which will be called Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
The Government has also brought forward Bill C-127 which deals with the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It increases the allotment of the coal division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation from $25 million to $50 million. That is where the part dealing with the industrial development division should be. In the Cape Breton Development Corporation there are two divisions-the coal division, which is dealt with in Bill C-127, and the industrial development division, which is the second part of the Bill being discussed today. There should have been one Bill dealing with the Cape Breton Development Corporation, Bill C-127. The Government wants to do away with the industrial development division.
The Cape Breton Development Corporation Act was first passed in 1967 under the then Government of Prime Minister Lester Pearson. At that particular time it was deemed that the economy of Cape Breton was in such a state of deterioration that a special piece of legislation had to be brought forward to deal with this very serious question. A Bill was put forward that had two parts, one dealing with the coal division and the second one promoting industrial development through the industrial development division, a second division of that corporation.
If in 1967 the Government of Canada felt that the situation was so serious that this Act was necessary, what business has the Government today in dismantling the industrial development division? The economic situation in Cape Breton is worse now than it was 21 years ago. At that time there were heavy water plants. This Government said that they would not be closed until alternate employment was found for the workers, but it closed them anyway without any alternate employment. There is a steel plant employing only 50 per cent of the workers that it was employing 21 years ago. There is a mining industry that has had a substantial reduction, with at least a thousand people less today than in 1967. Because of the downturn in the economy, industries and offices located in industrial Cape Breton have left and consolidated in other centres in Atlantic Canada, thereby losing very valuable jobs, good paying jobs, and adding tremendously to the problems in that area.
The Government is now saying: "Let us get rid of the industrial development division; the people in 1967 did not know what they were talking about". They knew what they were talking about; it was an excellent piece of legislation. The industrial development division is an excellent facility and is much needed in Cape Breton Island.
Once the industrial development division under DEVCO is done away with, there will be only one division-the coal division. That will make Cape Breton Development Corporation an ideal candidate in the mind of the Government for privatization. That seems to be what the Government has in mind. It is not the welfare of the people of Cape Breton that is
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
most important; it is facilitating the game plan of the Government. People do not matter. The Government has a little chart and it wants to ping off Crown corporations, regardless of what that indiscriminate selling off will do to the people who will be most affected by those sales.
By doing away with the industrial development division, there is only one division, the coal division, which will easily allow the Government to fulfil its dream of privatizing the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The problem in doing away with the industrial development division is that it is also greatly hampering the chances of Cape Breton to have a meaningful economic revival. The industrial development division had a budget that was given to DEVCO and that it could use for the betterment of Cape Breton Island. It has been successful. I would say that it has not been as successful as it should have been, because it has not been used as well as it could have been.
The facility is there, the vehicle is there, and the ability of this division to add greatly to the industrial and economic benefit of industrial Cape Breton exists today as much and perhaps more than it has in the past. By doing away with that division we do away with this budget. The Government is saying not to worry about the loss of the industrial development division in Cape Breton, because it is setting up a whole new Crown corporation which will be called Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. It already has an agency in Cape Breton called Enterprise Cape Breton. Now it is to set up another corporation called Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
Not only does the Government have no idea how to deal with questions of regional disparity, but it has absolutely no imagination. It will have one agency called Enterprise Cape Breton and a second one called Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. One would not doubt that the Government is very dull, but it is hard to believe that its dullness has allowed it to make such an unimaginative move as to name one corporation almost exactly the same as an existing agency. What it really intends to do, of course, is to have a corporation called Enterprise Cape Breton and another one called Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation so that it can merge the two without anyone really noticing. No one will ever know which is which because they both have the same name. It is absolutely ludicrous.
However, this stance taken by the Government has a purpose, that is, to do away with one of the agencies gradually without anyone noticing it is gone. Of course the two agencies with practically the same name will both be under the umbrella of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Although this is a separate Crown corporation which the Government is proposing, Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, the president of the corporation will be the same president as the president of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities

May 10, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Agency. It is economically incestuous. It is absolutely incredible that the Government would actually try to pass this off on the people this country.
What we will have is two agencies with the same name, the same president, under the same umbrella, and ultimately reporting through a diverse and devious means to the same board of directors. What we will really have is the same agency. The Government is trying to tell us that these are two different agencies. That is like saying that when you get change for a quarter you have three times as much money because you have two dimes and a nickel. That is the extent of the ridiculous position the Government is trying to pass off on the people of Cape Breton, and it will not work.
The people of Cape Breton will not accept, yet again, another kick in the teeth by this Government. It has been one thing after another. Every time the Government makes a move, we find that what it has given back is only part of what it has taken away, if in fact it gives anything back. This has to stop. It is evident now,-and it will become more evident as we go along if this Bill is passed-that other Departments will gradually cut back their spending. They will point to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and tell us that they do not have to spend on small craft harbours, transportation, or other departmental expenditures on structures and institutions which increase much needed employment in these areas. They will not provide the tremendously important services which are necessary if we are to have economic development.
Although there are some good features in this Bill, the good features will be completely nullified by the sleight of hand of the Government in the actual operation. The people of Cape Breton suffer most of all because they will not have the industrial development division; it is to be taken away from them. They will be left with just a piece of an agency, they already have in two separate parts.
I would ask the Government to delete any reference to the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to delete Clauses Nos. 25 to 52 dealing with the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and to make important and meaningful changes to the rest of the Bill so that it will in fact be of benefit to the people of Atlantic Canada instead of the sleight of hand it is right now.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong debate, but I would like to make a few comments with regard to the Hon. Member's speech. He made a number of suggestions, and perhaps innuendoes with respect to the board and how it is constituted. Everyone knows the board is appointed by the Minister responsible. The existing 19-member board was appointed in consultation with the provinces. When we look at the list of board members, we note they represent provincial Governments. I believe there is someone from the cabinet secretariat of both the Province of Newfoundland and the Province of New Brunswick. It would be very difficult for us merely to choose from among our friends, as the Member
has indicated, people who would pass or approve projects according to who they were.
One of the debates in Atlantic Canada when the committee held its hearings was on whether or not the board should have decision-making ability. The Government, in the way it set the board up and since then in the speeches of the Minister responsible and in the deliberations of the committee, agreed that the board should not have decision-making power. Therefore it is impossible for the board to make a decision on whether application a or application b will be accepted. That is done through the bureaucracy; the board is there to set policy. I, for one, as a Member from Atlantic Canada did not want to see a board that could actually make decisions with regard to applications. That would be too much like the political influence to which the Hon. Member made reference, and we have avoided it. This board is not making decisions on applications. It is there to provide policy and direction and guidance to the Minister based upon its work experience in Atlantic Canada.
I can tell the Hon. Member as a Member from Moncton that when I looked at the list of members of the board I saw a name I did not recognize. I can assure him that I have no idea of that individual's political inclination, nor did I have any input into that actual nomination. In fact, it may have come almost strictly from bureaucrats. I see that at one time he was an employee of DRIE in Atlantic Canada. He then realized, perhaps, the errors of his ways, recognizing there was an opportunity to make a fair amount of money in the manufacturing industry of Atlantic Canada. He is now a successful entrepreneur, operating a small business which is very rapidly growing into a large business in the Dieppe area of my constituency.
I think the suggestions with respect to the board and its influence are misleading. We all recognize that anyone appointed by a politician is obviously open to the question of their political leanings. I think in this case that the Minister and the Government made every effort, in consultation with their colleagues and counterparts in the provinces, to ensure that we set up a board which would have a great deal of credibility, as well as a lot of expertise.
The Member talked about infrastructure. It is true that this program is not designed to solve the problems of Halifax Harbour. He should realize as a Member from Cape Breton- and I can tell him that as the Member for Moncton-that with only $1.05 billion we cannot afford in any one year to give $206 million to Halifax. That is a matter that can best be addressed by the Province of Nova Scotia negotiating an ERDA agreement with the Government of Canada through ACOA and its Minister responsible. That is the best way to handle infrastructure problems in Atlantic Canada.
This particular piece of legislation provides infrastructure for specific site problems. If there is a situation where an industry can start, if there is infrastructure development to take place leading to that site, there is an option under this
May 10, 1988

legislation for the Minister to act. Those are two areas I wanted to clarify with regard to third reading. I appreciate the points of concern the Member has brought to our attention, and I trust that he understands the explanation I have given.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Elon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) on rebuttal.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the point of view of the Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) although I do disagree. I feel there is a great deal of political intervention in the appointment of these directors.
It was initially stated that when this agency was to be set up the decision was to be made in Atlantic Canada. The main objection in Atlantic Canada was that you could have approval locally but you sent the projects to Ottawa for internal review in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion which either delayed them until the projects were not feasible any more or just turned them down. It was believed that by getting perhaps a little more objective support for what was necessary-perhaps a feeling for the needs of the people in the region of Atlantic Canada-that more of the viable projects would be approved. As the Hon. Member for Moncton has said, the Government has scuttled that. We are back to the old ways of doing things, of sending them back to Ottawa; let Ottawa sit on them and ignore the situation in the areas that really need assistance.
What the Government is proposing is a step backward and we cannot afford that. We have to move ahead. We must narrow the gap in regional disparity, not widen it as this Bill will do. With respect to infrastructure, we are not talking about a major program such as Halifax Harbour. I made no mention of Halifax Harbour. That is a subsidiary agreement between the province and the federal Government. What we need are projects not directly related to one particular industry but ones that will have an over-all effect in areas which are really in serious economic difficulty. This piece of legislation does not address that need.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey).


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that we should have this debate today, coming as it does on the heels of the debate yesterday which I think was far more revealing, namely, the dispute between Canada and France over fish. It seems to me that was far more revealing about the intentions and the attitude of the Government. What disturbed me in the debate yesterday when we talked about Atlantic opportunities were the comments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and I believe he made the same comments on Friday. I refer to yesterday's Hansard. In response to a question from me on whether he would take firm action and
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
get tough with France, whether he would do something tangible, whether he would do something realistic to bring this matter to a head and show the Government of France that we were not happy with the kind of treatment that our fishermen were getting, he said:
I think one knows that a trade war which might begin with this kind of issue would go on to something else. One of the things it might go on to, 1 say to those who are interested in the economy of Atlantic Canada, for example, might be the investment in Michelin Tire.
If there is a trade war, among the casualties in Canada of this trade war the Liberals are trying to start gratuitously, might be a thousand employees of Michelin Tire in Nova Scotia. The Liberal Party might want casually to throw those Canadians out of work.
How silly, Mr. Speaker. When the head of Michelin Tire in Canada heard those remarks, he said: "Oh, my goodness". Then he consulted his lawyer and said: "We are in business. We are not going to deal with that kind of statement". Do we think for a minute the Government of France has any way of pulling Michelin Tire out of Nova Scotia? Does anyone seriously think that that is possible? Michelin Tire is in business to make money like any other business. Making money comes first with any business. It is silly to say that the Government of France will somehow force Michelin Tire out of Nova Scotia. It is okay for the Minister to try to protect jobs that already exist in other parts of Canada, but when it comes to jobs in a province like Newfoundland which is totally dependent on the fishery, fish mean jobs for us; if we do not have access to fish we do not have jobs. It is all very well for the Government to say to one part of Canada, "we are very interested in protecting your jobs and therefore we are not going to start a trade war with France but those jobs in Newfoundland, those jobs of the fishermen, are expendable."
We are hostages, Mr. Speaker. The question becomes: Are we real Canadians or not? Are we equal Canadians? Do we have equal opportunity? The answer that we happen to come to is no. We do not have equal opportunity. Moreover, it is very apparent that we do not have any influence or clout with the Government of Canada. The seven seats we hold in this Parliament are not enough to give us the kind of access to equality that we need if we are to survive.
Fish is what we are all about. We are an island. We fish. That is what we came for in the first place. If our fishermen do not have access to fish, they do not have jobs. If they have to get permits from the Government of France before they go fishing, what is this country coming to? I ask again: Are we Canadians or are we not? Do we have a government that is prepared to stand up and fight for us? What Government should we refer to? Should we go to the French Government? Should we go to the French Parliament and put our case there? I want to see this Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in that context. We do not want a billion dollars. What we want is fish. The Government of Canada is saying, like Marie Antoinette: "Let them eat cake". It is saying: "Do you want fish? No, you cannot have fish. You can have a billion dollars. Take a billion dollars. Let them eat cake". That is what we are getting from the Government, and it disturbs me

May 10, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
as a representative of Newfoundland in this Parliament that that can be said and that we have to be hostages in that way.
Canadianism means more to us than that. Canada means more to us than that. When we voted, only by 52 per cent in 1949, not that long ago, we thought that we were getting into a country where we would be equal partners and that we would have a country which would stand up and fight for us. That is what we are asking the Government to do for us. We are not asking for a billion dollars. We do not want money. We do not want hand-outs. We want the possibility to make it on our own. That means access to fish.
This is the same Government when talking about opportunity to fish that said "no" to the Labrador shrimp company on the Labrador coast which asked for a quota of northern cod. It said: "You may live next to that resource. You may have fished it for a very long time. You may depend on it for a livelihood, but you cannot have a quota of offshore cod. There are other Canadian firms that can have it. The European Common Market can have it but you", the Labrador shrimp company, "cannot have access to that northern cod". As a result of that attitude, in the community of Cartwright which is not very big, maybe made up of 500 people, 80 people have jobs in the fish plant, but that plant will be closed this summer. It will be open for the salmon season, which is a few weeks. The fishermen will make a few dollars, but then the plant will be closed down because the fishermen will not have access to a supply of northern cod. That is the kind of policy in existence, and we are talking about Atlantic Canada opportunities. I say again: "Who wants a hand-out?" What people want is access to fish. That is what gives us economic survival. That is what we have been told by the Government that we cannot have.
I have other problems with this Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. As I said before in the House-and I want to say it again today-the problem is that the money has to be spent on business. We heard the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) point out that we can have infrastructure if it is project-related. We have a lot of needs in Atlantic Canada that are not project-related. We have a lot of roads that need building. We have a lot of water systems that need putting in place.
Those things have to be there if we are to provide a climate in which business can survive. No business will go into a community that does not have a water system, a paved road, three-phase power or the kind of infrastructure in which business can survive. It is meaningless to come up with $1 billion to encourage businesses to set up if we do not put the infrastructure in place first.
Donald Savoie, the man the Government appointed, said much the same thing. He referred as a model to the original agency that was set up for Atlantic Canada, the Atlantic Development Board. Mr. Savoie was quoted in Atlantic Insight as saying that a return to a more grass roots, selfsustaining approach would be the better alternative. The article reads:
Savoie used the old Atlantic Development Board (ADB) as a model for his new federal agency. Created in the early 1960's-
-created by a Conservative Government, a Government which at that time had some imagination and foresight:
-the ADB was given six years to spend $150 million to improve the infrastructure of the region. During this period the area's highways were paved, hydro plants were built and much needed information on the Atlantic Economy was collected-
The article in Atlantic Insight goes on to say:
The board's last president, Ian MacKeigan, the 72-year-old former Chief Justice of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, remains convinced that the ADB, with its local board of directors and less ambitious mandate, was a very better approach to regional development-
Then we moved on to DREE, and we saw the same kind of flexibility to respond to the real needs of Canadians, the flexibility which is missing in this particular proposal.
Even what is in place now is causing us difficulties. There is still the same old red tape. I was in Goose Bay last week, and a man who owns a laundry, George Shepherd, came to me and said: "I want to build a new laundry. The economy in Goose Bay is good now, business is booming. I want to spend $300,000, I will create 12 jobs and I want money from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency".
Do you know what they said to him? They said: "You can't get any money because you are a retail outlet". They said this to the man who is the only such operator in a community of
8,000	people. He has contracts with the Armed Forces and with the German Air Force. Queen Beatrix spoke to us this morning. He has a contract to service the Dutch Air Force in Goose Bay. He services the Marine Atlantic and the coastal boats. He operates a service industry, not a retail industry. Yet the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is telling this man that he cannot qualify because he is in the retail business. That kind of inflexibility has to stop if we are to make any progress at all and if this is to do any good at all. Otherwise the $1 billion will be useless, or if it is not useless, it will certainly not come to us. This has to be changed as well.
We are told that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will somehow get into training. The North Warning System is being constructed in northern Canada and there are several sites in Labrador. Maybe 5 per cent of those employed at some of those sites are local people. In the long term, the same percentage will hold. This is because local people do not have the skills.
Many of the people who live in those communities are native people. Do you know what the Government has just done, Mr. Speaker? The Government has just cut back on the amount of funds available for post-secondary education for native people. The North Warning System is an initiative of the Government of Canada, and I applaud the Government for it. It is a good idea and it needs to be done. There is 100 per cent support for that. However, the Government has also cut back on the
May 10, 1988

amount of training funds that will be available for postsecondary education for native people. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that it wants local and native people to be employed by the North Warning System and then cut off the training funds. If these people do not have training, they will not get the jobs.
What will the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency do about that? Will it solve that problem? That is an Atlantic Canadian problem, a training problem and an economic problem. I do not see any evidence that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is doing much about that at this time.
The last point I want to make deals with opportunities in Atlantic Canada. In Labrador, there are 10,000 megawatts of electricity flowing to the sea every day, untapped. There are all sorts of markets for that in the United States. There is a lot of potential there. There are even potential markets in other parts of eastern Canada. However, as a result of a combination of the free trade agreement and the deregulation policy of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), it is less likely now that producing provinces will have to consult with the Atlantic Provinces before they develop their hydro resources.
When Quebec developed a hydro resource for sale to the U.S. in the past, it had to go to other provinces and ask if they wanted the power. The province was forced to go to the National Energy Board to get clearance. There was a mechanism to see that the Atlantic Provinces could take advantage of and buy that power. That mechanism no longer exists.
I make this point because in 1992, in a province which has
10,000	untapped megawatts of electricity flowing to the sea every day, we will run out of power. What supports business and industry? What it is that makes it go? What is the juice, the blood that runs through the veins of business and industry? It is power, and if we do not have that, what can we do? What will our future be like?
In this debate on the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, we must look at development in context. We must look at it in the context of the free trade agreement and in the context of the deregulation policy of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who says that anybody anywhere can sell anything to the United States at any time for whatever price he can get, and he does not have to make any deals with Atlantic Canada or ask Atlantic Canadians if they want to participate and develop hydro resources together. That is the reality.
I hope that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will work. I must say that not too many other approaches have. Although we have caught up in relation to where we were in the past, we are still, in relative terms, far behind, too far behind, the rest of Canada. I hope that the agency will work, but it will not work unless the items I have identified are dealt with and are solved.
Western Economic Diversification Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the motion of Mr. Mulroney that 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, be read the third time and passed.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)(a), I have been requested by the Chief Government Whip to defer the division until today at a later time. Accordingly, the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until after Private Members' Business later this day, at which time the bells to call in the Members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.


WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and the motion of Mr. Hawkes:
[Stage Direction]
May 10, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
That this question be now put.
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks on Bill C-113 and the Department of Western Economic Diversification. I want to stress the importance of this issue to western Canada. Certainly we can see that importance when we look at the continuing high unemployment figures, particularly in British Columbia where they have been in double digits almost continuously for the last five years. We are very concerned that the trade agreement reached between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan is going to confirm that kind of high unemployment. The Tories say that agreement is going to open up new opportunities for western Canada. In fact, it will confirm western Canada in its present role of hewers of wood and drawers of water. Unfortunately, while we are hewing more wood and drawing more water, there are fewer people doing it.
I want to look at some figures just produced by the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia. They talk about the number of jobs in B.C. in the forest industry between 1978 and 1985. In 1978 the logging industry employed 23,168 people. In 1985 it was 19,488, or a loss of 4,000. In the wood industry there were 50,955 jobs in 1978. In 1985 there were 39,603, or a loss of more than 10,000. In pulp and paper there were 20,655 jobs in 1978, and in 1985 this had dropped to 16,850, or a loss of 4,000 jobs. The total in all those industries in 1978 was 94,778 jobs. By 1985 that had dropped to 75,941, or a loss of 20,000. Yet at the same time production went up.
In 1978 in the coast forest region we produced 32,338 thousand cubic metres of log production. In 1987 it had increased to 33,791 thousand cubic metres. In the interior forest region it was 42,815 thousand cubic metres in 1978, and 56,800 thousand cubic metres in 1987. The total for all of British Columbia in 1978 was 75,153 thousand cubic metres. That increased in 1987 to 90,591 thousand cubic metres. At the same time as we lost 20,000 jobs we are producing more wood than ever before.
Unfortunately, we are not processing that wood in British Columbia or even in Canada. We are exporting it. In 1978 we exported 585,500 cubic metres. By 1987 that had risen to 3,394,900 cubic metres. In other words, we were exporting six times as much in 1987 as we were in 1978. We are producing more, exporting more, and yet we have fewer employees. The trade deal is going to make that situation worse.
We can see the urgent need for some kind of redress when we look at the question of federal procurement in western Canada. Again the situation is getting worse. Certainly members of the Conservative Party in 1981 would not have been very happy that only 15.5 per cent of federal procurement came from western Canada. In 1984-85, when the Government came to office, it had dropped to 13.9 per cent. Yet in 1986-87 it dropped again to 11.5 per cent. It has continued to decline whether under a Liberal Government or Conservative Government. It dropped from an already poor figure in 1981-82, to a
disastrous figure where the four western provinces are getting only 11.5 per cent of federal procurement.
British Columbia, as you know, has 11.4 per cent of Canada's total population, yet that province, combined with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, only gets 11.5 per cent of federal procurement. British Columbia itself gets only 3.6 per cent of federal procurement for its 11.4 per cent of the population. Compare that with Ontario and Quebec which together get 76 per cent of federal procurement. We have nothing against Ontario and Quebec, we would simply like to have our share. We are concerned that this Bill does not address that kind of systemic inequity directed toward western Canada and which, I might point out with reference to the Bill just passed, is also shared by Atlantic Canada.
We are concerned that the whole western diversification initiative is not part of a co-ordinated government plan which will see diversification and regional development take place in western Canada. For example, we can look at an editorial in today's Toronto Star which points out that the Bank of Canada's high interest rate policy is adversely affecting regions outside of central Canada. The article says that in his crusade to slow the Ontario economy, Bank of Canada Governor John Crow has asked the rest of Canada to pay an inordinate price. In March and April the other nine provinces together lost 7,000 jobs.
The Bank of Canada and the Government are concerned that perhaps the economy of southern Ontario is superheated so they want to cool it off a little bit. In doing so by raising interest rates and the value of the dollar, they are cooling off an economy which has been on ice for the last several years, the economy of western Canada and eastern Canada. We in British Columbia do not need to have our economy cooled off. We do not need high interest rates to prevent the boom from getting out of hand because we have not seen the boom. We are still trying to recover from the recession of 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. It is now 1988 and we are still facing some very difficult times.
There are people in my constituency who were laid off five years ago and still have not found work. Young people used to be able to expect that they would find work on Vancouver Island or elsewhere in British Columbia when they grew up. They are now having to come to Toronto to find work. We have policies geared toward central Canada which do not deal with the very real concerns in western Canada. Bill C-113 and the whole western diversification initiative does not begin to deal with that issue.
Raising the value of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the American dollar will make it much more difficult for our exports to compete in the American market. All the Government's very optimistic projections in terms of the trade agreement with the United States were premised on a 73 cent or 74 cent Canadian dollar. Now that it is up to 81 cents our
May 10, 1988

products are much less competitive and the trade deal will definitely result in job losses for Canadians.
We are concerned that while the goal of Bill C-l 13, western diversification, is good, the commitment of the Government and the provisions of the Bill do not reach toward that goal in any significant way. For example, the Government has committed $1.2 billion over five years to this fund. That works out to something like $60 million on an average for each of the four western provinces per year. Considering the massive problems and the need out there, this will be no more than a drop in the bucket.
I want to emphasize that my concerns on this issue are not simply partisan. We see in the submission of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to the committee that these concerns are shared by many people across Canada. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business could not be accused of supporting the New Democratic Party as a general rule. It is not a group of closet socialists or anything. Their "Executive Summary" reads in part as follows:
Yet our enthusiasm has been tempered by growing concern that the Western Diversification initiative is degenerating into at least one or all of the following:
-a political slush fund to support vulnerable constituencies, lure in big business or bail out obsolete industries in hopes of getting short-term political profile
-a bureaucratic slush fund available for other line departments and Ministers to raid in lieu of other national programs that should have their fair share spent in the West
-a narrow and highly centralized approach to diversification with continued emphasis on megaprojects or traditional resource extraction and development
-a confusing "black box" lacking clear criteria or policy direction, and on a collision course with a myriad of client groups who are inevitably going to see thousands of applications rejected and thousands of hopes dashed.
In other words, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is very concerned that the Western Diversification Fund seems to be very unfocused, seems to be at the mercy of Departments which can raid it, and seems to be something that can be used for partisan political advantage. It is arousing all kinds of hopes but there is very little chance that the majority of those hopes will be fulfilled.
In exchange for this the Canadian Federation of Independent Business suggests that there should be a specific focus on the small business sector. It is important that we recognize the importance of the small business sector in this House, not only with our speeches but in the legislation that we pass. As the Federation points out in its brief, job growth in the past few years in western Canada has been almost exclusively from the small business sector.
In Manitoba in 1985, 64 per cent of new jobs were created by small business. In Alberta 66 per cent of new jobs were created by small business, that is businesses with less than 20 employees. In Saskatchewan 76 per cent of new jobs were created by small business, and in British Columbia the figure was over 100 per cent because big business, companies with
Western Economic Diversification Act
more than 500 employees, lost 6 per cent of the jobs they previously had.
It is, therefore, important that we recognize the entrepreneurial spirit in ways which will help it to develop. It is not enough to say that small business and entrepreneurs will find a way to develop. One of the roles of government is to create the structures, the infrastructure, and the processes which will enable that small business spirit to take root.
If you look at the record of New Democratic Party Governments in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and British Columbia, you will see that while we are sometimes accused of being overcentralist and everything else, in fact the initiatives which we have brought in have helped small business much more than some of the initiatives of the so-called free enterprise Parties. We need to find ways to help that spirit find outlets in ventures which have a reasonable chance of success.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business suggests four major areas of activity, the first being community development. It is good to see that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business recognizes that development takes place in the community, that it is not simply a matter of the lone entrepreneur going out by herself or himself against a hostile world.
Therefore, the Federation suggests the following four major areas of activity:
1.	community development, whether it be seed capital for establishment of local business advisory networks and economic planning at the local level, or through financing of sectoral trade associations to assist with market research and information
2.	risk financing and equity investment in small business, through use of various regional tax incentives or W.D.O.-backed loan guarantees
3.	promotion and support of a western entrepreneurial culture
4.	advocacy throughout all federal agencies on behalf of the West.
These are some of the things we would like to see happening. I would particularly like to emphasize the role of women entrepreneurs because a great many of the new businesses which have been started in the last number of years, up to 65 per cent, have been started by women. In fact, new businesses started by women have a much higher rate of success than businesses started by men. Yet, very often, these are the very businesses which need help. That is a special need which should be recognized in this legislation.
Unfortunately, with regard to the funds being spent there seems to be a continued over-emphasis by the Government on megaprojects. We have seen no clear plan for spending the $1.2 billion in the Western Diversification Fund. For example, there was a commitment of millions of dollars to the Salmonid Enhancement fund in British Columbia. We all admit that that money was badly needed. However, it should have come from the regular A-based budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Instead, it came from the Western Diversification Fund which gives point to the criticism I read earlier of the Federation of Independent Business that that

May 10, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
fund can be used as a slush fund for bureaucrats from other Departments which will raid it to get money for their projects.
That money should have come from the regular budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is part of the Government's commitment to British Columbia, part of an ongoing commitment. To say that it is part of a new western diversification initiative is sheer nonsense and poppycock. The Prime Minister promised that the money for the western diversification initiative will be new money. It seems to me that it should have been new money for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
There was a commitment of $418,000 from the Western Diversification Fund for the BF Goodrich plant. There are no new jobs in that. There is $9.5 million to the second largest pulp and paper complex in Japan in order to establish a huge complex in northern Alberta. Surely large operations like that should be able to generate their own capital either internally or through bank loans. Why is an already limited Western Diversification Fund being frittered away in situations like this?
Let me refer again to the concerns that were raised by Mr. Dennis Young, President of the Canadian Association of Single Industry Towns, when he appeared before the committee. He pointed out that over 400 single industry towns have disappeared from Canada in the last 100 years. Certainly, many of those single industry towns that have disappeared were in western Canada. Yet the Bill does nothing to recognize the need to build on community strengths of single industry towns and help them diversify. There is nothing in the Bill that specifically guarantees that there can be help for community development, and for community infrastructure.
Mr. Young pointed to the need for a bottom-up approach to development. He pointed to the need for western initiatives to work with local communities for the kind of development that will be in line with what the communities as a whole want, rather than selectively choosing projects and approving them on a proposal by proposal basis.
Finally, I want to refer to some of the proposals that the New Democratic Party has made. We want a $1.2 billion annual fund for community infrastructure all across Canada. However, this would particularly help western Canada. We propose a $200 million annual fund for diversification of single industry towns; $500 million for affordable housing and to perhaps work on overcoming that backlog in native Indian communities to which we have referred. We propose funding for community initiatives and youth initiatives; funds to help people cope with the problems of technological change.
In conclusion, we do not oppose this Bill but certainly have no confidence that it will be able to do the very important job for western Canada that we believe needs to be done.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have had some further thought on this Bill-


Mr. Fennell:: Watch out.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -which I know my hon. friends opposite will be anxious to hear. I was in Saskatchewan last weekend and talked to many people. I deliberately raised the question of western diversification and three or four farmers to whom I spoke told me that it had been tried before. That is what I told the House earlier when I spoke to this Bill. When one looks at the history of western Canada, one can see that we have been through this scheme three or four times. Furthermore, they do not believe in this program. In fact, their disbelief is such that they even nominated me to run again in the next election. If they had believed in this program, they would not have bothered.
No matter what political party is in power, it must answer the question: Diversify to what? There must be a national industrial strategy which involves governments at all levels, the private sector, agriculture, the fishery, forestry, and the trade union movement. That is what has been done in West Germany, Holland, Sweden and Norway for the last 30 years. Such a strategy sets out a plan for the economy through consultation. The largest corporations in Canada plan their activities for the next 20 years. Yet governments in the last 40 years have devised temporary, ad hoc programs.
My hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Mala-hat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) referred to the comments of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. That is hardly a group that can be referred to as wild-eyed socialists. They referred to this Western Diversification Program as nothing more than a narrow, short-sighted operation. Government Members who were here during the days of Otto Lang will recall speeches about political slush funds. That is what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business calls this fund. It is a highly centralized bureaucratic operation which creates the potential of conflict between Departments. The Bill does not give the Minister the authority he requires to deal effectively with other Departments.
I repeat that there must be a goal for diversification. There must be an industrial strategy that takes into account our geography, our climate and the distance over which we must move goods that are processed and manufactured in the regions of Canada. There should be a mechanism to equalize transportation costs so that they are a relatively neutral factor and would allow processors and manufacturers throughout Canada to deliver their goods to the market with an equal chance to compete.
The competition should be on quality and quantity of product, capability of delivery, warranties, salesmanship, advertising, all the things that go into selling something that someone is producing, manufacturing or processing. This Bill does nothing to attack a problem that we have always had in
May 10, 1988

western and Atlantic Canada. We discriminate against people because of where they happen to live and where they happen to produce their goods. Therefore, this legislation cannot accomplish what the Government wants it to do, something which we all agree should be done.
There is a classic case in western Canada and Atlantic Canada where the so-called free market forces do not work. I say that because entrepreneurs in western and Atlantic Canada are disadvantaged. They do not have a full and fair chance under the classic free market forces because of where they are located. The deck is stacked against them right off the bat.
Let me illustrate my point, Mr. Speaker. In the late 1940s and the early 1950s we got into the growing of rapeseed, which is now called Canola. We established up to a dozen oilseed processing plants in the three prairie provinces. They were doing pretty good. They were gradually building up and establishing a market in central Canada, the United States and overseas. However, there was a problem with respect to the cost of moving it. There was a famous court case which dealt with the problem. It occurred when Mr. Diefenbaker was Prime Minister of Canada. Rapeseed was finally established as a grain, which took a lot of doing. Rapeseed products then became grain products. Thus by the late 1960s there were oilseed crushing plants going in all three prairie provinces. I think there were one or two in or near your city, too, Mr. Speaker.
What happened then? The next thing we know the Americans got great subsidies on soybeans, corn and cotton seed, as well as palmseed oil. They were putting stuff into Canada in the name of free trade. Our processors in western Canada were faced with transportation costs just to get their product to Ontario, not to mention the United States or overseas. To add insult to injury, this occurred when the Government of the day did not have an industrial strategy. What did they do? It gave, I believe it was, $6 million in grants to build an oilseed crushing plant. Do you know where that was, Mr. Speaker? In Windsor, Ontario. What did they crush? American corn and soybeans. There went diversification in western Canada down the drain. I do not think there are more than two or three oilseed crushing plants left in existence-


An Hon. Member:: There are six.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Out of one dozen half of them have gone belly up.
Unless our geography and our industrial strategy is taken into account, this Bill will not accomplish what is the Government's objective, an objective with which we all agree. That means that under the industrial strategy we will have to discriminate in favour of a region such as western Canada, northern or Atlantic Canada which could well mean less growth, or a bit of a standstill in growth, in the golden triangle from Quebec to Windsor.
Western Economic Diversification Act
I put this question. Why do we want Toronto or Montreal to get any bigger? What for? Glorified ant hills is what they are. Why would one want to establish another manufacturing plant in that part of the country? As far as I am concerned Toronto needs another manufacturing plant like it needs a hole in the head. We have unemployed people in northern Ontario and northern Quebec. There are pockets of unemployment in different parts of the country. With an industrial strategy that is workable and meaningful, those are the places to which development would be directed.
I received a letter this morning from a manufacturer of wood products in British Columbia. He has offices in Vancouver and Rossland. I understand that he ships about 1,500 to
2,000	carloads of plywood every year. One could call that some amount of diversification. There is an application before the National Transportation Agency to abandon the whole railway line on which he ships his product. It is the boundary subdivision, 100 miles of track running through Castlegar. While we are debating this Bill, this nonsense in the House, there is a business that has been in operation for many years, a very reputable business which produces a good product, which is losing that railway line. This means that it is finished.
What are we doing? We are sitting back and letting the two national railways go through the process of abandoning a total of 15,000 miles of railway tracks in the country over the next five years. Why would one want to locate a processing plant or a manufacturing plant somewhere out West or somewhere in Atlantic Canada? What for, when one has to resort to putting the product manufactured on overcrowded highways at higher costs while one is still as far away from the markets as was one before? Why would one bother? What incentive is there to diversify in the West or in Atlantic Canada? There is not any. Our market is not big enough.
I return to my main point. There must be an industrial strategy. It has been done in other places. It reminds me of the story of the rooster which went out for a walk one morning. Egg production had gone down in the hen house and the farmer was about ready to butcher all the chickens. The rooster was pretty worried about it because he was going to get the axe as well. So he went out for a walk one morning and happened to get into the zoo. He came across an ostrich nest in which there were some ostrich eggs. He ran back to the chicken coop and rounded up all the hens and took them over to the ostrich nest. He said: "Look girls, I am not complaining but just look at what they are doing in other places". That is what we need to be doing. I am not suggesting that we copy what other countries have done word for word or line for line, but we need to adopt an industrial strategy meant for Canada that suits our requirements. It must fit in with our geography and climate. Darn it all, out West and in Atlantic Canada we can produce things just as good as anybody else anywhere else in the country if we are just given a fair chance to do so. This legislation does not set up that fair chance.
People talk about a level playing field, whether it be with respect to free trade or anything else. It is all very well to have

May 10, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
a playing field that is level, although I have never seen a level one yet. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that even a football field is not level. When we talk about level playing fields, that is fine, but when the other guy has the ball on our 10 yard line, then that ain't very level, is it? That illustrates what happens when something is being produced in western Canada in competition with the same thing in central Canada or in the United States. They have the ball on our 10-yard line. That is the name of the game. That might mean not only allocating where industry goes, agreeing where industry goes and allocating the area. It will mean a greater number of transportation subsidies. They can be called "subsidies" or transportation incentives, I do not care what name is put on it. If the Americans do not like it, tough cookie.
South of my province the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana are economic deserts. They have the same problem that we do. The distance that they are from their markets means that industry in those three states is minimal, if in existence at all. There the free market forces are allowed to continually be in play. That is not the Canadian way. That is not the way things have been done in Canada since before Sir John A. Macdonald.
If there was anything recognized by our forefathers and the people in Parliament in 1867 and thereafter, it was if the whole nation is going to be developed and kept together, some type of an equity of opportunity had to be built into our laws, transportation, and in government programs of various types. It is a fact of life in a northern nation like ours.
Again, Sir, I do not want to be partisan, because it will not matter what political Party is in power. Unless it is done in that manner, this Bill and others like it will not work. They are doomed to failure. We have gone through this before. Over the years we have had special agencies, special legislation, and special programs up to here. They last a year, or two, or three, and then die a deserving unnatural death.
I hope the Government will take into account what we in the Opposition, certainly my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party, have had to say on this issue. We have tried to say those things in a positive and constructive manner to urge upon the Government to do it differently than we did it before. Let us not repeat the same mistakes and messes that were made before. We will all be happy about that. We will all make western Canada and Atlantic Canada much better places in which to live.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? A question or comment from the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, we were all fascinated by the story of the rooster, the chicken, and the ostrich. I wonder if the Hon. Member could repeat the punch line for us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for being nominated for the next election.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the motion of Mr. Hawkes. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)(a), 1 have been requested by the Chief Government Whip to defer the division until a later time. Accordingly, the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until after Private Members' Business later this day, at which time the bells to call in the Members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.


The Hon. Government  Whip.Mr. Fennell@: Mr. Speaker, I would request that we suspend the House for five minutes until five o'clock and at that time commence Private Members' Hour.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting until five o'clock this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 4.55 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 5 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock, pursuant to order made Wednesday, May 4, 1988, the House
May 10, 1988

will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   SENATE REFORM REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, you will notice from the Order Paper that Motion No. M-84 is in my name. I am asking for unanimous consent of the House, and indeed we have had negotiations to that end, that the motion be switched from my name to that of the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Porter).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should give consideration to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform,
presented to the House during the second session of the Thirty-Second
Parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak this afternoon on Motion No. 84. Certainly, the issue of Senate reform has been something that this country has looked at and dealt with for a great many years. Very little over that time has in fact changed. However, I believe there has been enough discussion to suggest the current situation is unsatisfactory and is in need of change. There are those, I suppose, with views from all across the political spectrum. Some are opposed to the Senate and feel it should be abolished. I think members of the New Democratic Party hold that view. There are others who have studied this issue through the years and have come up with a variety of proposals for change to the Senate. The election of the Senate is only a first step.
In looking over the recent history, and I say "recent" in the perspective of this country, in the last 20 years there have been a variety of reports and studies, starting in 1969. The federal Government White Paper proposed a new Senate with half of the Senators appointed by the provinces and the other half by the federal Government. In 1972, a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution recommended increasing the number of western Senators and reducing the power of the Senate to a suspense of veto.
A 1975 constitutional amendment awards one Senate seat each to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, bringing the total to 104 Senators. In 1978, Bill C-60 proposed replacing the Senate with a House of Federation, with the provinces and the federal Government each appointing half the members based on proportional representation. In 1979 the Supreme
Senate Reform
Court ruled that the proposals represent a constitutional amendment and would, therefore, require the approval of provincial legislatures as well as the federal Parliament.
The Canada West Foundation recommended replacing the Senate with a House of Provinces. British Columbia, the Ontario Advisory Committee on Confederation and the Canadian Bar Association also submitted reform proposals. In 1979 the Pepin-Roberts Task Force on Canadian Unity proposed replacing the Senate with a provincially appointed Council of Federation. In 1980, the federal and provincial Ministers responsible for constitutional matters discussed a new Upper House involving the provinces with no resolution. The report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled "Certain Aspects on the Canadian Constitution" affirms the need for a nominated and substantially reformed Senate.
The Quebec Liberal Party's base paper entitled "A new Canadian Federation" proposed replacing the Senate with a federal council composed of provincial Government delegates. Again in 1981, the Canada West Foundation supported direct election of Senators based on single province-wide constituencies. In 1982, the Constitution Act provided for a six-months suspensory veto for the Senate with respect to constitutional amendment. Alberta also recommended provincial appointment of Senators, the Senate debates, the election of Senators by the people.
In 1983 a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Senate reform starts work in April. The Business Council on National Issues supports election of Senators. The final report, the one we are discussing today, the report of the Special Joint Committee on Senate reform, was tabled in January of 1984. A lot of work went into the tabling of the Joint Committee on Senate Reform. I think those who have read it will agree there are areas in that report that were certainly well worthy of consideration and study at the time and have merit in following up on some of the recommendations that have been made.
What kind of elected Senate would serve Canada's system of responsible Government? The Senate, I think, should have significant powers but should not be able to undermine Canada's well tried system of responsible Government. Senators should have a significant degree of independence of Party which would enable them to speak on local and regional issues without adhering to Party policy.
We should consider the original purpose of the Senate, and perhaps we tend to get away from this when we are looking at suggested changes. The Senate was created in 1867 to fill not one but two major roles in the new federation. One was to protect and represent, so far as legislation was concerned, what Sir John A. Macdonald termed "sectional interests". This included those peculiar to a region or linguistic or religious groups. The other major role was to help political stability by acting as a counterweight to the elected House of Commons. These two rules were carried out by the exercise of sober

May 10, 1988
Senate Reform
second thought in review of legislation emanating from the Lower House, the House that drew its mandate from elections based on population, although in those days the franchise was restricted.
Criticisms have been directed at the Senate for a number of years, probably more so in the last few years, and again in the last several months, where most of us in our constituencies have been reminded of some of the Bills which have been in the Senate for some time and the role being played by those in the Senate.
I suppose the appointment of Senators has to be a difficult issue for any Prime Minister to face. No matter what political Party involved, the question always arises as to the patronage aspect that comes forward in appointments to the Senate. Criticisms include the partisan nature of some Senate appointments, the poor attendance of some Senators, the underrepresentation of various groups such as women, aboriginal people and ethnic groups, the numerous Senate vacancies which are allowed to continue unfilled, the lack of balance in the number of Senators affiliated with different Parties, the constraints that Party discipline imposes on the independence of Senators and the fact that the present distribution of seats does not reflect the growth in western Canada's population. It is argued that all these deficiencies have seriously hindered the effective functioning of the Senate.
Most recent arguments for Senate reform have focused on achieving one of the original goals of the Senate, the protection and representation of regional interests. These arguments spring from a belief that Parliament needs a Chamber which represents those interests with more political authority than can be achieved with the Senate appointed in the present way. The Senate has been successful in the carrying out of its functions in improving legislation and investigating issues of public policy. I think it has been acknowledged that the Senate makes useful contributions to the work of Parliament in carrying out these functions-


George Albert Proud: Sometimes.


Robert Harold Porter: -with reference to private and public Bills. The Senate holds public committee hearings, it is especially effective in a number of areas. I do not think there are Members in this House who at some time have not served on a committee with representation from the Senate. I think all of us from time to time have appreciated the contribution which those with expertise in certain areas have made to those committees. Certainly there are many capable people who have been appointed to the Senate who are contributing at the present time, and no doubt will continue to contribute, but we must keep in mind that the Senate itself comes under criticism by members of the Senate.
Perhaps I could comment on some of those criticisms. When we talk about change, some of the changes would have to be made constitutionally, others can be made in the Senate itself.
Changes could bring about some restructuring, but does it mean that we are stuck with what we have now?
In a report which one member of the Senate gave, he said:
Much can be done to improve the Senate without any constitutional amendments at all and the Senate's Lamontagne Committee of 1980 set it down in black and white. Some of it would only require ordinary legislation. Some of it the Senate could do itself.
One of the problems with the present Senate is dead wood: Members who do not turn up regularly, let alone work. This is often exaggerated. My own experience is that at least two-thirds of the members do attend pretty regularly, and at least half do work hard and conscientiously when the Senate is sitting and in committees, which often sit when the Senate itself is in recess. Many are also active in their home communities, involved in various public activities, often doing constituency work ... But some dead wood undoubtedly is.
-provision to vacate a seat of any Senator who failed, for two consecutive years, to attend at least one-third of the sittings in each each year. The Constitution already stipulates that any Senator who fails to turn up at least once in two consecutive sessions loses his seat; and a fair number have lost their seats accordingly. But others have been literally wheeled in once in two sessions and so retained their seats. Moreover, a single session may now last for years (a recent one lasted for three), so that a resolute valetudinarian-
A person-
-could retain his or her seat by a single appearance in seven or eight years.


George Albert Proud: That is a shame.


Robert Harold Porter: I think it is a shame, and I think all of us who sit in this House appreciate the work that has to be done on behalf of those people whom we represent. Perhaps if there were an elected Senate there would be an onus on those in the Senate who felt that they had to represent their constituents with the same diligence as those of us on all sides of this House feel obligated to do as we make representations on their behalf.
I think it has been concluded by most of the groups, certainly the Joint Special Committee on Senate Reform, that we should have an elected Senate elected directly by the people of Canada.


George Albert Proud: Hear, hear. I totally agree.


Robert Harold Porter: I am glad the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) agrees with me.


George Albert Proud: My Party agrees too.


Robert Harold Porter: I am pleased to hear that. I do not hear very much from those sitting next to me in the New Democratic Party.
It is difficult for all of us to address the problems that we face with the Senate. We all have different perspectives of what should happen. We have different views, depending upon the region of the country one is from. Hon. Members are aware of the activity in western Canada of the Triple E Senate, the proposal made primarily in Alberta that will be gathering views in other parts of the country. One of the problems comes down to how we would elect the Senate, for how long and for what terms. But I think there is consensus enough within this country of ours at present to come up with
May 10, 1988

proposals that would not only enhance the role of the Senate, the role of those as individuals who are there, but to make it more meaningful for what it was originally intended, that is, to represent the regions.
There is no doubt that regions have changed dramatically since the Senate was formed. Our population base has shifted. There are areas of Canada that feel through our electoral system that they are perhaps under-represented in this House. The shift in population in recent years I do not think is reflected as accurately as it might be. Some of the proposals coming out of the 1984 report point out some ways that could address those changes which so many of us feel are needed.
We are told frequently, after so many abortive attempts at Senate reform from time to time which come from vigorous action for fundamental change in the Senate, that it would be a mistake to adopt inconsequential reforms. Only a politically strong second chamber can dispute, when necessary, decisions taken by a government that is supported by the House of Commons. Therefore, only an elected Senate can satisfy the original intent of the Fathers of Confederation, namely, the provision of the Chamber that would balance judicially the power of the Commons, which is based on representation by population safeguarding the legitimate interests of the people of the less populous provinces.
I know there are others who wish to speak.


George Albert Proud: Keep going. You are doing well. There are so many in the House that we have a stampede of people. This looks like the Senate in here.


Robert Harold Porter: Perhaps it does.


George Albert Proud: We haven't got a quorum.


Robert Harold Porter: The Hon. Member has noticed. I did not mention that.


George Albert Proud: I am here because I am interested.


Robert Harold Porter: We are talking about reform. Talk over the last 20 years obviously has not achieved very much. I think it is time that something was implemented. We have good groundwork on the report recommended by the joint task force. If there is a better method of Senate reform, let us examine it and the numerous options available and make the necessary changes. If we could do it in a non-partisan way, it would be most beneficial to Canadians. I would not want to curb the aspirations of members of this place who may not be back again either by choice or electoral preference for positions that may become open at some time. However, I think the time is long overdue that we take a serious look at what I, many in this House, and the vast majority of Canadians feel is the need for Senate reform.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member's
Senate Reform
remarks, but had great difficulty relating them to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform which was presented to the House in January of 1984 and which is the subject of this motion.
There were quite specific proposals for Senate reform made by the Special Joint Committee, the most notable of which was the proposal that Senators should be elected for one term of nine years. That proposal, of course, went down the tubes very quickly, but that was the main proposal, and I would have thought that the Hon. Member would have wanted to discuss it and indeed many of the other proposals concerning the powers of the Senate that were made in the Joint Committee report.
The Hon. Member might have also read the dissenting reaction to the report that was made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). In his report, he argued very eloquently that a nine year term itself was far too long but, more important, since under this scheme, a Senator would serve only one term and not be able to run again, the Senator would be totally unanswerable to the electorate. He would be unaccountable. He would not have to worry, during the nine years he is a Senator, about what he is doing on behalf of the regional and local interests he is supposed to be concerned about. He does not have to worry about those interests because he does not have to get re-elected.


Blaine Allen Thacker: But his Party does.


Pauline Jewett: The hope was that there would not be as much emphasis on Parties, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Porter). That is why this proposal was sort of laughed out of court and why none of us have paid any attention to it since. As I say, it is over four years since the proposal was originally made. The public is effectively denied the possibility of ever holding its elected representatives in the Senate accountable under this scheme of one nine year term.
The committee itself, in its report, stated:
We realize that senators who serve for a single term would not be obliged to account for their actions to their electorate at a subsequent election.
The majority also made what I find to be the incredible statement:
If senators are not able to seek re-election-they will be less likely to get involved in the kind of constituency duties that would duplicate those of members of the House of Commons, and they would be able to devote most of their energies to sittings of the Senate and its committees.
The majority of the committee is basically suggesting that the work of the Senators would be done here in Ottawa and that they would not worry about their constituencies. They would live in Ottawa, and we all know that if one stays in Ottawa too long, one can certainly lose sight of the needs of one's region, province or constituency, and we have seen many Members do so over the years. It seems to me that for the majority of the committee to suggest that is for it to say that politicians do not have to return home to mend political fences.

May 10, 1988
Senate Reform
Indeed, my colleague from Churchill also made a number of other criticisms in his dissenting report. I found one of the most interesting ones was his criticism of the double majority votes that were proposed in the report. On certain linguistic and cultural matters, it was proposed that there would have to be a double majority, a Francophone majority and an Anglophone majority, before any matters relating to linguistic and cultural affairs could be passed. The Anglophone majority would be composed of all those who were not French speaking. This too was a quite shocking recommendation, certainly capable of offending the sensitivities and aspirations of native Canadians and of other Canadians who comprise the Canadian mosaic.
A third area of criticism could relate to the committee's emphasis on the role of the Senate in holding hearings and producing good, sound committee reports. In fact, the Joint Committee made this almost the raison d'etre of the Senate, but it completely ignored the fact that even in January of 1984, the Flouse of Commons had created several excellent allParty committees and task forces and of course has since done so under the reform of the House, and has pretty much moved to fill the vacuum in the area of research and legislative study where the Senate in the past has been credited for doing its best work. The particular report we are supposed to be discussing today does not meet the main purpose of a democratic second Chamber, and that is probably why my colleague entitled his dissenting report "The False Front: The Elusion of a Democratic Senate".
The Hon. Member mentioned that the New Democratic Party is for the abolition of the Senate, and he was quite correct. We have been for some time. We are delighted to be joined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who, on August 23, 1987, told reporters that he had suggested abolition of the Senate during the Meech Lake discussions the preceding May, and indeed, on August 25, in the House in response to a question from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 8393 of Hansard:
If my hon. friend is speaking on behalf of his Party, and if the Leader of the Opposition will undertake today to meet so that we can arrange for a resolution to go before both Houses to provide for the abolition of the Senate, I can assure him that I will bring it in as quickly as I can.
The Prime Minister subsequently backed down, citing the Meech Lake agreement, although it is interesting that the agreement had already been achieved when he made that recommendation for an all-Party resolution to abolish the Senate.
On August 27, however, the Prime Minister did agree to a meeting of House Leaders to review what could be done under present restraints. I must say that there has never been another word, even though the House Leader of the New Democratic Party wrote to the Government House Leader on September 17, 1987. He said that we were still interested in such a meeting of House Leaders to discuss a resolution on the abolition of the Senate and asked him to schedule such a
meeting, but there has been no reply. In fact, it might be useful for Hon. Members to read that whole question and answer section of Hansard on August 25, 1987.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in the debate this afternoon on the motion by the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Porter). The question of Senate reform and the future of that institution is both timely and important. With passage of the Constitutional Accord, Senate reform will be the priority item in future federal-provincial negotiations. This fact should be welcomed by all Members of this House.
With the adoption of an amending formula requiring the consent of the federal Government and all provinces, the Accord, in the words of the Special Joint Committee, will assure that provinces such as Alberta, which feel strongly about Senate reform, cannot be forced to accept a Senate reform package that does not live up to their expectations. Despite this, there has been some talk by opponents of the Accord who would have us believe that future Senate reform will be impossible as a result of the change to the amending formula. This charge must be challenged and I propose to address this accusation in my remarks today.
Under the changes to the amending formula in the Accord no province is singled out for special status. The Accord ensures full consensus on fundamental changes affecting the federation, including Senate reform, an item now guaranteed to be on the agenda for future constitutional talks. Surely it is reasonable that there be a strong consensus on a reformed Senate. How can it be otherwise? Surely no one can seriously suggest that a future reformed Senate be imposed on provinces such as British Columbia or Alberta as it could be under the present formula when those provinces have a particular and long-standing concern with this issue.
Critics of the Accord, including some members of the Opposition, have suggested that we should maintain the old 70-50 rule for changes to the Senate on the grounds that reform will be more easy to achieve. I want to emphasize that the unanimity requirement does not spell the end of Senate reform. It reflects the principle of equality of the provinces, unlike the procedure for Senate reform adopted in 1982.
Unanimity was achieved on the constitutional amendments of 1940, 1951, 1960, and 1964, as well as on the complex set of issues in the Meech Lake Accord. Unanimity is already required for certain important matters of concern to the country as a whole, such as the composition of the Supreme Court and changes to the amending formula itself. Most amendments will still proceed with the support of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. As for additional matters on which unanimity will be required, the proposed amendment will guarantee each province a say where
May 10, 1988

changes to key national institutions and the composition of the federation are considered.
The adoption of the Accord will allow Governments to proceed to address a range of issues with all provinces as full participants. The Accord guarantees annual First Ministers' Conferences on the Constitution, and two items, Senate reform and roles and responsibility in relation to fisheries, have been placed on the agenda for these conferences. Public discussion and debate in Parliament and the legislative assemblies will help Governments assess how they might consider other constitutional issues.
On the question of unanimity I would like to quote Peter Meekison, an expert on Canadian federalism and a long-time constitutional negotiator for the Alberta Government. He told the special joint committee that: "Senate reform is no more difficult under the proposed change than it is under the existing formula in that-it is very difficult for a province to cast a veto. The natural tendency-is to try to find a compromise." Many of the same factors that led to unanimity at Meech Lake will play a part in the process of Senate reform.
The Canadian Senate was originally charged with the responsibility for protecting what Sir John A. Macdonald called "sectional interests". The establishment of this institution was a critical part of the Confederation agreement. The Senate was to offset representation by population in the House of Commons. There are two important reasons why the Senate has been unable to protect regional interests adequately. First, non-elected Senators are not considered to be legitimate regional or provincial voices in Parliament. Second, the distribution of Senate seats gives a near majority to the two most populous provinces. It does not, therefore, provide an adequate means to temper the expression of majority will in the House of Commons. To the suggestion that the Accord will make Senate reform more difficult, Senator Lowell Murray said in a speech at a national conference on Senate reform last week in Edmonton that:
1 would simply reply that without Quebec's return to the constitutional table, Senate reform is impossible. Moreover, if the Senate is to become a vital national institution, we have to go about reforming it in the right way. We must recognize the vital interest that all provinces have in such national institutions, we must respect the principle of the equality of the provinces, and the need to secure consensus before making fundamental changes.
The interim procedure agreed upon for Senate appointments is not intended to be permanent. Rather, the proposed amendment explicitly states it is to apply "until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate." The unanimity rule will protect each province against an amendment to national institutions unacceptable to that province. Therefore, unanimity is as much a source of protection as it is a potential hurdle.
The Accord reinforces the federal character of the Senate by acknowledging the legitimate role played by the provinces in the choice of candidates who must nevertheless have the approval of the federal Government, which continues to make
Senate Reform
the appointments. As Senator Murray said in the other place on March 31:
We have had enough of isolating provinces in constitutional processes. We have had enough of running roughshod over concerns that are vital to a province's interest.
I could not agree more. I would also like to refer to an address given to the Institute of Island Studies on April 11 by Premier Ghiz of Prince Edward Island. He noted that:
Pending Senate reform, all appointments are made from lists supplied by the provinces. In an historical context-this provision is quite a reasonable one and in no way signals a lessening of the executive power of the central government.
I would conclude my remarks by saying that for future Senate reform to succeed, all parts of Canada must be assured that the Senate speaks in a particular way for their own specific interests. I personally feel strongly that Senate reform is necessary and no less possible with the adoption of the Meech Lake Accord. However, I cannot and will not at this time go on record as being in favour of an elected Senate.
This Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), is dedicated to seeking agreement on a reformed Senate that will ensure regional interests figure more prominently in national decision-making. There is strong support for Senate reform among the provinces and a desire to work together with the Government of Canada toward that end. The result will be a balanced national Government within a strong federation.
The skeptics and pessimists were proven wrong last June when they said Quebec could not be brought into the constitutional fold. I have no doubt they will be proven wrong again on the subject of Senate reform.
[Translation}


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Porter) urges the Government to give consideration to the conclusions of the 1984 Joint Committee on Senate Reform.
Mr. Speaker, without wishing to downgrade the merits of the Committee's report, I would like to say first of all, that steps have already been taken to conduct talks on Senate reform.
Last year, our eleven First Ministers agreed unanimously, on April 30 at Meech Lake and later on June 3 in Ottawa, on a draft constitutional amendment that will soon change the practice of federalism as we have always known it.
This Accord would make it possible for Quebec to take its place again in the Canadian family and become once more a full participant in constitutional change in this country, doing so with honour and enthusiasm.
However, in addition to the return of Quebec and Quebecers as full partners in the Canadian federation, the Accord provides much more. It will provide for a more faithful reflection of Canadian reality in the Constitution and emphasize the great principles of federalism supported by most

May 10, 1988
Senate Reform
Canadians. The Accord will make Canada stronger by enhancing its unity and emphasizing respect for its various components.
With its recognition of Quebec as a distinct society within Canada, the Constitution will also recognize one of the fundamental characteristics of this country which is the presence of French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians from coast to coast. After its major efforts in the area of official languages and after achieving international recognition as partaking of these two great cultures as its rightful heritage, Canada will finally recognize this essential aspect of its identity in the Constitution.
By acknowledging that Quebec has special needs with respect to immigration and by offering the other provinces an opportunity to enter into arrangements responsive to their needs, the federal Government made it clear that to the extent that the national interest was secure, it was now possible to be particularly responsive to the needs of the regions. By adding this element of flexibility to the concept of federalism, the First Ministers helped to make more Canadians feel at home within our federation.
This willingness to be flexible while respecting national objectives and safeguarding the interests of all Canadians is particularly manifest in the section of the Constitutional Accord that deals with spending power.


George Albert Proud: It sounds wonderful!


Maurice Tremblay: It sounds wonderful? It does, but do you know what it means? That is the main thing.


George Albert Proud: Absolutely!


Maurice Tremblay: To get back to what I was saying, when Parliament feels it is necessary to establish programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, it will no longer impose on its provincial counterparts its particular way of dealing with and solving problems, something we have experienced for many years. Provinces that feel they must adapt their programs to the specific needs of their population will be able to do so without being penalized-just imagine!- if they agree to make them compatible with national objectives.
The federal character of Canada is also clearly reflected in the section on our institutions. At last the Constitution will provide that when it is necessary to make changes in our central institutions, all partners in our federation will have the right to express their positions and protect their interests.
Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or Quebec will thereby be on an equal footing to protect the terms of their association with other parts of the country.
The federal nature of central institutions also will find its expression in the Supreme Court of Canada. From now on,
Mr. Speaker, appointments to the Supreme Court will be made under a double veto system, based on the goodwill and co-operation of both levels of Government.
The First Ministers went further, because clearly, attempting to solve everything in one shot would be an invitation to failure, but also because they knew that the June 3rd Accord could only be the beginning of a more general reform process. They decided to hold a First Minister's Constitutional Conference once a year, in order to look at issues that are important to Canada's future.
Under the latter they have already agreed to consider Senate reform, including its role, functions, powers, the procedure for selecting Senators and Senate representation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Porter) and many Parliamentarians recognized the importance of Senate reform and are ready to work at it over the next few years. A forum and a time-frame have therefore been identified for the federal-provincial talks proposed by the Hon. Member. And this time, perhaps for the first time in our history, this is serious.
As a token of good faith, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has waived his priviledge to select Senate appointees alone, pending a more encompassing reform.
Which removes you from the list, dear Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme)!
An interim appointment process has been set up to respect the spirit of federalism, whereby the provinces are involved in appointments to the higher Chamber. That process-


George Albert Proud: Agreed!


Maurice Tremblay: Are you suggesting that you also are the friend of provincial Premiers!


George Albert Proud: Certainly!


Maurice Tremblay: So I see.
Therefore that process, Mr. Speaker, by enhancing the Senate's legitimacy, also should increase people's interest in that institution, thereby ensuring increased participation in the discussions surrounding the coming reform.
Some people have suggested that this interim appointment procedure is nothing more nor less than our abdication on the part of the federal Government of its legislative power to the benefit of the provinces. We are told that provincially oriented and crooked-fingered politicians might even be able to gain control of the legislative agenda and disrupt the work of the duly elected representatives of the people.
I do not believe anyone can seriously undertake to defend this position, but even if it were so-imagining the unimaginable-and if the power of the elected Members of the House of Commons were to be the ransom paid to politicians of a different stripe, would the situation be all that much different from what it is today, and this query I direct to the Hon.
May 10, 1988

Member for Saint-Denis? Would it be better if the representatives of a defeated federal Government were given the power to control the destiny of a new House of Commons democratically elected by the people? Is the legitimate legislative power not held to ransom when senators appointed by a Liberal administration of an earlier generation are threatening to rule the lawmaking roost-until after the year 2000, if you can imagine! They cannot be serious. It is untenable, undefensible! Some time ago it was unimaginable!


George Albert Proud: That was a long time ago.


Maurice Tremblay: Well, if the Hon. Member will allow me . .. Mr. Speaker, I do not share the view-that is my right-of those who fear the legislative power will end up in provincial hands, and it seems to me the answer to such fears is relatively simple. If indeed the provincial governments are to recommend Senate appointees, the fact remains that the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, therefore the federal Government, will alone be empowered to make the appointments. You might as well be a candidate in the next election. I will tell you why, if you allow me to finish.
This power is not a mere formality, Mr. Speaker. The federal Government can refuse any list submitted by a provincial Government until one candidate is agreable to it.
It is clear that unabashed provincialists and straw men of provincial Governments will have little chance of being judged acceptable by the federal Government.
You are indicating to me, Mr. Speaker, that unfortunately my time is running out. I merely want to point out that it is a real need and that we were actively seeking to change the status quo, to implement recommandations which would lead to a fundamental reform of the Senate, in order to answer the present needs. The shameful paralysis of Government business has been going on for too long, Mr. Speaker, the Bills passed by the House are important, as they are designed to foster economic growth and job creation in Canada.
For all these reasons, we submit that the agreements with the Premiers will soon lead to serious and fundamental reform.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to take part in this debate on the motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Porter). The motion before the House calls upon the Government to give special consideration to the 1984 report of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform.
This is a most timely debate, especially for those of us from Alberta. It is now just over a year since the signing of the Meech Lake Accord on April 30, 1987. The Accord represents the beginning of a new era in Canadian federalism. As well as bringing Quebec into the constitutional family, the Accord provides new constitutional and institutional arrangements to
Senate Reform
encourage closer, more harmonious relations between the federal and provincial governments.
One of the most significant aspects of the Accord is its commitment to further constitutional reform and to Senate reform in particular. It is to this issue specifically that I address my comments this afternoon.
As Hon. Members will be aware, the constitutional Accord of June 3, 1987, provides for an entrenched second round of discussions aimed at fostering further constitutional development. In particular, the Accord requires the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to convene a First Ministers' Conference on the Constitution at least once a year once the Meech Lake amendments have been proclaimed. Among the items on the agenda for these conferences will be Senate reform. This will include the role and functions of the Senate; the powers of the Senate; the method of selecting Senators; representation in the Senate.
As a result of a change in the amending formula, the consent of all provinces will be required for amendments to these matters. In future, each province will have an equal say on this vital issue. This contrasts with the present arrangement which grants a veto to Ontario and Quebec acting together, but not to any other two provinces acting together.
Finally, as a demonstration of the Prime Minister's good faith and commitment, the Accord provides that until constitutional amendments on the Senate are achieved, the federal Government will appoint Senators from among candidates proposed by provincial Governments and who are acceptable to the federal Government. The provinces thus will have a real say on appointments to the Senate until more comprehensive reform is achieved.
Contrary to what some critics of the Accord have suggested, the Accord provides for the full and open discussion that I believe all aspects of Senate reform deserve. It assures that all the major points that need to be addressed must be considered at annual First Ministers' Conferences.
Senate reform has been the subject of many studies and reports over the years. The report of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform was an important and useful contribution to this ongoing question. It recommended that the Senate be directly elected in order to "strengthen the authority of Parliament to speak and act on behalf of Canadians in all parts of the country".
The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) was a distinguished member of the Special Joint Committee which tabled its report in January, 1984. The report called for a directly elected Senate, with a weighted representation of seats to increase regional representation. Senators would be elected for a single nine-year term, with one-third of the Senators elected every three years. The Senate would have a 120-day suspensive veto over ordinary legislation, and ratification authority over Order in Council appointments to federal agencies with important regional implications.

May 10, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Other reports may differ on the precise composition and powers of a reformed Senate. I think it is safe to say, however, that there is a strong feeling that an appointed Senate no longer meets the needs of the Canadian federation, especially in the area of regional representation.
I believe that we simply can no longer tolerate a situation in which an appointed, non-accountable body such as the present Senate acts to frustrate the will of the democratically elected House of Commons. We have seen the Senate take it upon itself to delay several important pieces of legislation over the course of this Parliament. These include Bills on immigration and refugees, drug patent protection, and copyright protection. That is clearly unacceptable in a modern, democratic society.
At the present time the Senate speaks for no one but itself and the interests of the majority party in that chamber. In doing so, the Senate has only managed to raise public awareness of the inadequacies of the Senate and the need for fundamental reform. Some critics have suggested that passage of the Accord should be made contingent upon Senate reform. There has been an agreement since August, 1986, that Senate reform is a second round issue. The terms of the Meech Lake Accord fully reflect the distinction that the First Ministers made between the Quebec round and the second round.
The requirement for unanimity has raised a fear in some quarters that Senate reform will be impossible. Senate reform is only impossible as long as Quebec is not at the table. Would it be healthy for confederation if a province were to have its representation on the Senate reduced without its consent? No. That sort of thinking belongs in the past.
The Prime Minister has said he will table a Senate reform proposal on behalf of the federal Government at the initial Conference of the First Ministers following ratification of the Accord. The Prime Minister also indicated in the House on August 26, 1987, that Parliament will have a role in paving the way for the discussion of Senate reform at that Conference.
As a further indication of the seriousness with which the Government approaches the question of Senate reform, I would refer Hon. Members to an excellent speech delivered last week by the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, Senator Lowell Murray. In his May 5 address before the National Conference on Senate Reform at the University of Alberta, the Hon. Senator said:
I speak for the Prime Minister and all my Cabinet colleagues in saying that we know the importance that is attached to Senate reform by Canadians- especially those who live in Western Canada-and that we are convinced of its importance in the future of our country.
Those who support a directly elected Senate can also take encouragement, because as Senator Murray went on to say:
When the present round is complete, the Prime Minister has made clear that the Government of Canada will put forward a proposal for Senate reform. While the basic elements of the Government's position are emerging-one thing, however, is clear.
If the vitality of our democratic institutions is to be strengthened, the Senate should be elected. A second thing is also clear: we should ensure the Senate has
the means to act effectively while preserving the accountability of the
government to the House of Commons within our system.
In conclusion, I would like to express my agreement with Senator Murray that Senate reform is a national constitutional issue and the Senate is potentially a key national institution. This Government has consistently demonstrated its ongoing commitment to national reconciliation, including institutional reform.
I believe the Constitutional Accord outlines the best way to proceed on Senate reform. On this issue, as on several others, the Accord charts the right path to the future, a path that will encourage full federal-provincial collaboration as we consider changes to the key federal institutions and as we carry on the day-to-day business of the federation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the Order is dropped to the bottom of the Order Paper.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I know that it is too late now, but I wanted to take the floor. It was one minute to six.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Not by my watch, I am afraid. If you know it is too late, why did you get up on a point of order?


George Albert Proud: I am sure that you saw me standing, Mr. Speaker. You rushed to six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would never rush to six o'clock when 1 see the Hon. Member for Saint Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) rising.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney, that Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunities 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, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)(a) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-103.
Call in the Members.
May 10, 1988

The Elouse divided on the motion (Mr. Mulroney), which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 357)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse
Angus
Belsher
Benjamin
Bernier
Bertrand
Blais
Blouin
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Cardiff
Cassidy
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clinch Cochrane Collins Corbett Cossitt Crofton Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Daubney de Cotret de Jong Desjardins Dick Duguay Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fraleigh
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gerin
Graham
Grise
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Hawkes
Berger
Boudria
Copps
Dingwall
Finestone
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Hovdebo
Hudon
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity- Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kcmpling
Kindy
King
Ladouceur Langdon Lawrence Layton Lesick MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Manly Martin Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)
Mclnnes McKenzie McKinnon McKnight McLaughlin McLean Merrithew Minaker Moore Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nystrom Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Orlikow
++NAYS
Members
Foster
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West)
Pennock
Pietz
Porter
Price
Ravis
Reimer
Ricard
Riis
Robinson
Rodriguez
St-Julien
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Siddon Sparrow Stewart Suluk Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke
Centre)
Wise
Witer
Young-129
Hopkins
Isabelle
Kaplan
MacLelian
Western Economic Diversification Act
Nicholson	Prud'homme
(Trinity)	Rossi
Ouellet	Tardif
Penner	(Richmond-Wolfe)-19


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.
* *
*


WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and the diversification of the economy of western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and the motion of Mr. Hawkes:
That this question be now put.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)(a) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for the previous question in relation to Bill C-113. Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Accordingly the question is as follows. Mr. Mulroney, seconded by Mr. Clark (Brandon-Souris), moved that Bill C-l 13, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be now read a third time and do pass. Mr. Hawkes, seconded by Mr. Grise, moved:
That this question be now put.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Hawkes), which was agreed to on the following division.
	{Division No. 358)	
	YEAS	
	Members	
Belsher	Cardiff	CrosbyBernier	Clark	(HalifaxBertrand	(Brandon-Souris)	CrouseBlais	Clinch	DantzerBlouin	Cochrane	DaubneyBouchard	Collins	de CotretBourgault	Corbett	DesjardinsBoyer	Cossitt	DickBradley	Crofton	DuguayBrightwell	
May 10, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
Epp	MacDougall	Scott(Provencher)	(Timiskaming)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Fennell	MacKay	ScowenFerland	Martin	SiddonFraleigh	Mayer	SparrowFretz	Mazankowski	StewartFriesen	McCain	SulukGagnon	McCrossan	TardifGerin	McDermid	(Charlesbourg)Graham	McDougall	ThackerGris6	(St. Paul's)	TowersGustafson	Mclnnes	TremblayHalliday	McKenzie	(Quebec-Est)Hamelin	McKinnon	TremblayHardey	McKnight	(Lotbiniere)Hawkes	McLean	TupperHnatyshyn	Merrithew	TurnerHoltmann	Minaker	(Ottawa-Carleton)Hudon	Moore	ValcourtJelinek	Nicholson	Van De WalleJepson	(Niagara Falls)	VankoughnetJohnson	Nickerson	Vezina(Bonavista-Trinity-	Oberle	VincentConception)	O'Neil	WenmanJoncas	Oostrom	WhiteJourdenais	Pennock	WilsonKempling	Pietz	(Swift CurrentKindy	Porter	-Maple Creek)King	Price	WilsonLadouceur	Ravis	(EtobicokeLawrence	Reimer	Centre)Layton	Ricard	WiseLesick	St-Julien	Witer-112MacDonald	Schellenberger	(Kingston and	(Wetaskiwin)	the Islands) Althouse	NAYS Members Gauthier	OrlikowAngus	Gray	OuelletBenjamin	(Windsor West)	PennerBerger	Heap	Prud'hommeBoudria	Hopkins	RiisCassidy	Hovdebo	RobinsonCopps	Isabelle	Rodriguezde Jong	Kaplan	RossiDingwall	Langdon	TardifEpp	MacLellan	(Richmond-Wolfe)(Thunder Bay-	Manly	Young-36Nipigon)	McLaughlin	Finestone	Nicholson	Foster	(Trinity)	Gagliano	Nystrom	
(1830)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Had I been here on time, I would have voted with the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is as follows: Mr. Mulroney, seconded by Mr. Clark (Brandon- Souris), moved that Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of Western Canada, to establish the department of western economic diversification and to make consequential amendments to other acts be now read a third time and do pass.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour will please rise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.	At 6.41 p.m., the House adjourned

May 10, 1988


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
of
HER MAJESTY QUEEN BEATRIX OF THE NETHERLANDS to
Both Houses of Parliament in the
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER, OTTAWA on
Tuesday, May 10, 1988
Her Majesty was welcomed by the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Honourable Guy Charbonneau, Speaker of the Senate and the Honourable John A. Fraser, Speaker of the House of Commons.
Hon. John A. Fraser (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Order, please. The Right Honourable the Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, chers collegues, Honourable Senators:
It is a great honour for me to welcome you here today. On behalf of the Canadian Government, please allow me again to extend, Your Majesty and Your Royal Highness, our warmest welcome to Canada and especially to Ottawa. May I say it in a special way. When you are here in the House of Commons, Your Majesty, and in Ottawa, you are back home.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In a special sense I say, "Welcome home, bienvenue chez vous".
The relationships that exist between our two nations are in many ways unique. They are based first on immigration, which binds us together with family ties. Nearly a million Canadians pride themselves on their Dutch ancestry, and their contribution to Canada has been absolutely magnificent. There is the legacy of valour of the Second World War, during which our soldiers, our young men and women, fought for the freedom of your country.
I must pay special homage to the Members of Parliament, both past and present, who participated in the liberation of the Netherlands, including our very distinguished Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Honourable George Hees, who is with us here, Your Majesty, today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (mo)


Martin Brian Mulroney: He says, Your Majesty, that he entered the Canadian Forces as a boy of nine!
This afternoon, Your Majesty and Your Royal Highness will be inaugurating "The Sweetest Spring", an exhibition of art and artifacts at the Canadian War Museum. This exhibit, jointly mounted by the Canadian War Museum and the Royal Netherlands Army Museum, underlines our close ties and reinforces our common values.
[ Translation]
Our nations cherish the same important ideals of peace, justice and freedom. The presence of your family in Ottawa during the dark days of World War II formed the basis for a direct affinity between members of your family and Canada, and for a deep affection between Canadians and you yourself.

I know, Your Majesty, that you have fond memories of Stornoway, where you resided temporarily in Ottawa. I also have fond memories of Stornoway, where I resided temporarily in Ottawa. In fact, Your Majesty, all Leaders of the Opposition in Canada have come to regard this gracious home as essentially a temporary residence.
The splendid Dutch tulips, now in bloom on Parliament Hill and throughout our capital, are an enduring legacy of your family's wartime stay in Canada. This generous gift from Queen Juliana to the people of Canada is a unique tribute and one which all Canadians value, particularly at this time of year. When Princess Margriet was born here, the colours of the Netherlands were raised above these Parliament Buildings, celebrating the unprecedented event of a member of a reigning European Royal Family being born on North American soil.
Today this rich heritage has produced a wealth of political, economic, social, and trade relationships.

Your visit to Canada reaffirms the importance of our relations with the European Economic Community, with Western Europe and especially with the Netherlands. The history and the future of Western Europe are closely linked with our history and our future. Together we have formed an association as fruitful as it is diversified, based on political, economic and cultural ties, an unshakeable faith in democracy and an ardent desire to preserve our freedom.
The Netherlands have played a fundamental role in the development of Western civilization. To Canadians, Your Majesty, your country has always been synonymous with social justice and respect for human rights.
May 10, 1988



I am pleased to note that our dialogue in this area has been active and fruitful. I would like to underline, Your Majesty, the fact that we share similar views on major international issues should come as a surprise to no one. Our countries are committed members of the international community with similar political, economic, and trade objectives. Most of all, Your Majesty, our countries and our peoples are friends- friends who share values and traditions, friends who espouse the same principles, and whose children dream the same dreams.
On behalf of the Government of the people of Canada, I welcome you to Canada and, through you, extend our warmest greetings to the people of the Netherlands.
Your Majesty, may I ask you at this special and affectionate moment of home-coming to speak now to the Parliament and to all of the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands: Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, our meeting with the Canadian Parliament is taking place in the year in which we are commemorating the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which placed Dutch Stadholder William III together with his wife, Mary Stuart II on the throne of England.
The Glorious Revolution stands as a landmark in the development of British parliamentary democracy. By virtue of the Bill of Rights then presented to William of Orange and his wife before they ascended the throne, Britain's Parliament regained its traditional significance. The Bill of Rights reasserted that the Sovereign could only rule with the consent of the representatives of his subjects. To many peoples in the seventeenth century that was a revolutionary principle; the people of the Netherlands, however, had adopted the principle a century earlier. The subsequent political development of both the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth was conditioned by the principle of consent. In a few weeks, on the twentieth of July, the British House of Commons, the mother of all parliaments, will commemorate the events of 1688. It is pleasing to know that delegations from the Canadian and Netherlands parliaments will attend the ceremony.
In Canada in 1839 Lord Durham laid the foundations for a democratic form of government in his "Report on the Affairs of British North America". On the basis of the "responsible government" principle he entrusted the government of the colony to the colonists themselves. The policy of placing the responsibility for government with the people was thereby extended to Canada.
To our countries this form of responsibility has long ceased to be a matter of doubt or debate. In fact, we should now attach to the term "responsible government", the essence of the Durham report, a different, far deeper significance. Since then our dealings have become more international, our present
more linked to the future. Besides to their own citizens, to whom governments are quite naturally answerable, they are therefore feeling increasingly answerable to those with whom we share the world and to generations as yet unborn. This is the new signification of "responsible government".
The peoples of countries such as Canada and the Netherlands are particularly conscious of their common destiny with the other inhabitants of our globe. National decisions are increasingly making themselves felt far beyond frontiers. Governments are also increasingly being confronted with tasks they can no longer perform alone.
An international task for Canada was implicit in the three basic principles, namely, Peace, order and Good Government, of the Constitution Act, 1867. The maintenance of "Order" is a function that a government could perform alone, but not the maintenance of "Peace". By definition, therefore, "Good Government" can imply nothing but to govern in collaboration with other countries.
Canadians have long been aware of the fact that their country is a member of a global community. It was this realization that led to Canada's willingness to make sacrifices in the great conflicts of this century. Canada made an impressive contribution to the victory of the Allies in World War 1. She then played a prominent role as an active member of the League of Nations. Canadian participation in World War II was further evidence of her sense of international solidarity, which was of incalculable moment, particularly to the Netherlands. Much of Holland was liberated by Canadian soldiers, all of whom, exactly like their fathers, had crossed the Atlantic Ocean as volunteers to destroy a power and an ideology that posed a mortal threat to our common civilization. A few days ago, on the 4th and 5th of May, Holland gratefully commemorated the 1945 liberation and, as in every year, flowers were laid on the graves of members of the Canadian Forces who found their last resting place in our country.
After our common struggle in that war, our equally common conviction that democratic states should together safeguard their security found expression in new forms of co-operation among allies. Canada and the Netherlands have already been members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for 40 years. Both countries have from the outset regarded NATO as an organization that embraces more than mere common military defence. Article II of the treaty by which NATO was established speaks of the parties strengthening their free institutions, their democratic institutions, encouraging economic collaboration and creating a true Atlantic community. It is significant that this section was called "the Canadian Article".
A feeling of responsibility for the destiny of the world in general is also evident from the two countries' active participation in the work of the United Nations. An appeal to Canada for peace-keeping operations has never been in vain. Canada

May 10, 1988
and the Netherlands are also co-members of many other international institutions. Not only do their representatives meet each other there, they often defend the same points of view. A noteworthy unanimity between two countries here bridges the difference that separates them. Countries like Canada and Holland can make a valuable contribution, especially internationally, in the form of ideas, initiatives and mediation. Backed by the confidence they have gradually managed to inspire in the world, the very countries that are not among the superpowers may thus play a sometimes disproportionately important role.
One of the main aims of our two countries is the global promotion of the international rule of law. This is where we touch the heart of our responsibility for relations in today's world, a world teeming with problems. I will name only one of them: the lagging behind of what we call the Third World, that extensive area in which equitable relations leave a great deal to be desired and where the international rule of law is least in evidence. The duty not to acquiesce in that lag in development is implicit in "responsible government". Canada and the Netherlands give high priority to aid for the Third World and to economic co-operation with Third World countries. Our two nations have for years done much in this area, both to alleviate poverty directly and to render assistance in the longer term, to help people to help themselves. It was no mere chance that the first compendious United Nations report on Third World problems was drawn up by a commission chaired by Lester Pearson.
But "responsible government" in the field of development co-operation may not stop at emergency aid and charity. Neither is the transfer of capital and know-how sufficient. The opening of our markets is, economically and psychologically, just as important. That is the only way in which we can make a real contribution toward growth in the countries themselves. Indeed, it is disturbing that some developed countries are again considering protectionist measures. Protectionism is ultimately bad for everyone, but the poor countries are the victims; they are the first and the worst affected. By giving in to the inclination to protect ourselves we cause multiple damage, we hamper economic growth and increase injustice in the world. An open economy is both a Canadian and a Dutch tradition. It is pre-eminently a tradition we may not abandon.

Mr. Speaker, Lord Durham's compelling plea for "responsible government" alluded to responsibility towards citizens. The passage of time and social developments have given the term a new signification. As distances shrank and the interdependence of countries severally increased, we became ever more conscious of our responsibility towards all those who with us populate the world. This realization goes very deep in Canada and the Netherlands.
Moreover, the recent past has given the term "responsible government" a new dimension, our answerability for the
future, the obligation to leave behind for our children a world fit to live in.
Fifteen years ago the Club of Rome in its first report gave an urgent warning. As we see it now, the warning was perhaps not urgent enough. Not only is our highly developed society threatened by a future shortage of raw materials, but the very level of development we have already reached holds treats to our well-being, to say nothing of the hazards that loom if the creation of further opulence goes on at the same hectic pace.
It is essential that environmental research conducive to the adoption of rational measures be stepped up and that the efficacy of such research be increased through international co-operation. Preventive intervention is imperative in view of the irreversibility of certain processes that harm the environment. It is true that the very technical knowledge that threatens our future will often enable us to redress the damage done, but we only really control technology if we employ it to prevent damage. Only the courage to take unpopular measures now will safeguard the future for coming generations. The requirement that the quality of the heritage we have received and that we in turn shall have to hand on to posterity may not be impaired is not yet universally realized. Essential, fundamental alterations in our pattern of behaviour are overdue. The close attention of parliament and environment-conscious citizens is a requisite, a stimulus and a guarantee of an effective policy in this area. Politicians and industrialists must join forces and find the answers.
Illustrative of Canada's attitude is that the major United Nations conference on the ozone layer was held in Montreal last year, and that now Canada is again busy preparing a conference on "controlled development" as a follow-up of the Brundtland report.
There have been a number of successes in environmental protection, both national and international. A bolder approach at global level that takes the interconnection of matters concerning food supplies, the generation of power, development aid and the environment into account, is however required. The parallel Canadian and Dutch views on these problems and the approach to them invite a greater common advance in international planning.
In a bilateral context, environmental technology is one of the important fields in which Canada and Holland exchange know-how and experience. A Memorandum of Understanding between our governments on the subject was signed yesterday; similar memoranda with the governments of Ontario and Quebec are to be concluded shortly.
Mr. Speaker, Members of the House and the Senate, since the first parliament was set up, the elected representatives have fulfilled the mandate entrusted to them by the people. In our times, parliamentarians have been given another, double mandate: one by those with whom we live on this globe and
May 10, 1988

one by generations as yet unborn. The commitment to "responsible government", which cabinets and parliaments must honour has thereby been made much more onerous a task, and it demands courage to commit oneself wholly to this objective.
The term we must now have in mind is moreover far longer than the life of a parliament. The sense of responsibility for others and for the future is nevertheless deeply rooted in this legislative body. It was in this parliament, where I am your guest today, that political democracy was established in Canada in the 19th century. It is heartening to note that the members of today's assembly realize that they are now the guardians of a responsible democracy. Thank you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Guy Charbonneau (Speaker of the Senate):: Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, on behalf of the Senate I want to thank you most heartily for your remarks, which were a vivid testimony to the quality and vigour that characterize our bilateral relations, and to the importance of those relations.
Nor can I resist commenting on how very rare it is to receive within these walls the sovereign of a friendly and allied power who can point to a childhood spent, in part, in Canada's capital. It gives us, I think, an additional reason for our pleasure in welcoming you today to the Parliament of Canada. It is one of the distinguishing features of the links that bind our two countries. Our long tradition of working together to preserve the values that are dear to us reinforces the significance of the personal link, which has been extended in the most natural way by the many other family ties between Canada and the Netherlands.
[ Translation]
Your profound statements come as no surprise to students of the political writings of your great philosopher, Spinoza. Your reign as we have seen, continues the admirable example of your predecessors who were mindful of the role Spinoza urged governing authorities to play when he stated, and this was in the seventeenth century, that the rights of the individual took precedence over the authority of the State. Need I recall in your presence his warning that the State that denied this principle would be mere power and be vanquished by power?
It is indeed very fitting to say in this Chamber that you have evoked the great humanist tradition that brought us the principle of intellectual freedom. We understand why Descartes, attracted by the tolerance and love of freedom of your people, spent twenty years in Holland, and why Pascal admired the dialectics of your philosphers. The tradition continues today, at a time when your thinkers have spearheaded the movement for religious reform throughout the world, taking the calculated risk of bringing about a moral crisis.

The friendship between our two countries is consolidated by the significant commercial exchanges between us. Renowned
for their technological innovations and business sense, the Dutch are valued partners for dynamic, technologically advanced, and resource rich countries like Canada. Dutch investments in this country are already quite substantial and the possibility of more joint ventures and increased trade can only fortify our commercial relations.
Our cultural ties are also especially important for Canadians of Dutch origin who want to maintain their links with the Netherlands, but all Canadians cherish the spirit of friendship and co-operation which permeates our relations with your country. Our economic contacts, official visits, and the significant flow of tourists in both directions illustrate the wish of our citizens not only to retain our special ties, but also to nurture them for our mutual benefit.
Your Majesty, your visit to Canada will give you the opportunity to witness the vitality of our young country, but I have no doubt that the warmth of our feelings toward the Dutch nation will also become evident. I trust your trip will be a pleasant one and that it will provide you with more fond memories of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness-

Speaking on behalf of my colleagues in the House of Commons and of other honoured guests present in this Chamber, I wish to thank you for your most cordial speech. Canadians of Dutch descent have played a major role in many areas of Canadian society.

There have been people from your country, Your Majesty, in Canada from our earliest days. Their continuing presence explains why there is a certain resemblance between our two countries. We are convinced that this visit by Your Majesty and Your Royal Highness will help to reinforce those similarities and enable us to extend our co-operation along a number of promising avenues, taking as our starting point our already thriving relationship. Your profound appreciation of the need for international co-operation, especially in regard to our environment, has been most certainly noted in this Chamber today.
I would like to take this opportunity, presented by your presence within these walls, to ask you to convey the best wishes of the Canadian House of Commons to the people of your country and to assure them of our friendship. To you, Your Majesty, and Your Royal Highness, you will always be home in our country. God bless you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to announce that the House will convene at two o'clock this afternoon.

Wednesday, May 11, 1988


[Stage Direction]
Prayers