1988-04-28

Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with the working men and women of Canada, and indeed with all Canadians, in observing April 28 as the labour movement's national day of mourning to honour workers who are injured or killed on the job, or who suffer work-related diseases, and to draw greater attention to the serious and ever present problem of workplace safety and health.
The number of Canadian workers injured, killed, or made ill in the workplace every year constitutes a national tragedy.

The figures speak for themselves. In Canada every year, at least one out of every nine workers suffers a work-related injury. In 1986, the latest year for which full statistics are available, 869 Canadian workers were killed on the job, and 17.5 million person-days were lost due to accidents and injuries.
In addition to untold human suffering, these fatalities and injuries represent a loss of some 16 billion dollars in terms of direct and indirect costs-truly, a terrible burden for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, on this day I call on Hon. Members, on workers and employers and on all Canadians to stand together, resolved that we can and that we shall reduce this terrible toll, and that the price of our progress and our economic growth shall not be the lives and well-being of workers.
As Minister of Labour, this national day of mourning has special significance for me, since 1988 marks the 20th anniversary of the first federal occupational safety and health legislation in Canada.
Much progress has been made in this area over the past 20 years and today we see a growing trend to greater worker and employer involvement in occupational safety and health.
This ongoing trend recognizes that while laws and governmental organizations play an important role, in the final analysis it is the workers and employers who have the greatest role to play in preventing, eliminating or controlling hazards in the workplace.
Mr. Speaker, amendments made to the Canada Labour Code over the years have recognized and strengthened the right of workers to refuse dangerous work, the right of workers to be informed of hazards, and the right of workers and employers to participate in joint safety and health committees. All of these rights depend upon information. Information is the raw material from which are built co-operation and consensus.

The Government supports co-operation and consensusbuilding, and is always seeking new ways of giving workers and employers greater access to the information they need to prevent occupational injuries and illnesses.
An excellent example of this is the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, known as WHMIS. This system, which will come into force nationally by October 31, 1988, is a joint effort of the federal, provincial, and territorial Governments and is the result of several years of consultation between Governments, industry, and organized labour.
The purpose of WHMIS is to establish a uniform identification system for dangerous ingredients in the workplace. It will ensure that the hazardous materials produced, imported, or used within workplaces in Canada are adequately identified by suppliers using standard criteria. It will also ensure that data sheets on hazardous materials are transmitted by suppliers to employers and, subsequently, to employees.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the Government has recently allocated an additional $1.8 million for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety in Hamilton. The Centre is a successful example of tripartite co-operation. It is responsible for providing Canadians with information about occupational health and safety which is trustworthy, comprehensive, and intelligible. Its electronic information management system will support WHMIS.
It has demonstrated that the information it supplies results in improvements in the workplace. Workers, managers, and professionals trust the information and use it. That trust is increased by the centre's workshops which bring them together to establish common ground.
We are taking other steps on the legislative front to improve occupational safety and health. On Tuesday last, Bill C-124,

April 28, 1988
Statements by Ministers
an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, received second reading in the House. One of the purposes of this Bill is to provide better protection for certain Nova Scotia miners regulated by the Code. Because of the special risks involved in working in the Cape Breton coal mines, this Bill proposes, among other measures, to establish a tripartite coal mining safety commission.
Last year Hon. Members granted expeditious approval to a Bill which allows workers in the Flin Flon mineral area of northern Manitoba to be governed by a single, uniform, and modern set of regulations suited to the mining industry.
As another example of co-operation and consensus-building I would also mention the recent creation of the tripartite committee to look at one of the most dangerous occupations in Canada-the fishing industry. This committee, appointed by the federal and provincial Governments, is expected to make its recommendations this May.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the figures on occupational fatalities and injuries show that we indeed have cause to mourn. But there is also cause for optimism. For instance, in recent years-1985 and 1986-the rate of workers who suffer a work-related injury has been reduced from one in every eight workers to one in every nine workers.
Largely due to better informed employees and employers, this improvement is small, but encouraging. With the help of all concerned Canadians, Mr. Speaker, much has already been done and much more can and will be done to reduce the tragic toll of workplace accidents and illnesses.

After the statements of my colleagues, and with the permission of the House, I suggest that we observe one minute of silence out of respect for today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to take this opportunity to join Canadian workers who today, on April 28, the labour movement's National Day of Mourning, honour the memory of those who were injured and also, unfortunately, those who were killed in the workplace.
Mr. Speaker, despite the legislation that, over the years, has been passed by this Parliament and by most provinces in Canada, the number of accidents and injuries in the workplace is still too high. I may remind the House that it was in 1968, under the Liberal Government, that the first federal legislation on occupational health and safety was passed.
Today, one worker out of nine is injured by accidents- fewer than in the past-but I say this is still too much. What
the statistics do not mention is the story behind the figures we read in the reports released by Statistics Canada.

The real story that statistics do not tell is that despite the fact that only one out of nine workers suffers injury today, a reduction from past figures, the one who suffers this injury must live not with the one out of nine statistics but with 100 per cent in his case. It is very hard on these people and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the important role played by two well-known Quebecers in improving working conditions and occupational health and safety in the workplace.
First, I would like to mention the Hon. Jean Marchand, who represented the riding of Langelier in the House for many years and was appointed Minister. I think that if it had not been for his influence, the first occupational health and safety legislation passed by Parliament under a Liberal Government in 1968 might not have seen the light of day and been passed at all stages in the House.
Jean Marchand, who was very active in the Confederation of National Trade Unions, both as secretary and president, could not leave Parliament without leaving his mark in this way.
I would also like to mention the work done for many years by another very colourful member of the CNTU, Mr. Michel Chartrand, who was among the first in Quebec to warn about the hazards of the workplace which, at the time, were even more serious than they are today.
Those who have known the verve and eloquence of Michel Chartrand know what I mean, when I say that he defended very vigourously-and that is an understatement-and passionately the cause for better working conditions.
Mr. Speaker, the Party I represent, the Liberal Party of Canada, has always led the way in seeking improved health and safety conditions in the workplace. As I said earlier, it introduced the first piece of legislation in the House in this respect, and also worked with other governments over the years to improve working conditions. More recently, for instance, we helped to expedite legislation to provide for a Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, the WHMIS. Just two days ago, we were rushing to adopt Bill C-124, whose purpose is to improve safety in coal mines and to create the Coal Mining Safety Commission, which will be responsible for approving equipment and methods used in coal mines.
Mr. Speaker, over the years, conditions in the workplace have changed for the better. There was a time when the workplace, especially construction sites and other industrial environments, was a place where danger lurked on all sides. Today, things have improved a great deal.
April 28, 1988

Nevertheless, we cannot afford to relax our efforts and so much remains to be done. In fact, the Minister said so earlier in his speech. One Canadian worker injured out of nine is better, but it is still unacceptable. This figure must be brought down, especially since it does not reflect the situation in industries where accidents are far more numerous, and to name just one, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that among longshoremen in Canadian ports, which are under federal jurisdiction, the accident rate is much higher than the national average.
Finally, I invite Hon. Members from all Parties to join their efforts to improve conditions for Canadian workers.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and myself to join with the Minister and with the spokesman for the Liberal Party in observing April 28 as the labour movement's national day of mourning to honour workers who are injured or killed on the job. May I say that, at some point, we in this Party hope that this will be more than just the labour movement's national day of mourning and that it will be a Canadian day of mourning for workers injured or killed on the job.
Our labour critic, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) who is not able to be here today, introduced a Private Member's Bill to that effect on March 15, just one month ago. He introduced Bill C-286, an Act respecting a day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace, which, if passed, would see April 28 designated as a day of mourning in remembrance of persons killed or injured in the workplace. We hope that this Bill may become the instrument by which April 28 will be set aside by all Canadians as a day of remembrance for those killed or injured in the workplace.
I might also say, because I do not think it has been raised to this point, that the origin of choosing April 28 as the labour movement's national day of mourning was done because April 28, 1914 when the first worker safety legislation was introduced in Ontario.
After the rather self-congratulatory comments of the Liberal spokesperson I cannot resist saying that it was some 53 years later, during which time we were governed mostly by Liberal Governments, before we saw the first occupational health and safety legislation at the federal level. It seems to be a sign of the struggle that working people have had over the years to get protective legislation, and it was not until 1968 that we had this kind of legislation at the federal level. Side by side with working people all those years has been the New Democratic Party; before that, the CCF; before that, the Independent Labour Party; and before that, all the predecessors of the movement we represent today. We are very proud to be able to speak today and to lend our voice to this observation.
Statements by Ministers
I come from a community whose oral history is scattered with names of people who have been killed on the job. I come from a railway community. I grew up in a community where so-and-so's grandfather or father was killed on the road or in the shop in such-and-such a year. We often think, when we think of injured workers or workers killed on the job, of the high rates of injury and death for miners, fishermen, and others. I do not in any way mean to diminish that by highlighting what is my own experience, but certainly that is the case with respect to railways and it continues to be.
Just in Winnipeg alone in the last few years a number of people have been killed. Engineer Don McMillan was killed when his unit left the track and went into the overpass at Symington. Last year a road crane fell over and knocked down a pole, which in turn fell on a young railroader killing him instantly. Just a couple of months ago a young woman, a switch person who was studying to be a surgeon, got her arm caught in a knuckle and lost her arm from the elbow down. Obviously she will no longer be able to be a surgeon, but hopefully she will still be able to pursue a successful medical career. These kinds of things are happening all the time, and I think it is only appropriate that we have a day on which we can call attention to them.
The Minister says that the number of Canadian workers injured or killed constitutes a national tragedy. Of course, no one would disagree with him. It is a national tragedy that much more could be done to prevent. We signal to the Minister that we intend to keep putting pressure on this Government, as we have on previous Governments, to keep making improvements.
We are glad to see some of the things that have been done recently-for instance, the institution of the Workplace Hazardous Information System, WMHIS as it is sometimes known for obvious reasons. We are glad to see that, but much more progress must be made. When we debated the Canada Health Act in the House in 1984, I recall that one amendment I moved which was accepted into the preamble of the Act was that health was related to occupational health and safety. That principle is now built into the most fundamental health legislation of our country, and that Government has a mandated right out of the Act itself to pursue that kind of an approach at every opportunity it gets.
The Minister says, "let us all stand together". No one can argue with that, but is standing together the kind of thing that we see in the Railway Safety Act where companies, for violations of safety, are fined $50,000, a drop in the bucket to them, whereas workers are hit with a $10,000 fine? A $10,000 fine is obviously much more significant to workers than a $50,000 fine for the CNR or the CPR, which is hardly more than a licence to break the rules.
As a result of the increasingly competitive economic atmosphere, which the Government is always so proud of trying to worsen through deregulation, free trade, et cetera, a lot of pressure is being put on workers to be what companies

April 28, 1988
Committee Reports
call "more efficient". Often what that efficiency means is taking safety short-cuts. They are often under pressure to take those short-cuts, but if something happens or is found out, then it is the employee who must take the consequences. This is a bind in which rail workers and others are constantly being put. It is a bind which the Minister and others did not try to address in the Railway Safety Act and which they have not addressed adequately. Until they address it, we will not be able to be part of this great "back-patting" exercise that happens on these kinds of days. We will have to say with all sincerity that much more remains to be done and that we do not intend to be silent until it is done.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux). I think, given the eloquent statements by both members for the Opposition, that it would be appropriate to ask all Hon. Members to stand with me for one minute's silence.
[Editor's note: Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.]

[ Translation]


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixtieth report of the Striking Committee.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare.
In accordance with its order of reference dated September 24, 1987, your Committee has considered the consultation paper on survivors' benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, and pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) the Committee requests a comprehensive response.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
CONCURRENCE IN FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) moved:
That the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development, presented to the House on Wednesday, March 2,
1988, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased that this motion is before the House today. It is a matter of long-standing business that needs to be dealt with by Parliament, by the Minister and, I suppose, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney).
A brief history of what has happened to the Lubicon people is in order. Mr. Justice E. Davie Fulton, the former Minister of Justice of Canada, appeared before the Committee and the Committee took a majority vote to have Mr. Fulton attached as a mediator to the Lubicon matter, something which Mr. Fulton himself felt would be most appropriate. I think Hon. Members would agree that someone who is so widely respected by Canadians, having had a long and brilliant career in politics and as a Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, would be a most appropriate person for this. I suppose it is fair to say that the former Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), took that view in that he appointed Mr. Fulton to prepare a report in relation to the Lubicon matter.
After having heard Mr. Fulton and after having heard representatives of the Lubicon including Chief Bernard Ominayak and his council and others, it was the Committee's firm view that Mr. Fulton could most appropriately act as a mediator in the matter between the Government of Canada, the Lubicon band, and obviously the Government of Alberta. We felt that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs ought to be used as a conduit to try to achieve a satisfactory resolution to a long outstanding matter.
I think many Members of the House are unaware of the history and evolution of the sacred international treaties between the First Nations of Canada and various agencies of the Crown. In the case of some of the initial treaties in my Province of British Columbia, the Governor at the time, Governor Douglas, obtained and created treaties with 14 of the nations on Vancouver Island, and those are international treaties as has been recognized by the courts of British Columbia. Certainly the treaties from the Prairies, Treaty 6, Treaty 8 and others, particularly from Alberta, are also recognized internationally as sacred treaties which are legally binding on the Crown.
Just to give Hon. Members a brief synopsis of the history, back in 1899, because the band was not located on a main waterway, it was missed by the Treaty 8 party and scrip commissioners. They were travelling in that area of Alberta and northwestern British Columbia, preparing lists of aboriginal populations for the preparation of Treaty 8. For reasons of speed, I suppose, the Lubicon people were not included in the evaluations that were done in 1899 just prior to the signing of Treaty 8.
April 28, 1988
[Stage Direction]
In 1939, the band was visited by officials of Indian Affairs who recognized them as as separate band and promised them a reserve. The band membership list was drawn up and was left open so that the names of members who were in the bush, at work, or elsewhere could be added at a later date.
In 1939 and 1940 land on the western end of Lubicon Lake was chosen as a reserve and was approved by both levels of Government-Alberta and Canada. In 1942 a member of the Department of Indian Affairs named McCrimmon decided to close the band membership list and to remove names of persons not registered by 1912, thereby taking retroactive action in removing names from the list after a third of a century. The incomplete Lubicon band list was then cut from 154 to 64 persons.
In 1943 and 1944 the report of Judge McKeen and a judicial inquiry under Judge McDonald came out in favour of the band regarding membership lists, but this was again shelved by the Department. In 1952, due to numerous oil company inquiries about the area, Alberta brought the question of the reserve to federal attention once more.
In 1952 and 1953 the local Indian agent determined that the Lubicon site was "too isolated and inconvenient", and met with the band to try to get them to agree to another site. Later in 1953 the Province gave the federal Government a 30-day ultimatum about the reserve, assuming that the reserve would be struck from the record if no reply was received. The federal Government did not reply.
Between 1952 and 1973, attempts were made to eliminate the band through transfer-illegitimate transfer, as I might point out-of band members to other bands and through enfranchisement.
In 1954 a mission school was built at Little Buffalo Lake and families gradually moved there to allow their children to attend school.
In 1970 an all-weather road was constructed by the provincial Government from Peace River to the Lubicon lands.
In 1973 the band's existence as as separate band was confirmed by Order in Council, and in 1975 the band tried to file a caveat to serve notice of their unextinguished aboriginal claim. The Province refused to accept the caveat and the hearing was postponed until a similar case in the Northwest Territories was concluded.
Of course, when that case was concluded in 1976, it came out against the native people but stated that had the law there been the same as in Alberta the result would have been the opposite, sending a very clear signal to both levels of Government to move and to move expeditiously to settle the outstanding claim, rights, and title of the Lubicon people.
A serious hitch came along in 1977. The provincial Government changed the law retroactively by passing Bill 29, and the Lubicon's case was then dismissed.
Motions
In 1980 many oil companies began operations in the area. These operations included the bulldozing of roads, the drilling of wells, and the building of pipelines. The band's selfsufficient traditional lifestyle was suddenly no longer possible. Moose had been the main source of meat, and the number of moose killed declined drastically from 120 in 1982 to 27 in 1983 and down to three in 1984.
We can see that the game were moving rapidly out of the area. As Mr. Justice E. Davie Fulton concluded in his report, the impact of the 400 gas and oil wells, the construction of the pipelines, and fires at the drill sites had razed over 600 square miles of territory traditionally used for hunting and trapping by the Lubicon people. That territory had been laid to waste.
I think Hon. Members should recall what Mr. Justice Peter Seaton had to say on the Meares Island case, a case that I think Members of the House should take the time to read. Mr. Justice Peter Seaton said that there are few if any imaginable aboriginal rights left after an area has been clear cut. I think the same understanding of the situation was related by Mr. Justice E. Davie Fulton in relation to this area that was burned and developed, an area historically used for not just thousands of years but for 10,000 or more years by the Lubicon-Cree.
In 1981 the community was declared a provincial hamlet and people were told to apply for leases to their land or to accept it as a gift. The Province then stated that the community could not be part of the land claim since it was now a provincial hamlet.
In 1982 the band applied for an injunction preventing further development, and the injunction was denied. The judge decided that the Indian way of life does not exist and that something that does not exist cannot be damaged.
In 1984 a fact-finding mission of the World Council of Churches substantiated the Lubicon's allegations of injustice. In that same year band members were told by the Province to remove unauthorized fences, corrals, and houses. They were told to apply for provincial leases or to purchase the land in order to keep their property there. The band responded by saying that they had never ceded their traditional lands and recognized no authority of the provincial Government over those lands. To apply for leases from the Province would recognize its authority and weaken their land claim.
In 1985 Mr. Justice E. Davie Fulton was appointed by the federal Government to study the situation, and his report is now well known, at least to those who have interest in this matter. In 1986 negotiations began but quickly broke down when it became apparent that promises to negotiate on the basis of the Fulton report were not being honoured and, in the same year, a boycott of the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics was announced by the band to draw attention to their desperate situation and to denounce the actions of a provincial Government that would be receiving much attention and prestige from the event.
[Stage Direction]
April 28, 1988
Motions
By 1987 the band was once again asked by the federal Government to negotiate on the basis of the Fulton report, as well as for the public release of the report and to have Fulton on as a mediator.
This issue has been given not just broad provincial coverage in Alberta by the media there and by newspapers, television, and radio nationally but also internationally. The plight of the Lubicon people and the mistreatment and maltreatment of them by both the Alberta Government and the federal Government have received notorious attention around the world. There are reasons for that.
The Minister responsible for Alberta Native Affairs, Milton Pahl, went so far as to tell the Alberta Legislature in 1984 that the Lubicon-Cree do not exist. He said: "They may have as few as nine members". Resistance by the Alberta and federal Governments to the band has been strong enough to attract attention from the international human rights community. The director of the program to combat racism of the World Council of Churches in Geneva studied the case in 1983 and concluded that in the last couple of years the Alberta provincial Government and dozens of multinational oil companies have taken actions that could have genocidal consequences.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee studied the case for three years and concluded last summer that the rights of the Lubicon-Cree were being seriously abused. A full hearing of the case is to be held later this year in Geneva.
While E. Davie Fulton was studying the matter for the Government of Canada and the Lubicon people, he had a number of things to say. He was interviewed by John Goddard in an excellent article published in Saturday Night magazine in February of this year. In relation to the exploratory and development work done on the lands of the Lubicon, the article indicates:
Fulton expressed surprise at the extent of the work. Nearly 400 oil wells had been drilled within a ten-mile radius of Little Buffalo. Fulton also expressed surprise at the fire damage: 641 square miles of bush destroyed in the first three years of the oil boom... "I have seen the terrible effects of development"...
"I want to try to do something about it." ... I now realize that there are an appreciable number of Indians in Canada proper whose situations have never been settled"... "This particular band, God help them, was promised a settlement in 1940, and they're still waiting for it forty-seven years later. Their situation cries out for just and equitable treatment".
That is what the former Minister of Justice under John Diefenbaker and a former Justice of the Supreme Court had to say. The article continues:
The Member for Peace River, Jack Sissons (later the famous flying judge of the far north), declared himself "incensed," and summarized numerous complaints for the Minister: "that striking these persons off the lists was arbitrary, discreditable and indefensible; that these were Hitler tactics; that the Government has broken faith with the Indians; that the action indicates that there is in the Department lack of proper knowledge of the Indians and the territory; that the Indians are being treated like dogs; that this is oppression of the weak by the strong; that these people have no one to fight for them; that the Department is indifferent and unsympathetic to the welfare of
the Indians; and generally that the action is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Indian Act."
That is pretty strong language, but I think it hits the nail on the head. Mr. Fulton, who the Committee has proposed to act as a mediator, has accepted in principle the need for someone of his experience and understanding of the matter. He is now 71 years of age. He was the federal Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada from 1957 to 1962 and a B.C. Supreme Court Judge from 1973 to 1981. As Don Braid pointed out in an article written earlier this year:
There's only one move that will work. Bill McKnight should call and ask him to mediate the claim.
The number's in the book, under LAWYERS. Fulton answers his phone very quickly these days.
A matter which occurred earlier this year also deserves the attention of all Members of this House. The Committee is disturbed and concerned about it. I know that my friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), will have much to say about the problems which have been created by the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) by his lack of attention to how this situation has caused such great concern in Canada and internationally.
As was pointed out by the national Chief of the Assembly of First Nations in an article in the Calgary Herald under the headline "McKnight in conflict of interest: native leader":
Indian Affairs Minister Bill McKnight has bungled the Lubicon land claim and his entire portfolio and must be replaced, says the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations.
Erasmus said McKnight is in conflict of interest, responsible for Indians as well as Minister in charge of the western diversification fund, which has given $9.5 million to a Japanese pulp company given timber rights on the Lubicon's traditional territory.
Erasmus blasted the federal Government's offer last week of $500,000 compensation to the Lubicons for lost treaty benefits.
"He offers half a million dollars for lost treaty benefits to the Crees of Lubicon, who never signed a treaty, then he hands a foreign company 19 times that much, $9.5 million, plus the timber resources of the Lubicons ... it's an outrage."
We know that the Government of Alberta has agreed, without ever tendering so that Canadian companies could bid on the lands or others could be involved in a democratically appropriate process, to transfer 11,000 square miles to Daishowa pulp company earlier this year. The conflict of interest was very clear and I confirmed it with departmental officials. A cabinet order required the Minister of Indian Affairs, in his responsibilities for both that and the Western Diversification office, to conduct an initial environmental impact evaluation of the proposal to build a pulp mill on the Peace River, both in terms of its impact on the Lubicon people and also in terms of its impact on federal matters, aboriginal matters, and aboriginal lands, particularly those that lie in the Lubicon traditional territory and in Wood Buffalo National Park. That was never done.
Therefore, the Minister is clearly in a conflict of interest for providing money to the Daishowa pulp project without having
April 28, 1988
[Stage Direction]
complied with a cabinet order. He also has not stood up for the sacred trust responsibility he has to the Lubicon people by allowing the very lands which were under negotiation to be transferred untendered, lock, stock, and barrel, to a foreign-owned corporation.
In February the all-Party House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, of which I am a member, urged the appointment of Conservative Justice Minister Davie Fulton to reach a settlement in the band dispute. An article in The Globe and Mail of February 10, 1988, by Graham Fraser reads:
The former British Columbia Supreme Court justice said yesterday that he is prepared at any time to take part in the negotiations.
"I'm anxious to do anything I can to bring about a just and equitable solution," he told The Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Committee.
Mr. Fulton said he feels that within three to six months, it should be possible to see if there is a basis for agreement.
Today we could well have been on the verge of a satisfactory settlement for the Lubicon people, if the Minister had seen fit to put a very knowledgeable and respected Canadian at the helm of a process which he and the Governments of Canada and Alberta have bungled so badly for so many years.
The article goes on to say:
However, he also told the committee that Indian and Northern Affairs Minister William McKnight is opposed to his involvement in the issue.
"He has stated that he feels that I have stated an opinion that is unacceptable to the Government of Canada, and that on that basis, I would be a prejudiced party," Mr. Fulton said. "His opinion is based on a misreading of my report."
In relation to the impact of recent years of development he said:
As a result ... it became impossible for the Lubicon to continue hunting and trapping on the land.
In 1940, the federal Government agreed to grant the band about 50 hectares per individual, based on a population of 127, which would have amounted to about 65 square kilometers.
The Alberta Government has agreed to this amount, but no more, and has said it will challenge any figure above that.
The proposed pulp mill is an irritant which must be overcome. The Government of Canada must take its responsibility much more seriously. There are no signs of that from the present Minister and I think it is now up to the Prime Minister to take the bull by the horns and either replace the Minister or accept the recommendation which was put forward in good faith by all members of the Standing Committee.
This is not only an NDP idea or a Liberal idea or a Conservative idea. Members from all three Parties made a very serious recommendation, after having heard evidence which the Minister never heard, after after having heard E. Davie Fulton, after having studied the issue and heard the views of Albertans, and having heard recommendations of sources from around the country including the First Nations of Canada and others.
Motions
We should listen, from time to time, to pressure from people such as Archbishop Ted Scott, the President of the Canadian Council of Churches, who telexed the Prime Minister following the decision made by the Standing Committee on this matter. On behalf of the Canadian Council of Churches, Archbishop Scott urged the Prime Minister "to immediately implement the resolution passed today by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development calling on the Government of Canada to initiate bilateral negotiations with the Lubicon Lake Indian band over the next six months and to appoint the Hon. E. Davie Fulton as mediator in a determined effort to seek a just settlement on this long, outstanding land claims dispute". That is from the February 9 telex message from Ted Scott to the Prime Minister.
There are groups in Canada and groups around the world that take this issue very seriously. The Standing Committee has an opportunity, two months after we made this recommendation, to reflect on the fact that there has been very little progress in these many months since we tried to stimulate at least the process that had some hope of success. Rather than that, we have seen the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada continue, both here in Canada and at the international level, to try to block the legitimate aspirations of the Lubicon people for a fair settlement.
As First Nations and as original inhabitants and occupants of Canada, I think it is high time this Parliament listened carefully and involved someone such as E. Davie Fulton as a mediator to find a just settlement.
Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talked about the reduction of the population of the Lubicon band in 1944 from 164 to 127 persons. What was the basis for this reduction? What was the effect of that as far as the band and its claims were concerned?


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, that question is key to the kind of jiggery-pokery that has gone on for a long time, both at the bureaucratic and political level.
In 1942 a man named McCrimmon, a paid bureaucratic with the Department of Indian Affairs, decided to close the band membership list and remove the names of persons not registered by 1912. A bureaucrat unilaterally decided that 30 years of history would be suddenly undone and that all of those individuals who had been added during that 30-year period would simply be wiped off the list. That cut the Lubicon Lake band list from 154 to 64 persons.
We can see that that kind of thought process has continued throughout this century. I quoted Milton Pahl speaking in the Alberta Legislature, who claimed just three years ago that there were only nine Lubicons and that the Lubicon band did not exist.

April 28, 1988
Motions
The fact is that the Lubicons, who had an extensive genealogical survey done, have continued to point out that at least as of November last year there were 457 Lubicon people. That is the basis of the dispute being put forward by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the House. He claims that that may not be the right number. The Government of Alberta would like to claim that there are no Lubicons, but national and international opinion has turned against that kind of blindness to reality.
Over 500 bands in this country face a continuing problem in having Canadians, particularly elected Governments, understand the basis of their claim that they were original occupants of North America when the French and English arrived. Even at the time when Columbus was lost at sea this hemisphere was very heavily occupied.
Historians now believe that at the time of contact there were as many as 400,000 aboriginal occupants on the coast of the Pacific northwest. Let us recognize the treaties as being the sacred international documents they are. This is something against which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has been fighting in Geneva.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) and others have been fighting against this at the ILO. We have to understand that these are sovereign people who were the original occupants of this continent.
The Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in this land, recognized unanimously in 1972 that aboriginal title exists and is outstanding in Canada. How Parliaments and Legislatures go about settling that is something the court has backed away from for many years. In fact, there was a three-three tie on the famed Calder case. Rather than making a decision, it wanted legislatures to negotiate and arrive at fair settlements. That is something that neither Premier Getty nor the Prime Minister are prepared to do at this point for the Lubicons and other outstanding specific and comprehensive claims.
The numbers game that was illegitimately played in 1942 by Mr. McCrimmon has been attempted again by Milton Pahl in the Alberta Legislature and by the Prime Minister. I think it is high time that we recognize the rights of the Lubicon people to determine their membership and get on with the important job of finding a mediator, such as Mr. Fulton, who can bring about a fair and just settlement.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I am a Member of Parliament from Calgary, Alberta. I have been in this Chamber and lived through public policies that have hurt western Canada, put people out of work, created unemployment, created wife beating and child abuse.
I have been particularly proud to stand up in this Chamber and participate in introducing legislation to redress those wrongs.
It is almost twelve o'clock and we are on Routine Proceedings. We are having a debate on concurrence in a committee report-


Mr. Riis:: It is called native people.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -deliberately designed by the New Democratic Party, with the participation of that Member in a filibuster, to stop this House from passing the western diversification Bill. Western Canada needs this diversification Bill. It has been filibustered at various stages in this Chamber.
Yesterday they were trying to filibuster regional help for Atlantic Canada, but we had extended hours so that we could have a full and complete debate and still move toward passage of the legislation.
There is important public business to be done. Ordinary Canadians need and want legislation designed to help them. I say to Members opposite that they should not allow the results of the Manitoba election to scare them unduly about a federal election. We should be getting co-operation from the other side so that we can complete the agenda and go to the people. It is time for them to stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. They say out of one side that they want an election, but when one looks at their behaviour one sees that they are stopping good, positive legislation. They are filibustering because they do not really want an election. If so, they would stop this filibustering.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we certainly just heard from both sides of the mouth. It was a Conservative Member from Calgary who joined with my friend, the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), and I to bring this matter before the House of Commons.
The aboriginal people of Alberta should recognize what that Member is talking about. This is the first opportunity the House has had to hear a very important recommendation from an all-Party Committee on a vote that was supported by another Conservative Member from Calgary. I wonder where that Member is today, to speak in support of getting some kind of action to get the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to move to involve E. Davie Fulton.


Mr. Lewis:: Did you give him notice?


James Ross Fulton: What do the Conservatives have against E. Davie Fulton? He was the Minister of Justice with John Diefenbaker. He was on the Supreme Court of British Columbia. He is a notoriously brilliant lawyer and politician, respected on all sides of the House.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) says that there is a filibuster taking place. The fact is that the Conservative Government is not doing anything for aboriginal people. It is not doing anything for the first citizens of the country. It is high bloody time Members like the Member from Calgary stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. Perhaps he should talk to his colleague from Calgary and find
April 28, 1988

out what the people of Alberta really think about that kind of nonsense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate, the Hon. Minister of State.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to make the point that the Government is curtailing debate on a matter of importance to the native people across this country. It is muzzling debate. This is the one chance we have had to raise native issues in the last number of months, and the Government is curtailing that debate.


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is not a debatable motion. I do not want a debate on the motion.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: , seconded by Mr. Hawkes, that the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that further to the Minister's statement, Government Orders will be extended by 22 minutes as of 1 p.m. today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Don Mazankowski (for the Prime Minister) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.

April 28, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to,
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have seen another performance by the western New Democratic Party members. They have contradicted themselves again. They say that they want western diversification and that they want an improvement in the western economy.
Today we have before us a Bill that will do just what the New Democrats say they would like to see happen. However, what do we get? We get a filibuster from them by introducing a report from a committee-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am seeking some clarification in light of the Hon. Member's remarks. We are now beginning third reading debate on western diversification. The Hon. Member is the first speaker, and we are looking forward to a lengthy debate to make sure that all aspects of western economic development are covered. I am curious about the Hon. Member saying that for some reason this matter is not proceeding expeditiously.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we want to debate and pass legislation that would diversify the western economy and create the kind of jobs that all of us in western Canada would like to see created. However, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who says that he would like to see the economy diversify and would like to see jobs created in western Canada and in his own riding, introduced a motion to debate a committee report for which an agreement is already in process, just so that he can slow down debate. I find that reprehensible.
It is my pleasure to speak on third reading of Bill C-113-


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like some clarification from the Hon. Member. The debate that started this morning in relation to the Lubicon resulted from a report and a vote taken by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, and it was properly put before the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. We have just taken a vote on whatever happened this morning. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Benno Friesen: There you see it again, Mr. Speaker. When we are trying to debate this Bill, we get interruptions. I wish the members of the NDP would become serious about this and would let us pass this legislation.
As I was saying, this is an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of western Canada. This Government came to power committed to a new approach to regional development. Bill C-113, similar legislation for the Atlantic region and regional initiatives in Ontario and Quebec demonstrate that this Government is making the effort to change long established institutional practices in a way that more accurately reflects the regional realities of Canada.
I was pleased to see that the legislative committee and Members of the House have been able to deal with this Bill so quickly. We hope that we have speedy approval here today.
I find that there is widespread support for the western diversification initiative, but there is a certain impatience because we do not already have in place this important legislative tool to do the job that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) set out for us last August when he announced the initiative.
In designing the western diversification initiative and the present legislation, westerners in the business community, labour, and Government expressed their concerns and gave their ideas on what they would like to see the federal Government do to encourage development in the West. This initiative has benefitted from their contributions.
In Government, I would particularly like to draw attention to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and to my other western colleagues for the work they have done in bringing forward this initiative.
Now that Hon. Members have had time to review the legislation, they will see that the work was well worth the effort. A piece of enabling legislation has been put forward that provides a solid foundation for building an effective Department specifically designed to meet the needs and conditions of the West.
Natural resources are the West's major economic strength and its major economic weakness. Our reliance on producing a few commodities leaves us exposed to downturns in the economy that result in depressed sales and prices. If there is one thing on which westerners are agreed, it is on the need to even out the economic roller-coaster through diversification of the economy.
Diversification is not something that can be commanded or directed from Ottawa. It must come from the people in the West with ideas, talent, and commitment. Only they can seize the opportunities available.
We know from discussions with westerners and from the nearly 3,000 proposals, the 4,000 office visits, and the 50,000 telephone inquiries received by western diversification that the ideas are there as are the people who can put them into action.
This Government has done much to create the right climate for economic growth and investment and to reinvigorate the West. In coming to the aid of western farmers, removing
April 28, 1988

unjust energy policies and taxes, and helping the transportation sector, we have released new vitality and economic renewal. The western diversification initiative is now encouraging, directly and indirectly, the people and the enterprises with the good ideas to diversify the economy and thus make it less vulnerable.
The purpose of Bill C-113 is to promote development and diversification in the West and to advance the interests of the West in federal decision-making. In other words, westerners will now have a Department to which they can turn for assistance and which speaks for their interests in government.
In the West we know that the distance from Ottawa to Saskatoon is much greater than the distance from Saskatoon to Ottawa. The new Department and the Deputy Minister are to be based in Edmonton. Regional offices with Assistant Deputy Ministers in charge are to be located in Vancouver, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg. Westerners will have easy access to the Department and senior officials will be more in tune with the concerns and problems of the West. The office will promote a regionally based, not Ottawa imposed, approach to economic development.
Pathfinding is an important function of these offices. Small businesses often cannot afford the time or expense to look for government assistance. To date, more than 70 firms have been assisted in finding appropriate government support outside that offered by western diversification.
The Ottawa liaison office will perform the advocacy role. The Bill gives the Minister authority to guide and lead in the creation of government policies and programs for the West. As well, the Minister and the Department have the power to formulate plans and integrated strategies and, where appropriate, to oversee them.
We heard in the Commons debate during second reading that the Ottawa office lacked the capability to perform its important advocacy role. The Opposition seemed to be suggesting that the Department should be Ottawa based. I want to assure Hon. Members that we do not share that view. The Ottawa office will, however, be staffed in numbers and in rank sufficient to do the job. Already the office is having an impact, and its influence will grow in shaping national policies and national expenditures from a western point of view.
The use of these advocacy powers at the centre of government will ensure that government actions are sensitive to western concerns and issues. Furthermore, the Department will work to overcome piecemeal approaches to development and diversification.
The Government recognizes that small and medium-sized enterprises offer great potential for achieving economic diversification. Statistics Canada tells us that firms with fewer than 20 employees were responsible for 80 per cent of all net job creation in the West in the years 1978 to 1984. Seventy-five per cent of these new jobs came from firms that did not exist before 1978. We know from western diversification's own
Western Economic Diversification Act
records that small business is interested in the type of support western diversification offers.
Western diversification is responsive to small business. Many of the projects approved for support have been awarded to small businesses. Roughly 70 per cent of approvals have been for funds less than $100,000. This assistance has been given under existing authorities. With passage of the legislation, the Department will give special attention to how to further encourage these types of enterprises.
The legislation is not restrictive. If WD can achieve its objectives by working with larger enterprises, the Department has the authority to act. WD is particularly interested in supporting endeavours that will have widespread systemic effects that ripple through an economic sector to benefit both small and large enterprises.
One of the main thrusts of the western diversification initiative is the Western Diversification Fund. The legislation authorizes ways in which the Department can offer financial assistance for proposals that further diversification.
The legislative committee heard that small business in the West is not looking for government hand-outs. They expressed a particular desire for federal government support to make up for the inadequacies of existing financial institutions that fail to meet the financing needs.
The legislation before us today gives the Department of Western Economic Diversification the power to offer loans, loan guarantees, and credit insurance. The Department will be in a better position to complement existing financial institutions and services by being able to offer a wide range of financial assistance once this Bill is passed.
Again we heard of the desire for federal support for small business development corporations and other innovative arrangements to respond to local initiatives. The present legislation gives WD the authority and the flexibility to participate in any such arrangements that will improve the business environment in the West and lead to economic diversification.
Flexibility and innovation will be the keys to success. We know that the problems of the West cannot be solved by simply throwing money at them. However, financial assistance can be effective if used strategically to help implement initiatives that create new opportunities for an economic sector or open up new areas of economic activity.
To date western diversification has been restricted in the financial assistance it can offer. With passage of the legislation the Department will have more options to tailor financial assistance better to the needs of people and business with good ideas.
In broad terms western diversification wants to encourage investments in areas that promote new technologies, develop

April 28, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
new markets, replace products that the West imports, make use of under-utilized resources, and increase productivity.
The legislation before us is innovative and long overdue. The problems of the West are real, and we have an obligation to see that the institutions and policies are put in place to deal with them. This legislation enables us to get on with the job.
The new Department created by this legislation will give the West a strong voice in contributing to national decisionmaking, in influencing the machinery of government to respond more effectively and equitably to western needs, and in gaining greater access to national economic programs.
The Department will administer its programs and the Western Diversification Fund in a manner designed to broaden the economic base of the West. The Department, in summary, has the co-ordinating role of a central agency and the operating role of a line Department.
The legislation provides a firm foundation for an innovative new approach to regional development and for tackling the problems holding back diversification of the western economy. The quicker we can get on with the job the better. I urge speedy approval of Bill C-113. Therefore I move:
That the House continue to sit through the lunch hour for the purpose of continuing consideration of 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.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Will those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places?
And fewer than 15 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being fewer than 15 Members rising in objection to the motion, the motion is deemed to be carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on questions and comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no provision for questions and comments at this time.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would review Standing Order 55(1) which seems to indicate that there is a 10-minute question period provided for after such a speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I bring to the attention of the Hon. Member that we are at third reading. The first two Members speaking have unlimited time. After that Members are allotted 20 minutes for their speeches, plus a 10-minute period for questions and comments.
Therefore, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has the floor on debate.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, every Member of the House, particularly those from western Canada, supports western diversification. The issue in this debate is whether this is the most effective, most useful, and most productive way of achieving it. Unfortunately the Government has tried to pretend that western diversification only starts with the passage of this Bill. Unfortunately it ignores the other initiatives and programs which have been applied to western Canada. It has made no attempt to learn from those programs what the basic federal responsibility and requirements should be.
Part of the reason for that has been the haste. An almost frantic anxiety over this Bill was most clearly demonstrated when the Bill was given second reading, after very moderate debate, and Conservative members of the committee undertook to embargo any kind of committee work whatsoever. There were no representations, no witnesses, and no examination. They tried to railroad the Bill right through Parliament. It was only after we appealed to the Chair that we be given our minimal parliamentary rights that we were able to rescind the incredible Draconian suppression of parliamentary prerogatives and rights. Even then we were allowed the sum total of three and four witnesses, even though there was a much more extensive list of people who wanted to attend.
Putting into place legislation as important as this one would have assumed that there should have been broad and extensive consultation. There was much greater anxiety to have an election goodie on the Government's list of achievements than to have good legislation. There was no effort to think carefully through what was being done. There are some very serious flaws in the legislation which will handicap the efforts of future Governments to apply the resources and initiatives required in western Canada.
One reason for that is that there is once again a major difference in philosophy. The Government in power believes that the only way to develop a country or region is through individual activities and individual enterprises. It sees no constructive, positive, creative roles for the public sector working in partnership with private business. There is a blindfold on what has been the genius of Canadian history, that is, the development of this country through a mixed economy, a combined effort of various public and private sector initiatives.
It has often been the public sector which has had to make the major, strategic choice and has tried to put out a blueprint. It has not simply left it up to the market-place to determine what will be developed and how and where it will be developed. That is of particular importance in a region like western Canada where there is not a large private sector. We do not have big corporations and vast networks of businesses such as exist in southern Ontario. That is why public sector involvement has been very crucial, yet all we have seen since the Government came to power in 1984 is the dismemberment of many important development initiatives by the public sector in western Canada.
April 28, 1988

Let us use the example of Petro-Canada, a Crown corporation. The previous Government had established a research centre called Canertech, which was to provide special funding and initiatives in the area of renewable resources. It was to find an alternative, such as ethynol or hydrogen power, so that we could get away from the idea that our energy is based solely upon non-renewable resources. That institute was cancelled even though it had established a very good working relationship with a number of businesses and research institutions. Petro-Canada wiped out the jobs of 280 research workers in its own organization.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) says that what we really require in Canada is more research and development. He says that we need more scientists, engineers, and others working in practical areas of research. Yet, his own Crown corporation closes down its research facilities in the City of Calgary, throwing 280 people out on the streets.
How can the Government talk about research and development when it is retreating from that important field? Must we rely on a small business with a cash flow of perhaps $4 million or $5 million to duplicate what Petro-Canada did? Of course it cannot be done. Research is not taking place because the Government does not recognize the effectiveness of having public sector initiated research and development. It has a blind ideological obsession that the private sector is good and the public sector is bad. It is a kind of Manichaean dichotomy about what is good and what is bad in the world.
There must be a proper balance between the two in western Canada. The western diversification fund does not provide the kind of blueprint by which western Canada will be able to enter an economy that is increasingly dominated by high technology and information sciences. Most small and medium sized businesses do not have the capacity to mount the kind of research and development that goes into these areas.
I want to refer to an interesting document entitled "Innovation Policy in the Western Provinces". It was put out by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, perhaps one of the best known and most highly regarded economic research institutions in the world. It deals with the economic requirements of the major industrial states.
What are the primary recommendations in this document? One is that there must be a number of public sector infrastructure investments at both the provincial and federal level in order to ensure that the western Canadian economy in the four western provinces acquires the capacity to mobilize resources to compete in a high-tech age. Yet the western diversification legislation excludes investment infrastructure, the very thing the organization says that we need. It cannot be done with this Bill.
Since 1970 the federal Government of the day invested in over 30 research centres in western Canada. These were situated at universities or independent organizations in a
Western Economic Diversification Act
deliberate attempt to counterbalance the concentration of scientific activity in central Canada and to make sure western Canada had adequate opportunities in such areas as microelectronics, biotechnology, and industrial research. Many of those were closed down by the Government, or the funding was restricted.
At one time the National Research Council had over 5,000 personnel in western Canada. That number has decreased as a result of cut-backs.
The advocates of this legislation say that they are trying to encourage the diversification of the western economy, but the fact is they have been the culprits in cutting back and removing the kind of investment that would be required to bring about that development. This legislation does not address that issue.
Let me also point out what I believe is a fraudulent statement on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary who introduced third reading, as well as other Members. They suggested that this will represent the opening round of opportunities for western businesses to get loans and grants in order to expand their businesses or work in new areas. That is a falsehood.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary totally unaware of the Economic Regional Development Agreements that have been working in the western provinces since 1980? They will contribute more money in those four years than is contained in the western diversification fund. The total investment from ERDA was $2.1 billion as opposed to the $1.2 billion in this western diversification fund.
We asked the Minister in committee whether the ERDA will continue. He said that they have not yet made up their minds. In other words, he is saying that this is replacing the ERDA programs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to the very informative speech by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), but I do not see a quorum in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will ask the Deputy Clerk to count the Members present.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being 20 Members present, not including the occupant of the chair, the debate shall accordingly continue. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it shows the dedication and commitment of Conservative Members from western Canada that they-


Mr. Holtmann:: I do not see any NDP.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry has the floor.

April 28, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we just saw a graphic example of the level of interest in this debate shown by western members of the Conservative Party. They were so concerned about the parliamentary process that they had to hide behind the curtains in order to engage in a proper dialogue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has been here for a very long time. He knows that equipment in the House has changed and there are televisions outside the Chamber on which Members can watch the debate.
I appreciate that there must be a quorum in the House, but I would not want the Hon. Member to reflect on whether Members are inside or outside the House. He knows that, and I do not have to bring it to his attention.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I was only concerned that most Tory Members have not learned how to turn on a TV yet. Now that you have assured me that they have reached that level, I will continue with my remarks.
We were talking about the Economic Regional Development Agreements which have provided twice the amount of funding in the first four years than is available under this Bill. It is significant to note that the Minister was not prepared to make a commitment that that program will continue.
If one draws the logical conclusion, the western diversification fund will provide half the funding that ERDA programs did. In other words, we have a 50 per cent cut-back on our hands. There is no assurance or guarantee that there will be any form of replacement for those funds, to say nothing of the fact the Government is cancelling the Industrial Research and Development Program, IRDP, plus many other programs under DRIE. What we really have here is a placebo. It is once again an attempt to gussy up, to put on the cosmetics, but to take away the substance and retract the kinds of investments that are required.
There are some very serious questions about the ability or willingness under this particular Bill of the Government to establish priorities. When questions were asked about whether there would be commitments on major funding of irrigation and water projects, for instance, which are absolutely essential to rescue the incredible erosion happening on prairie lands and very crucial to the continuation of our food industry, there was absolutely no commitment or willingness to say it was possible as part of western diversification. There is no sense that the federal Government has anything more than a kind of handout role to play.
At this crucial stage I think we must pioneer various ways of co-ordinating and co-operating, not just having more federal-provincial meetings, which is the only industry this Government seems to be able to generate, but actually pooling capital and putting our combined resources together to make major investments in highways, research centres, and irrigation projects.
I think it is fair to say that one of the most important kinds of investments the Government can make in terms of diversifying an economy is to ensure there is an attractive environment in which private sector investment will be made. The OECD study confirms that. We must have a village, town or city with good water, good roads, and good schools. That is where the public sector comes into play. The municipalities of western Canada, together with their confreres in other parts of Canada, have said that the most serious drawback to development is the deterioration of the infrastructure of our villages, towns, and cities.
When we specifically asked about this program, we were told that that kind of investment was also excluded, was not possible. The point I am making is that when it comes to good economic development strategy, this Bill does not provide us with the tools. All it does is continue a basic grant program which was available under other programs. That is it.
We are told that somehow there would be regional offices and more access. We can argue that there were regional offices before and Federal Economic Development Co-ordinators. DRIE had an office in every province. The applications were there. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever in concept or in execution. The Government is just giving it a new name. It is just changing the sign board, that is all.
The fact is that the Government is cutting back the money, excluding various forms of investment, refusing to provide leadership, but is changing the name. That is the sum total of the Western Diversification Program in front of us. More than that, there is something I think is a tell-tale sign of the future. For the first time a Government of Canada is now taking applications for support from the federal Government in regional development and submitting it to a test. What is that test? Does it meet the requirements of the U.S. trade law? If the Government considers in its judgment that somehow a business applying for help under western diversification may run counter to U.S. trade law, it will not receive any money. Everything must be censored through the Department of External Affairs.
In spite of all the assertions made by the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), and the rest of that crowd over there that regional development will not be affected by the free trade deal, we have clear evidence that that in fact is not true. They admit they are now taking regional development programs and submitting them to a criteria based upon U.S. trade law. If they think it will be countervailable or a consequence of anti-dumping, they will not approve it. That is a forecast for the future.
In fact, all our regional development programs will now be subject to an advanced censorship by the federal Government in terms of its impact upon U.S. trade law. When we consider that U.S. trade law is getting tougher day by day, such as redefining the notion of a subsidy, we see that our regional development programs will be substantially affected and restricted as a consequence of the proposed trade agreement.
April 28, 1988

In this Bill we have proof positive that the guarantees and the assurances of the Prime Minister are absolutely worth nothing. They are as good as his commitment on acid rain and indexing senior citizens' pensions, and all those sacred trusts he used to like to talk about. We have just seen another sacred trust broken with this Bill.
While we approve the principle and the necessity to develop a western economy, I suggest that this is a faulty way of doing it. It will result in less resources being allocated. It appears that it will not provide the kinds of significant federal investments in the West which are desperately needed. More important, it bootlegs a severe restriction on regional development practices because of its adherence to U.S. trade laws being the basis for judgment as to whether or not one receive a grant. I suggest that that is a pretty severe and negative condemnation of this piece of legislation.
All I can say is that if the House passes the Bill and it goes to the second Chamber and is passed there, it will be up to another Government to change the policy substantially and substantially reorganize western diversification to take away the restrictions, the exemptions, and once again put the federal Government in a place where it can provide real leadership, partnership, and real investment to western Canada so that that region can meet the challenges of a new age based on high technology. That is where we have to go. This Bill will not take us there.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the western diversification Bill. This morning the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) tried to bring before this House the problems of the Lubicon Indian band land claims. The Hon. Member was frustrated in that endeavour by an action taken by the Government to bring before the House this particular Bill to establish the department of western economic diversification. That kind of action, taken on behalf of the Government by the Minister who moved the motion, is typical of the attitude of the Government toward the Indian people and toward the promises it made to the Indian people and to all citizens of Canada. It is contrary to the trust the Government accepted when it became the Government on September 4, 1984.
Since 1940 and earlier the Lubicon Indians have been attempting to establish their rights with succeeding Governments and to put before the Government and the people of Canada the unfair treatment they received over a long period of time. They called upon succeeding Governments to do something about fulfilling those rights. They did not sign a treaty in the original treaty signatures, and they did not cede their land. Therefore, in the eyes of most people, they still own that land and as a sovereign nation they should be dealt with in that fashion.
Western Economic Diversification Act
I dwell on that issue in	the	debate on this	particular Billbecause that trust	will be	an	important part	of success orfailure in this particular Bill; trust, not only with the Indian people, but because of the economy of the Indian nations across the West that is of major importance in western development and western diversification. If we allow the condition of native	people	in western Canada	to deteriorateany further, or if	we do	not	take action on	objectionable
situations already in place such as that of the Lubicon people, then we will be faced with the condemnation of the world and will be unable to take meaningful action to improve the economies of native communities in the West.
What happened this morning is that the Government cut off its nose to spite its face by not allowing the House to move forward on the Lubicon affair and to solve it and, in the process of solving it, establish a structure by which land claims can be made to have a major impact upon diversification and development of Indian nations in the West. Unless we put our house in order in the West, the impact of legislation such as this will be minimal.
The principles of the Department we are talking about today and the principles of this Bill are supported by all Members of the House and the people of western Canada. It is not the matter of the principle of the Bill we are discussing today. It is the matter of whether or not the Bill will be successful after it is put in place. The offices have been in place for a considerable length of time. To judge from action or what has happened until now we cannot be too sure that there will be a great deal of success. There has been a lot of interest on the part of the people, developed by the propaganda put forward by the Government in establishing this Bill when it was announced in Edmonton. It has been announced on several occasions successively, as well as the discussion we have had in the House on it.
This Bill states that there will be an office that will attempt to diversify the economy of western Canada. That is something that has been needed for many years in western Canada and in other parts of Canada. It is also something that we have had for many years in some form or another. Therefore, attempts to diversify have been attempted many times for many years in many parts of Canada. Why have they not worked? If we looked at the reasons that they have not worked, we might find a good structure and a good basis under which to be sure that the western diversification offices will have some long-term impact. That is a key requirement, as far as economic development is concerned.
The Government seems to be putting a considerable amount of hope and a great deal of store in having a head office in Edmonton and a branch in Saskatoon. That in itself is bound to create a little economic diversification and jobs, but it is not the aim of the Bill or of the Department as it develops.
Under the present circumstances, or from the history that we have of past actions by government diversification projects,

April 28, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
it is not a guarantee of success or even of action. An application filed, looked at, returned, discussed, and filed again is not action. To a great extent that seems to be what has been going on.
What has happened in the past is that companies that develop in marginal situations where either the population does not establish the type of markets which they must fulfil, or the transportation costs are so high that they become a factor in success of a particular industry, those operations of initial actions may at first appear to be successful. We have the history of meat packing in Prince Edward Island and the history of industries which have developed and have seemingly been a success. While the Government puts in place the assistance that will keep that operation going for a little while, it stays operating. When the cream of government assistance has been skimmed off and it comes down to the nitty-gritty of dealing with the market, the support is not there and then the industry packs up and leaves. That is the historical situation that we have faced in many parts of the country, many times, in attempting to establish some type of diversification in areas.
I commenced by stating that there was a need to establish some type of trust as far as the Government was concerned. The Government can do that by dealing with the land claims of native communities.
The Government could also deal with that with the provinces by fulfilling promises that it made. Before and after the Government was elected, on many occasions it promised that it would help to diversify the economies or to improve the economies of both the East and the West by increasing the amount of government procurement that actually took place in the Atlantic provinces or in the West. How has the Government fulfilled that promise? In 1984-85, the first year of being in office, the percentage of procurement for the western provinces, that is purchases within those provinces by the Government of Canada, was 13.4 per cent. After many promises and much pushing by the Government to increase it and make it more even across the country, it went from 13.9 per cent in 1984-85 to 12.8 per cent in 1985-86.
We must remember that a premise of the national Government is to increase the amount of purchases in the West. In 1986-87 we went down further still. In 1986-87 the purchases of government through the Department of Supply and Services in western Canada went down to 11.5 per cent of the total. In other words, we do not have any good indication that the Government will do the things that it promises to do, if we look at purchases by Supply and Services as an indication of how it will fulfil those promises.
There are a number of other points that should be brought up in discussing the possibility of the success of the Western Diversification Department. There has been a tendency on the part of the Government to say: "Once you get it out there, because it is out there, it will work". The Liberals said that on
many occasions before, as far as western Canada was concerned.
What does this Bill do and what does it not do? First, it does not do a very good job of defining what diversification is. If there is to be real diversification in western Canada, then it would seem that we must know where we will find the type of diversification and what it should be. The Government seems to be taking initiatives through this action, through this office, and through this Bill is to emphasize the building on existing resource structures that are already in place. That probably sounds like a good and easy way to move. It even sounds very logical. It also has been the basis of many western attempts at diversification in the past. It has not worked.
When one bought a bag of flour in the West, as you know, Mr. Speaker, some 30 years ago, that flour came from a mill in Saskatoon, Regina, Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge, Humboldt, or a number of places which had mills and which supplied flour to the surrounding areas. These mills were built on the resources that were there, the resources of farm products, and the production of wheat. If you go to buy a bag of wheat in a store in Edmonton, Mr. Speaker, the chances are that that bag of wheat will not have been ground in western Canada but in Sarnia or even in London, Ontario. The basis for using the present resources of western Canada for diversification needs more than just the idea that they will do it. There needs to be more support than that.
I do not want to contradict this particular kind of diversification. I am trying to put forward the fact that if resource development is the method to be used, then it will take a different kind of structure from what has been used in the past. This Bill does not do that.
There is another factor about this idea of building on the resources that are there which needs to be mentioned. It implies that those resources are evenly spread across the West, that there are resources in every area that can be developed so that that particular region or subregion of the West can develop without any problem. That is not at all true as you know, Mr. Speaker, since you come from the West.
There are some regions which are obviously more poor, or very poor, with respect to any type of resource that can be developed. If one is depending upon the strength of the resources in one particular area for diversification, then that will not be possible if the area is very poor in resources anyway. The obvious strength or lack of strength as far as resources are concerned means that subregions which are obviously poor in resources are not going to develop in the same way as those that are already strong in resources.
A third point which should be put on the record as far as this new Department is concerned is that we also have a new Department of Industry, Science and Technology, which has been given much of DRIE's earlier responsibility for national regional development. This new Department was supposed to include the responsibility to reconcile the regional development policy with other industrial policies. That type of approach was
April 28, 1988

intended to reduce regional disparities. It has not effectively done that in the past when it was called DRIE, or as the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. There has really been no indication that this will happen in a new Department which would be established.
Small business people in the West have taken a good and hard look at diversification. Mr. Bulloch, for instance, has indicated that diversification needs to be overhauled, and that the whole process needs to be looked at very thoroughly. They have indicated that they do not believe that this small fledgling Department without any money will be able to do the kind of co-ordinating which is one of its responsibilities.
If we look at one initiative that this Department will take, we see that it is to co-ordinate those large Departments such as the Department of Transport, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of National Health and Welfare, and any of the other large Departments. The Government is being naive in believing that this fledgling Department can be an effective co-ordinator of these large Departments. DRIE had exactly that same co-ordinating responsibility. DRIE's capacity to coordinate the activities of federal Departments and agencies was extremely limited. It had that responsibility and it was unable to fulfil it. I take this from the report delivered by small business groups.
It was unable to do it mostly because the bureaucracy is such that it does not have enough clout to say to the Department of Transport, for example, that this is the type of action that it must take in a particular area. The Ministers of Transport, Health, and Agriculture did not welcome DRIE's attempts to promote some kind of co-ordination among them. In fact, it worked exactly the opposite in many cases. Because of these feelings of need for diversification by DREE, they felt they had to resist it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's time has expired. We now have questions or comments.


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Government has the attitude that you are not allowed to talk about the West if you are a Newfoundlander and that you cannot talk about Atlantic Canada if you come from Ontario. We in this Party have a pan-Canadian view of regional development. Newfoundlanders would, of course, support western diversification as well as we would expect Albertans to support regional development in Newfoundland. Having studied law in Alberta in the mid-1970s, I know how much Albertans care about issues related to Newfoundland. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are aware of that.
I recall in the mid-1970s that the Alberta Government established what it called a heritage trust fund when Alberta was flush with revenues from the oil price increases caused by the world oil crisis. Part of the idea of the this fund, I think the raison d'etre for this fund, was to create a fund to provide for the diversification of the Alberta economy. That fund has
Western Economic Diversification Act
developed and grown. I am not sure exactly what the figures are, but my recollection is that somewhat in excess of $12 billion to $14 billion is there for the diversification of only Alberta's economy, not all of the West, not Saskatchewan, Manitoba nor British Columbia.
Would the Hon. Member comment on the size of the allocation to the western diversification fund? The figure of $1 billion is used for four provinces, to be spread out over a number of years as it is with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. There has not been the kind of diversification of the Alberta economy which was looked forward to by the creation of Alberta's heritage trust fund. I wonder whether a billion dollars for the four provinces spread out over a number of years will do very much.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, this $1.2 billion amounts to $16 million a year for each of the provinces if it is divided in that way. We know, of course, a considerable amount of that money has been allocated for the South Moresby Park, and consequently not a great deal has been left for division into other projects.


Mr. Fennell:: Don't you like the South Moresby Park?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The ability to use funds for diversification or for economic development depends to a great deal on the attitude of the Government in the process of using those funds.
Here a comparison between the heritage funds in Alberta and the heritage funds in Saskatchewan becomes quite germane. The heritage fund in Alberta became an investment fund for the province. It did not impact particularly upon the economy of Alberta, and it still does not seem to be doing so. The heritage fund in Saskatchewan did considerably more, and maybe this is the kind of development that we would like to see. We know that when the Liberal Government used funds to diversify just before the last election, it made them into a political slush fund. There were few enough Members in the West, so Senators were the dispensers of funds and used them for political purposes to support only those constituencies which they felt were worthwhile in the case of an election being called.
To go back to the heritage fund, it was used in Saskatchewan to develop the potash industry and to develop the sulphate industry to a great extent. If there is a mixture of private and public funds, people who are involved have a vested interest in any development and in the success of it. I know the Hon. Member from Newfoundland recognizes the need for that vested interest by the people who will be part of the development. If you have an outside company come in, skim off the cream and leave, you then have only two, three or perhaps ten years of employment for people. If you have local people responsible, they feel they have a vested interest and are ready to proceed to keep an industry there for as long as possible. In places like Newfoundland, northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta, and the Yukon, industries must be based on a vested interest by the people who already live there. If you do not do

April 28, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
it that way from outside somebody will come in, skim off the cream, and leave.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not see a quorum in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I see a quorum now. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) on debate.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the time available before Question Period to discuss the initiative to establish the western diversification office for western Canada. This initiative by the Government is not fully understood. Some discussions have gone on in committee and in previous debate in the House. I recall that the debate on second reading was a relatively short one.
This office is part of an initiative by the federal Government to establish regional offices to do very much what the old DRIE and other economic and regional development initiatives had been doing previously. To some extent it is a question of changing the names on the signs and some of the activities. Actions that were in place under the previous Government and the existing Government will continue to be worked into the mandate of the western development initiative office.
In terms of function, our understanding is that there will be a Deputy Minister located in Edmonton, with regional offices in Winnipeg, Saskatoon, and Vancouver and a liaison office in Ottawa which will be headed up by an Assistant Deputy Minister. This liaison in Ottawa is probably quite crucial to the activities. You will see why, Mr. Speaker, when we review some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the initiative by some people speaking for small business across the country. For instance, on March 18 of this year John Bulloch was quoted in the press as indicating that the $1.2 billion western diversification program is "dangerously close to becoming nothing more than a political slush fund". John Bulloch, as Hon. Members know, is the President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. He and his association took a close look at this $1.2 billion initiative which involves $1.2 billion spread over five years. The amounts of money involved are not as grand as they would first sound.
This federation represents 20,000 small business members across Canada who are concerned that the initial actions of the Government under the heading of regional and western diversification appear to be "feathering the nests of the provincial Governments and propping up the federal Government's vulnerable constituencies". The small business people were not terribly impressed by the proposal which first came out.
The federation's director for Alberta, Doug Wright, pointed to the awarding of $9.5 million for the Daishowa pulp mill which is near Peace River as being one example of what he
describes as misspending by the Edmonton Western Diversification Office. Mr. Wright said that it is difficult to believe that the Daishowa decision on this profitable investment hinged on the relatively small western diversification strategy contribution.
Indeed, I would observe that it seems rather strange that there should be western development funding for this very large initiative when the Government's indication was that it would be focusing its attention on the small and medium-sized businesses. Under almost anyone's description of what is a big and a medium-sized business, this particular one would fall into the big category.
In its initial steps at least, the Government's approach appears to be more political than economic. Structurally, the intention of the Government is to leave the impression that it is moving sources of power away from Ottawa and into Edmonton, the centre of western Canada. We are left with the impression that this will somehow improve the decisionmaking that will be made in the interests of western Canadians. That is a song we have been hearing the Government sing throughout the four years of its current mandate. Yet the results from the singing of this song make us wonder why it bothers.
In the areas in which the Government has some ability to influence and interfere within its own Departments, we see that it has done a very poor job of representing western Canada. In the fiscal year 1984-85, the year the Government took power, the four western provinces received as a percentage of national government purchases 13.9 per cent of the business. That was not up to the standards one would expect, given the population and the economic activity generated in western Canada.
We now have the statistics for the two years following. In the first year this Government, which was supposed to be helping western Canada and encouraging business in western Canada, was in power, it dropped its purchasing from western Canada from 13.9 per cent down to 12 per cent, and the following year purchases from western Canada dropped even lower, to 11.5 per cent. Western Canadian business lost the opportunity to do business with the Government of Canada under the aegis of this Conservative Government, a Government which spoke loudly about how it would help western Canada and divert more business to that region. In fact, it ran the other way.


Mr. Thacker:: How can you build frigates on the Prairies? You're using percentage terms and that's ridiculous.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I do not believe, Sir, that there were any frigates built in 1986-87. If the Hon. Member would recall his own activities, he would realize that there were not a lot of frigates built in 1986-87, the years to which I was referring.
From my knowledge of my own riding, I do know that there are many workshops there that could build parts for frigates if anyone were to give them the opportunity to bid on them.
April 28, 1988

There are some 20 small factories in my riding which are having a terribly hard time finding out where to go even to get on the list that would allow them to find out what business is being searched out by the federal Government. We are now gradually getting contacts made for them, but the lists usually tend to ignore their capabilities when those contracts are put out, so these businesses are not even aware that the Government is looking for the kind of goods and services they are able to offer.
I believe the liaison function is one that certainly needs improvement. Perhaps the Edmonton office, with its satellites in Winnipeg, Vancouver, and Saskatoon, could improve this. I would point out to the Government that there is plenty of room for improvement.
I am not convinced by the arguments put forward by the Government that locating the head office and the Deputy Minister in Edmonton will necessarily be particularly good for the region's ability to negotiate with the rest of Canada through the federal Government. I say that because I note that this is a new and, in the scheme of things, a relatively small Department, and I have grave questions about the ability of a new, small Department located outside the power circle in Ottawa to be able to maintain any form of influence with the Government.
1 ask myself what influence can this small western diversification office headquartered in Edmonton have over the Department of Supply and Services, the main Department that determines from what part of the country federal government purchases will be made. Can the western diversification office have much influence in Ottawa, knowing the way Ottawa conducts business, with only an Assistant Deputy Minister on the end of a telephone or a fax machine located here in Ottawa to represent us? What sort of power will that one Deputy Minister, located way out in Edmonton, have over the Department of Finance? We know how little influence some of the Ministers have when they do get close access to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) or the Deputy Minister of Finance. What ability will the western diversification office have for being able to determine-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Point of order, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I made a reference regarding the Hon. Member for
Athabasca (Mr. Shields), and I just wanted to indicate my wish to retract that remark.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements Pursuant to Standing Order 21.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, according to a report on poverty published last week by the National Council of Welfare, women make up a higher than average proportion of the poor in Canada and are more likely to be poor than men, in most categories. More than half (56.1%) of all low-income Canadians are women. As we know, women from 16 to 64 represent 56.4 per cent of low-income Canadians. Seven out of ten elderly persons (71%) are women. Families headed by women are four times as likely (4.3%) to live in poverty as families headed by men.
Mr. Speaker, there are ways to alleviate the problems facing Canadian women. Poverty seems to be a female problem, and nothing has changed for many years. 1 hope the Government will explore the connection between women's poverty and the lack of employment equity and wage equity programs, the lack of programs to promote university training and training in general, and the lack of adequate day-care programs. Mr. Speaker, the status of women in Canada is deplorable, and immediate action is necessary.


EMPEROR OF JAPAN
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of Members to the upcoming birthday of Emperor Hirohito of Japan. Hirohito, or Tenno to his countrymen, turns 87 tomorrow, and will be celebrating his sixty-second year as a ceremonial head of state later this year.
The Emperor is a living symbol of his people and has been a modernizing influence in Japan. During his lifetime Japan has undergone unprecedented change. It has progressed from a country limited by feudal social systems and devastated by war to a modern industrial society which has a large say in the future of the world.

April 28, 1988
Economic ties between Canada and Japan have also progressed. The Japanese have invested over $37 billion in Canada while representing our second largest export market, with $6 billion of Canadian goods and services being exported to Japan annually.
I am sure that my colleagues will join with me in congratulating the Emperor on his eighty-seventh birthday. Gokensho wo oy-nori itashimasu.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, Canada must decide whether to accept GATT's ruling that the countervail imposed by the Canadian Import Tribunal on European beef is illegal. Our choice is to continue with the countervail or to drop the tariff in favour of a quota system.
Canada tried quotas before, way after the damage had already been done, and they did not work too well. Besides, why should cattlemen have to put up with any imports of highly subsidized hamburger meat? It is not fair to our livestock industry.
I think the international tribunal should be reminded that cattle producers should have a say in what affects their industry, even if the commodity they produce does get transformed through processing.
This was the point at issue. It needs to be reinforced. I urge the Minister to say "no" to the GATT ruling on May 30.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that France might have learned its lesson at Dien Bien Phu. French arms were equally ineffective in Indo-China and North Africa as the people of those regions struggled against the French colonialists.
Today we learn that France has dispatched more troops to fight the Kanaks in New Caledonia. Bloodshed will result, but in the end independence will be won.
The last vestiges of French imperialism in North America, France's hold on St. Pierre and Miquelon, and their fraudulent claim to Canadian fish stocks, are without warrant.
Imperialism in today's world is a spent force. The sooner France realizes this the better.


HOUSING
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, since the Conservative Government came to power, subsidized housing has been shamefully neglected. First of all, the Government has done nothing for single-parent families who need subsidized housing. Second, this Government has changed the criteria, so that if you want to build cooperatives for average and low-income Canadians, the cost of participating is now $500 or $600. This will not do at all for people in Laurier and Sainte-Marie, who would need rents in the area of $300.


Lucie Pépin: And Outremont!


Jean-Claude Malépart: My colleague from Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) says the same applies to the poor in the Outremont section of Montreal. What this Conservative Government has done about housing is totally unacceptable. There is no home ownership program, which means that Montreal is still a city of tenants.
Mr. Speaker, I hope an election will be called very soon so that a Liberal Government can restore fairness to this particular situation.


MANITOBA
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, most countries where people have lived under a socialist government soon realize that socialism is not the answer. For instance, after experiencing socialism for several years, France acknowledged that socialism was an obstacle to the economic and social development of a country that seeks prosperity. Russia has also admitted that free enterprise would help its economy to expand, and China has reached the same conclusion.
That is why today, I wish to pay tribute to our friends in Manitoba who have realized this and, in so doing, rejected the obsolete socialist regime of the NDP, and I want to congratulate them. I am sure they will see better days in the not too distant future.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the community of Bell Island in St. John's East was at one time
April 28, 1988

the most prosperous town in Newfoundland with a population of over 12,000, and over 2,000 people working in one of the most important iron ore mines in the world. They worked hard and contributed to government revenue. All that ended in 1966 when the mine closed and all the workers lost their jobs.
After 22 years Bell Islanders are still waiting for fair treatment from government. There are about 4,800 people still on Bell Island. They suffer from primitive ferry service and lack of permanent employment. Over 60 per cent unemployment exists among those of working age. Make-work jobs and short-term employment are not enough.
Bell Island is here to stay. It is time government recognized its responsibility to Bell Island and Bell Islanders. It is not too late to put special economic development programs in place. Bell Islanders want to work in dignity. Bell Island deserves more than it has received from this Government and from the last.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) noted in the House on Monday and in the United States Congress yesterday, acid rain does not discriminate. Indeed, it falls on the just and unjust alike on both sides of the border. Clearly it is in our mutual best interest that Canada and the United States tackle the acid rain problem with a concerted and effective plan of action.
It is equally clear that Canada has been doing its part. For example, allowable nitrogen oxide emissions from light cars and trucks and heavy duty vehicles have been cut by 60 per cent and 50 per cent respectively. This control program is the toughest in the world.
We need take no lessons from the Liberal Party which, while in government, sat on its hands on the acid rain issue. Indeed, without question, no other Canadian Government-and certainly no other Canadian Prime Minister-has been as persistent, forthright, and substantive as our present Prime Minister in pressing the case on acid rain.
The message is getting through. The United States is being convicted by its own inaction. To quote the Chairman of its Environment Committee, Congressman Scheuer: "We ought to be embarrassed to look (Canada) in the face." The United States is well aware that the present situation is simply unacceptable.
Let me commend the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) for their actions to date, and encourage them to continue in their efforts to reclaim and protect Canada's irreplaceable natural heritage.


S. O. 21 FINANCE TAX TREATMENT OF ARTISTS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee on Communications and Culture tabled a report recommending changes to our tax system that would make it better reflect the importance of artists in strengthening our unique Canadian culture. However, the Government alone has the power to make these changes and it cannot hide behind the deficit battle on this one. We were very careful that our recommendations would not make unreasonable demands on the Treasury.
While our report was unanimous, I must speak up for the many artists who have not been helped by the Government's Budgets, who have been hurt by tax reform, and who face an uncertain future with free trade. The Government has not done enough to address the unique economic circumstances in which artists often have to live.
Our artists are an important national treasure. They do not only contribute to our culture, they are part of our culture. A nation as rich as ours can surely afford an investment in our artists. Better yet, can we afford not to?
We can be proud that we have established the importance of enhancing our unique Canadian culture. Now we must change our income tax system to help the artists who helped us build our culture. To make this happen I hope that the committee's report goes onto the Government's agenda and not onto the shelf.


FREE TRADE
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, today I simply want to quote what was said by Mr. David Patrick Moynihan, a U.S. Congress man and Democrat from the State of New York, who commented on the extraordinary performance of our Prime Minister yesterday in Washington.
Here is the beginnig of the quote: "I have never seen a head of government give such an extraordinary, significant and polished speech. The Prime Minister of Canada offers our two nations an historic opportunity for a better life, today for ourselves and tomorrow for our children.
Free trade enhances the quality of life of Canadian and American consumers and producers. The signing of this agreement will benefit to both countries. We Americans now have a better understanding of the problem and dangers of acid rain common to our two countries. The speech given by the Prime Minister of Canada in Washington on April 27,

April 28, 1988
1988 will go down in history". End of quote from a statement by a member of the Democratic U.S. Congress, Mr. Speaker.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, every year over 1,000 Canadians are killed on the job. Over six times that number lose their lives to cancer, lung disease, and other ailments caused by exposure to toxic substances in the workplace.
In Thunder Bay this evening, representatives from labour and the Church will join with local representatives to unveil a plaque commemorating workers who have been killed, injured, or disabled on the job.
I join these and countless other Canadians across the country on this day of mourning in calling upon all levels of government to examine and improve legislation governing occupational health and safety.
Workplace death, disability, and injury represent a national tragedy, a tragedy which hits hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers and their families every single year.
I join with the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) and our grieving and concerned labour constituents in demanding action that will save lives and prevent injuries.


IMPORTANCE OF MANITOBA EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) visit to Washington has been a great success. President Reagan has reconfirmed his support for the free trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada. That is a success.
The importance of free trade to Manitoba and all western Canada cannot be overstated. Our largest industries, including agriculture, energy, aerospace, mining, forestry, and manufacturing, are directly dependent upon export sales to the United States.
Of the $1.4 billion in exports by Manitoba to the United States in 1986, 7.8 per cent was in electricity, 6.3 per cent in aircraft parts, 6.1 per cent in softwood lumber, and 4.8 per cent in motor vehicle parts.
However, the lion's share of exports to the United States from Manitoba comes from our agricultural area, with some $973 million in export sales to the United States.
Rural Manitoba's economy is dependent on and growing with the benefits of free trade. When the rural communities benefit, so does Winnipeg.
It is obvious that Manitoba and western Canada need secure access to the United States market to prosper.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, according to Energy Probe in Toronto, the United States could cut its acid rain pollution of Canada in half by spending about $5 billion on pollution controls for midwestern power plants.
Energy Probe concludes that the United States could cut acidic pollution at specific U.S. power plants for far less money than a nation-wide program would cost. Energy Probe urges the Government of Canada to change its failed strategy of quiet diplomacy on acid rain against the U.S. administration.
Philip Jessup, Director of Air Quality Research for the Toronto based organization, said: "Our Government has been barking up the wrong tree by insisting that the U.S. draft a new acid rain law".
He concluded by saying: "For a total of $5 to $6 billion, the United States could cut acidic emissions in the Midwest by 50 per cent".


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, today before the House we are discussing the subject of western diversification. Already some 300 projects have been approved under this program, including some in my own constituency.
Air Services Consultants will receive $35,500 to complete the development of a unique disposable packaging container for transporting dangerous and infectious diagnostic specimens. Omara Systems will receive $126,500 in funds for the development of a state of the art monitoring thermostat and heat tracing controller. Ambucraft Services Ltd. will receive $48,090 to design and develop a new wheelchair lift for vans and buses.
April 28, 1988

I call upon all Members of the House to move this Bill through the House quickly and to give the western diversification initiative the additional mandate and resources that the Bill will provide.


EXTERNAL AID
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, as one of a number of Members of the House who has lived and worked in a developing country for several years, I want to make some comments about Canada's role in development. While the Government could do more in this field, there are a number of development assistance areas that are particularly important. One of these involves development of government infrastructure, specifically government auditing.
For decades, successive federal Governments and Auditors General have been active in this field. The Auditor General and his office work very closely with CIDA, the United Nations, and other international agencies in providing invaluable auditor training assistance and audit systems development aid to the Third World. Because Canada has been a pioneer in comprehensive and legislative auditing, it is only natural that we share our expertise in this field.
I want to commend the Auditor General's office for their efforts in this area and encourage them to continue this fine tradition.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to the reason and intelligence of Mrs. Labelle and Messrs Manion, Veileux and Saint-Aubin, to preserve the bilingual status of the Public Service of Canada and guarantee the quality and excellence of bilingualism in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, our language teachers must have time to prepare for their classes just as teachers in other educational institutions in Canada who teach less than twenty hours a week for only eight months out of twelve, while our employees who teach in the Public Service work for twelve months.
I want to encourage these men and women, most of whom are Francophones, to continue their search for excellence in the spirit of Bill C-72, and I want to thank them for their dedication to a cause that we uphold.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It deals with the Prime Minister's complete failure yesterday in Washington to get anywhere on acid rain. But as so often happens, I must begin by putting the truth on the record.
On February 22, 1977, Prime Minister Trudeau said in his speech to the United States Congress that Canadians are:
... a people devoted throughout their history to accommodating themselves
with the harshness, as well as the beauty, of their natural surroundings. We
will respond with vigour to any threat of pollution or despoliation, be it from
an indigenous or from an external source.
Those were Mr. Trudeau's words.
For a week the Prime Minister and his senior Ministers said publicly and privately that Pierre Trudeau never raised these issues before the United States Congress. Why?
Why does the Prime Minister not stop blaming previous administrations? Why does he not tell the truth about what Mr. Trudeau really said, and why does the Deputy Prime Minister not admit that it is the Leader of his Government who failed to reach an agreement on acid rain with the United States?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to engage the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition in a debate about defoliation.
He can check the record to see that what we have been saying is that the words "acid rain" were not raised by the former Prime Minister in his speech in 1977.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The quotation just read into the record by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition confirms that statement.
The situation respecting acid rain has changed dramatically from when this Government was elected in September, 1984, until now. We have not made the progress we would have wished, but the Government of Canada has been consistent and vigorous in pursuing our objectives against acid rain.
That has been recognized by as dispassionate a source as the Toronto Star, which referred to the Prime Minister's speech to Americans yesterday as: "A hard-hitting address in which the Prime Minister urged tough action from U.S. legislators on combatting acid rain pollution". Surely the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will not quarrel with the Toronto Star.

April 28, 1988
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the speech of Mr. Trudeau was made on February 22, 1977. The Minister knows that the first time acid rain was used as a buzz word was in the early 1980s, just as "star wars" was not in our vocabulary in 1977. The Prime Minister of the day mentioned pollution quite specifically in his speech to the United States Congress.


ACID RAIN-U.S. RESEARCH PROGRAM
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will put a supplementary question to either the Deputy Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Amid the endless photo opportunities in Washington and the 21 gun salute-


Mr. Crosbie:: You got a 22 gun salute.


John Napier Turner: -and the speech the Prime Minister made to some Congressional aides-talk about papering the house-his final summit was a complete bust. He got some applause for promising to sell out our country in a trade agreement. He reached an agreement on nuclear technology for the submarines Canadians don't want-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will put his question.


John Napier Turner: Those submarines won't do much for our environment either. The Prime Minister did not get to first base on an agreement on acid rain. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he is the point man today, why did the Prime Minister once again praise the American research program which is stalling action on acid rain? Why did he not demand in his speech before the American Congress that Congress take immediate action, now, on the problem of pollution over our border?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that the Liberal Party of Canada was in office during half the period of the Reagan presidency. During that entire period there was no progress made by the then Liberal Government with the Reagan administration on this problem. What is more, no advance was made on the problem domestically, greatly encumbering our administration when we took office in September, 1984.
They do not have any moral authority to point the finger at Washington and demand action south of the border. Indeed, there was no federal-provincial program, not a single one, to reduce acid rain causing emissions from Canadian sources. There was no national program. There was no effort made to
reduce sulphur dioxide emissions or NOx emissions. There was a very feeble program to reduce the amount of lead in gasoline.
Since that time we have reduced, effective by 1994, sulphur dioxide emissions by 50 per cent. We have introduced the toughest NOx control program in the world. We have legislated lead out of gasoline effective the end of December, 1992. That is action, not just words.


John Napier Turner: But what did the Prime Minister do yesterday for acid rain? Zilch. Nothing. Nothing for the Canadian people.


ACID RAIN-PRIME MINISTER'S MISSION TO WASHINGTON
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Reagan stated in the presence of our Prime Minister, and I quote: "Our two countries have made substantial progress towards improving air quality". That is not true, because the United States has done nothing to fight acid rain, although the Prime Minister keeps applauding the President's statements. Why won't the Deputy Prime Minister-and my question is directed to him-admit that the Prime Minister accomplished nothing in Washington, either yesterday or the day before, in his attempts to persuade the U.S. Congress to move more quickly on a decision to take a bilateral approach to the problem of acid rain?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition leaves the impression with the House that no progress has been made by the Government of Canada with the United States on environmental issues. I remind him that this Government signed the first protocol with jurisdictions, three other jurisdictions, the State of New York, the Government of Ontario, and the U.S. Government, to slash by 50 per cent toxic chemicals going into the Niagara River.
We have greatly strengthened the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement which, even by the very tough standards of the toughest environmental group on the subject in the world, Great Lakes United, is a vast improvement over what the Liberals did when they were in office for 25 years. We signed the framework-


Mr. Gauthier:: What happened in Washington yesterday? Zilch.


Thomas Michael McMillan: We signed the agreement, the framework, for the North American Waterfowl Management Plan which environmentalists have described as the most important initiative in the wildlife area since the Migratory Birds Convention.
April 28, 1988


UNITED STATES-SENATE PASSAGE OF OMNIBUS TRADE BILL
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. He will know that yesterday the United States Senate passed its version of the omnibus Trade Bill which will now go to the President who will have 10 days to decide whether to veto that Bill.
Two weeks ago in answer to a question I put, the Minister said in this House that he can live with the Bill. Well, after examining the document we received, it is clear that a number of the measures in the Bill are contrary to Canadian interests, as outlined by Ambassador Gotlieb in a letter he sent. There are substantially expanded trade subsidies. There are more damaging trade remedy laws with a new definition of subsidy.
Is the Minister still standing by his statement that he can live with the Bill? Why is it that he is not substantially expressing the opposition of Canada to this Bill and encouraging the President to veto a Bill that will be very damaging to Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's hysteria in connection with this Bill, of course, illustrates why we need the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. I refer him to Free Trade - The Real Story edited by John Crispo-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -and some 17 other authors. If the gentleman gets as far as the fourth page-I don't know if he can read that far-he will find:
The problem is that the real choice confronting Canada in terms of its
trading relations with the United States is not between free trade and the
status quo. It is between free trade and growing U.S. protectionism.
That is why we need the free trade agreement. That is why we have worked for it. That is why we are going to ask the House to endorse it. That is why the hon. gentleman should support it as well.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is taking up some bedtime reading, I suggest he look at the reality of the U.S. Trade Bill and not the fiction written by John Crispo.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the question again. The Minister said two weeks ago that he can live with this Trade Bill. Those were his words in this House. He has now had a chance to examine the actual Bill itself. He knows that there are still a number of very serious measures that will impact negatively upon Canada, and that the ambassador of this country in Washington has explicitly said that these will be damaging. Why is it we are backing away from that kind of opposition?
Oral Questions
Why are we not expressing our very strong and very vehement opposition to the Trade Bill and specifically requesting the President to veto the Bill? I understand the Minister's problem in not being invited to the meetings, but surely to goodness, even from Ottawa he can express his opposition to something that is going to damage Canadian interests?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was very busy at meetings yesterday which didn't result in anything very diplomatic.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How do you know?


John Carnell Crosbie: By the way, this book is only $6.95, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: It's worth 35 cents.


John Napier Turner: You waited for the paperback too, didn't you?


Lloyd Axworthy: Does it come with crayons?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: With respect to the omnibus Trade Bill, we made very strong representations to the U.S. administration and to Congress. We have been successful in getting many improvements in the Bill. We will now examine it carefully. The President may or may not veto the Bill. That is a decision for him to make. If there are any provisions in the Bill which violate the free trade agreement, then, of course, we will expect the American authorities to deal with those in the legislation approving the free trade agreement.
The omnibus Trade Bill that is now before the President is considerably improved compared to what it was when it started out. Any variances that there might be with the free trade agreement we do not believe to be of a serious character, but if there are any we would expect them to be rectified when the later legislation comes down.


FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister. It is certainly a pleasure to hear him quoting a Toronto academic. He could pick a better informed one.
My question concerns the same trade deal. The House will recall that last spring the Minister of Communications promised us long overdue legislation that would improve the situation for the Canadian film industry. After this was done, Mr. Jack Valenti, the film mogul from Hollywood, objected.
On the trade deal that was signed last fall, briefing notes prepared for Mr. Yeutter at the time stated that Canada had agreed to solve Jack Valenti's problem on film distribution.

April 28, 1988
Oral Questions
Then the Minister's Bill disappeared, and we have not heard from her since.
Today we learn, or it is alleged, that the Prime Minister's Office is now involved in meeting Mr. Valenti's problem before this Bill is submitted to the EI.S. Congress.
Will the Minister confirm that? Is it right, or is it not?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, by the way, it is a pleasure to answer a question from an Oshawa academic. I believe before the hon. gentleman got into his present occupation, he was an academic. Now I do not know how to describe him-it might be unparliamentary.
There are 17 distinguished authors in this book, not just Mr. Crispo. I can strongly recommend it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Are you a book seller now? Is it going to be your next occupation?


John Carnell Crosbie: It's hard to get a word out of your mouth here, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we could move on from a book sale to a question and answer. The Hon. Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: With respect to the question of film distribution, my hon. colleague will be proceeding with that in due course.
As to what conversations Mr. Valenti is having with the U.S. administration, I do not know what conversations he is having with them.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it won't be the first Minister that we have heard from who does not know what is going on in Washington in terms of the trade deal.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Since fewer than 3 per cent of all films distributed in Canadian cinemas are actually produced by the film industry, and since Jack Valenti is perhaps the most powerful lobbyist in Washington and has, according to one briefing note, got our Government to cave in before on this deal, and we do not have the Bill before us that has been promised, will the Minister now assure us that there is not someone in the Prime Minister's Office who is working on this proposal that will be submitted for U.S. satisfaction before they vote in the U.S. Congress? Will he give us that assurance, yes or no?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. gentleman that we will be doing what we said we would do, and that is bringing in legislation which treats Canada as a separate market for film distribution rights. That will be done.


John Edward Broadbent: Where is it?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I will ask the hon. gentleman to wait a few days. 1 can tell him that we will be providing support for our film distributors, so that Canada does indeed become a separate market.


REQUEST THAT LEGISLATION BE INTRODUCED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I guess that the Minister has just conceded that the official in the Prime Minister's Office is going to make up the Bill for her in the next few days, and we are going to get it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That shows how little you know about it.


John Edward Broadbent: Since the Minister has just stated, and these are her words and not mine, in the next "few days", is she giving us assurances that the long promised legislation that will begin to provide some justice for the Canadian film industry will be introduced in the House in the next few days?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that there will be announcements and details of this whole package within a few days. We will be addressing, in due course, the legislative and financial aspects, which together will form a good support program for our Canadian film industry.


CANCER RESEARCH-GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister will no doubt have read the rather staggering statistics that came out from Statistics Canada which showed that cancer will strike one in three Canadians, that more that
50,000	people will die of cancer this year, and that it is the second largest killer of children under the age of 14.
Given these staggering statistics, can the Minister explain why in this year's Budget the National Health Research and Development Program has had its funding for cancer research cut by more than $1 million?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check the exact statistics raised by the Hon. Member. Obviously, I am committed to more research for cancer, both within medical research and also NHRDP. I will have to check the exact figures raised by the Hon. Member.


FUNDING AT 1986-87 LEVELS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am quoting figures that came from the Minister's Department today which show a cut from the 1986-87 budget of $2.26 million to $1.2 million this year, which is over 40 per cent.
April 28, 1988

If the Minister truly does have a commitment to cancer research, will he today give the commitment in the House that he will at least restore cancer research funding levels by his Department to the 1986-87 levels?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this Government has increased cancer research commitments through MRC, both on the base budget and on the matching funds, and also on other proposals that are coming forward regarding science and technology. Those things are in place. If there is a reduction, obviously I want to know that. I think the House will understand that I want to look at the allegations first before going any further.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will know that on March 24 the House unanimously passed a resolution concerning the situation in Central America, particularly the peace process, in which the House agreed to urge that parties from outside the region refrain from any activity that would disrupt this process.
Given that it is the United States Congress which is so very often put in the position of having to approve or disapprove of various actions that President Reagan contemplates from time to time in Central America, why did the Prime Minister not take the opportunity when he was before the Congress to tell it what the Parliament of Canada had unanimously determined, and pass on that message to Congress? It sounds to me like an opportunity missed. Doesn't it, to you?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I take it that last question was to me and not to you, so I will answer it and say no. I think that the Americans, Congressmen and others, who are interested in these issues know the position of Canada.
The point surely is that what we have to be occupied with here is what it is that Canada can do. I understand the Hon. Member's preoccupation with the United States and with what it can do. But our interest, surely, is what we can do.
The Hon. Member is himself a member of the committee that was established here that will be leaving within the next few weeks to go to Central America. He will know that there is a process under way, proceeding slowly, that requires encouragement by Canada, including by the parliamentary delegation, and that Canada has made known our willingness to help, in ways that are in our traditions and open to us and may not be open to other countries, to move that process forward.
I had thought we had passed the stage where we were going to turn back to focusing on what the Americans can do, and
Oral Questions
would be instead, in a sovereign, constructive way, focusing on what Canada can do to bring peace to Central America.


PRIME MINISTER'S ADDRESS TO UNITED STATES CONGRESS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, sometimes the Minister says we can only concentrate on what Canada can do, and the next time it is what we have to do in concert with others.
The fact of the matter is that, whether it is acid rain or whatever it is, we in Canada have to be concerned with what the United States is doing, and that applies to Central America.
The Prime Minister of Canada had an opportunity to convey the unanimous opinion of the House of Commons with respect to Central America. He could even have done it in the sycophantic way that he referred to other issues, but he didn't even bother to raise it.
I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he asked the Prime Minister to raise it, or whether he did not?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, no, I did not ask the Prime Minister to put into a speech a matter that we believe is already known, a matter on which the different approaches of the Governments of the United States and Canada are very well known.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Our views on acid rain are very well known as well.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, who used to be the Party spokesperson for foreign affairs, suggested that we forgot to raise it. Of course, there was no question of forgetting to raise it.


Ms. Jewett:: Why did you not raise it, then?


Charles Joseph Clark: What is at issue here is a difference in concentration as to what Canada should be doing with Canadian policy. The NDP is in such awe of the United States that it appears to feel there are no independent, effective actions that Canada can take. We believe it is our duty in foreign policy, as in other fields, to find areas where Canada can make independent, constructive, sovereign contributions to peace. We are doing that in Central America.


AQUACULTURE
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. As the Minister knows,

April 28, 1988
Oral Questions
one of the exciting industries in British Columbia is aquaculture or fish farming. However, the fish farmers are frustrated-in fact they are discriminated against-when they go to the banks to borrow money, because under the Bank Act fish is not considered as an approved crop for security.
Will the Minister be prepared to do something about this? In fact, will he be prepared to bring forward an amendment to Section 178 of the Bank Act so that fish from fish farms will be considered a crop, and an approved form of security, and so that aquafarmers can get loans and advances from Canadian banks?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, that is yet one more indication of how contemporary the Hon. Member is. She raises a very important question.
We will be very happy to amend the Bank Act to do what she asks. It will appear in the amendments that we bring forward to the Bank Act, in order to bring the security up to date that banks can have in the modern age.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is supposed to defend the elderly here in Canada. While his Government is about to waste at least $11 billion on nuclear submarines, a report published by the National Council of Welfare indicates that, although assistance to elderly persons living alone has improved, there are still 276,000 elderly Canadians living below the poverty line, the majority of whom are women (82.3%). Could the Minister inform the House why his Government has failed to do what the Liberal Government did in 1984, which is to increase by $50 the guaranteed income supplement for persons living alone, to ensure no more elderly persons living alone in Canada are below the poverty line, instead of putting money into submarines?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that there was a change in the spouse's allowance relating to widows and widowers whereby approximately 53,000 Canadians came into a program which the former Government had an opportunity to bring forward but chose not to. Of that 53,000, 85 per cent are women.
If the Hon. Member wants to be fair about the issue he should also look at, for example, statistics relating to the recent report from the National Advisory Council on Welfare in terms of changes in the number of people living in poverty when his Government was in power and now when our Government is in power. Obviously, we would like to do more. As the economy improves we would like to bring about additional changes.
I point out to him that there have been improvements, and I have given him some of them. Upon reflection he might even want to applaud the Government and the people in the economy who have brought about these improvements over the last three years.


SITUATION OF UNMARRIED, SEPARATED, AND DIVORCED WOMEN
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, it's true! on page 40 in the French version, it says there was an improvement for persons who were 65, but that was thanks to the Liberal Government, which in 1984 decided to proceed with a two-stage increase of $25 each. The present Government should have continued this practice to ensure no Canadians are living below the poverty line. Since the Minister mentioned widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64, the report says 76,000 women are living in poverty because the Government refuses to give them the spouse's allowance, just because they are single, separated or divorced. When is the Government going to stop this discrimination and bring
76.000	people out of poverty, instead of wasting money on a bunch of useless submarines?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is rather odd for that Member of Parliament to talk about discrimination when widows and widowers were not included in the legislation. This Government brought that group of Canadians into the legislation. For him to talk about discrimination is patently wrong. He should reflect on that.
With respect to the report, in 1982-84, 317,000 Canadians were added to the poverty rolls. Some 525,000 have been taken off the poverty rolls since this Government came into office.
In terms of children and poverty, 94,000 more came into poverty when he was sitting on the government benches. Some
193.000	have been taken off the poverty rolls since this Government came into office.
In terms of real income for families-and this will be the last one, Mr. Speaker-there was a 5.6 per cent decrease when the Hon. Member's Party was in office. Since this Government came into office that figure has changed to plus 3.7 per cent.
April 28, 1988


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and concerns the situation in Jonquiere at Alcan, where record amounts of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, which can cause cancer, have been found in the air in this region. The Minister is aware there are no Canadian standards for the maximum allowable concentration of these carcinogenic substances. What is his responsibility for regulating these substances and for reducing emissions into the air and waters of this region, emissions that can cause cancer?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, Bill C-74 is now at third reading stage. It will seek to manage such substances from cradle to grave through their full life cycle.
We have established a special committee under a distinguished environmentalist, Dr. Hume, to make recommendations on this very matter so that when Royal Assent is received we will be in a position to act quickly.
On the particular matter that the Hon. Member brings to the attention of the House, I will draw it to the attention of my seniormost officials and get back to her on it.


ACT REGULATING TOXIC SUBSTANCES-MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about human illness, of cases of cancer among workers and other people in the region, and about pollutants in waters where belugas are dying every day. We cannot afford to wait. I don't understand the Minister's response. We have legislation to regulate toxic substances. Where does his responsibility lie with respect to the immediate application of the legislation to this very serious problem?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I agree, it is a very serious problem. It is a longstanding one. The offending substances have been wreaking their havoc for generations. We are dealing in the Government with the matter as a question of utmost priority.
In the longer term we have brought to the House for, I hope, early disposition, the toughest, most comprehensive toxic chemicals legislation ever in the history of Canada-probably the toughest in the western hemisphere.
We have been working hand in glove, actively, with the Government of Quebec on a major action plan to clean up the St. Lawrence River. That is the subject of continuing negotiations between the two jurisdictions.
Oral Questions
I can assure the Hon. Member and Members of the House that the plight of the beluga will loom large in that over-all scheme.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture has been waiting since February, 1987, for some word on the Nova Scotia-Canada subsidiary agreement on agriculture.
The Province of Nova Scotia has committed its $30 million. The federal Government all winter long has been saying that it was going to make its commitment of $30 million before April 1 yet it has done nothing. Why is the Government backtracking on this important issue?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am happy-


An Hon. Member:: How does that guy get into it?


John Carnell Crosbie: How do I get into it? I represent the Minister in charge of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It is time for the Member to wake up and pay attention.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: If you stop the fratricide in the caucus-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


An Hon. Member:: How many is that now?


John Carnell Crosbie: Twenty-two out of 39 is not bad. It is just as well he did not put them in the mail.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: With respect to the question, entering into that particular agreement is imminent, and I am pleased to be able to tell the Hon. Member that we have entered into agreements with Nova Scotia that involve total spending of some $960 million, of which $686 million is federal. Seven of those agreements were signed in the last several years. For instance, the Highway Improvements Agreement, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Development Fund and the Sydney Tar Ponds. The Hon. Member should be down on his knees thanking us for the actions that we have taken.

April 28, 1988
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POSITION


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The
Minister of Agriculture said that that money was going to be coming from the Cabinet committee for economic development and that the farmers needed to know before April 1 so they could plan for the present growing season.
Why is the Government delaying this Bill? Why is the Government delaying this agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Government is not delaying this Bill or this agreement. As a matter of fact, in addition to Nova Scotia, we are expecting imminently an agreement to be entered into with Newfoundland, the only province in Canada with which there has been no agreement covering agriculture, a matter that I want to see rectified very quickly, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, is for the Minister of the Environment. The matter refers to Crown Forest Products outside of Campbell River, and a 40 tonne spill of 93 per cent sulphuric acid into the Straits of Georgia. The matter was reported by the environmental committee of the Canadian Paper Workers' Union. As yet there is no indication of what has been done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or Department of the Environment on this very critical matter.
Could the Minister tell this House why he has not contacted the environmental committee of the Paper Workers' Union to discuss the matter with them and why the Government has taken no action to investigate the matter?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The matter has not been brought to my attention. I am trying to find out at the moment the reason that such a serious matter has not been brought to my attention.
We will get the Hon. Member a report on the issue as quickly as we can.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River, a short supplemental.


PREVENTIVE MEASURES TO CONTAIN EFFLUENT
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Fisheries.
Would he undertake to launch an investigation into this company's operation to determine why it has not built holding tanks and settling ponds to contain and treat the effluent so as not to allow it to escape into the Straits of Georgia again.
Will the Minister undertake to do that as soon as possible?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be premature to undertake an investigation until we know more details of the specific matters which the Hon. Member has raised.
If there has been a sudden spill, as it has been characterized, then indeed 1 and the Minister of the Environment will want to know what the details of this circumstance amount to. On the other hand, if there is allegation of persistent malpractice on the part of Crown Forests, we will, of course, look into that in accordance with the habitat and effluent provisions of the Fisheries Act.
As I undertook earlier, I will look into this immediately.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Finance) and concerns our proposed legislation on finance and loan companies and its possible application to the Mouvement Desjardins.
The way the Bill is drafted now, I don't see kow it could not apply to the Mouvement Desjardins. We must not forget that Desjardins is not a corporation but a financial co-operative, and I wish it could be clearly established that Desjardins will not be affected by our proposed legislation on trust and loans companies.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I said last week that our federal policy will in no way oblige savings and credit unions to get rid of their so-called non-financial interests. And furthermore, our policy will not in any way infringe on the rights and obligations of provincial institutions.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Attorney General of Canada.
April 28, 1988

As he well knows, public confidence in the system of justice in Nova Scotia has been badly shaken by a number of incidents that have occurred recently. There are now serious allegations that the decision not to prosecute former Nova Scotia Deputy Premier, Roland Thornhill, on charges of receiving a $100,000 illegal benefit was made due to political interference by the Government of Premier Buchanan. As you know, the Deputy Premier has now resigned, Mr. Speaker.
Would the Attorney General of Canada be prepared to launch a public inquiry into this matter now that the Government of Nova Scotia has refused to do so, in order that the air can be cleared?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member will understand that the prosecution of these matters is under provincial jurisdiction. I have every confidence in the law enforcement agencies of this country and in the independence of the Attorneys General in each of their jurisdictions to handle their responsibilities concerning prosecution.
As the Hon. Member points out, I do not comment with respect to individual cases because I think it is improper for an Attorney General to speculate with respect to an individual case. All I can say is that I will continue to make sure that in all areas of my own responsibility justice will, in fact, be observed.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know well that the Public Inquiries Act gives him the full authority to call a public inquiry into this or any other matter.
In light of the serious deterioration of public confidence over a number of matters, not just the one referred to, would it not be justifiable and appropriate for the Minister to step in and reassure the people of Nova Scotia about the quality of the system of justice?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the Hon. Member that I do not share the premise and the pessimism of his question with respect to the Province of Nova Scotia, or indeed with respect to any part of this country.
Is the Hon. Member asking me to supersede provincial responsibility in terms of my responsibility as the Attorney General of Canada? If this is the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada, I wish the Member would stand up and say so. I think what he is suggesting that I do is to second guess every prosecution and every investigation that takes place in any jurisdiction. The Member knows that when he was in the previous Government it was very respectful of provincial jurisdictions, which was probably the only thing the Liberal administration did right in its whole term.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Prince Albert for a question and a supplemental and that will conclude Question Period.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have only one question for the Minister responsible for Canada Post.
Last Monday, again on Tuesday, and several times before, the Minister has told us that no one in Canada has suffered from a reduction in postal services.
Let me give the Minister an opportunity to make an honest man of himself and tell us that he will re-open and reinstate the post offices and rural routes in Domremy, Debden, Canwood, Weldon, Ayelsbury, Blaine Lake, Mont-Nebo, Crutwell, Alingly, Tweedsmuir, and dozens and dozens of others that have been closed in Saskatchewan and the rest of Canada.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has listed some of the places in which changes have been made in the postal system. I would refer the Hon. Member to an article in today's Ottawa Citizen dealing with the post office at Delcray, Ontario, nearby, being closed because the postmaster retired. The service was replaced with group mailboxes, and Anastasia Collins, 68, who lives across the street from the post office, looks forward to the group mailboxes which will be open longer hours than the post office was.
The point is that the union and the NDP would say that there has been a degradation of service. The person who uses the service and lives across the street is welcoming the change because it means that mail will be accessible for longer hours than when the services were operated by the post office on union hours. Changes do not mean deterioration, they mean improvement to most reasonable people.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: This is somewhat unusual. First, I apologize to the Hon. Member for Prince Albert for removing one question the other day, but I suppose with the disposition in the House such as it is, he can change his mind this afternoon and ask his last question.


CLOSURE OF RURAL ROUTE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister if he is suggesting that the difference between driving 22 kilometres for his mail and driving 80 kilometres for

April 28, 1988
Business of the House
his mail does not mean a reduction in service to a rural route? My rural route was closed. I now have to drive 20 miles instead of getting my mail across the road.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the policy Canada Post has had in place since I have been the Minister responsible is that there is to be no closure of rural routes. There are changes in rural post offices. There are changes in post offices in urban centres as well. They are being removed from corporate run operations which operate for a few hours a day, to the private sector where they are open for eight, 10 or 12 hours a day in locations more convenient to the customers.
I recognize why the New Democrats, spokesmen for the unions, have to complain about this. However, the customers find it useful to be able to access postal services for longer hours than those available under the old system.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that I will hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap on the usual question of business, but before I do so I want to indicate that I will then be hearing from the President of the Treasury Board on a point of order arising out of Question Period, and I will then hear another Member on a question of privilege, in that order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, you anticipated quite promptly that I intend to rise on a point of order to ask the Deputy Government House Leader to give us a statement of the business he wants to put before the House for the Government over the coming days, and, I hope, until the end of June, but if he cannot do that, at least for the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon after the vote, we will continue consideration of Bill C-113, the Western Diversification Act. Friday, we will go to Bill C-74, the Environmental Protection Act, Bill C-92, amendments to the Wheat Board Act, Bill C-89, victims of crime, and then after Routine Proceedings in the afternoon, we will go to amendments to the National Housing Act, third reading of Bill C-103, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and Bill C-126, the Bretton Woods.
In the event that any of those Bills are not finished in the afternoon, we will deal with those on Monday and Tuesday of next week.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, while the Deputy House Leader is on his feet, I wonder if he could explain something. The Minister of Communications
(Miss MacDonald) indicated earlier that the Government would be taking steps to introduce legislation soon. Has he any indication when that legislation would be introduced? Would it be introduced within the next week?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have to deal with legislation once it is introduced. I understand that my colleague hopes to be in a position to introduce that legislation very, very soon. As soon as it is introduced, we will give it consideration in the entire timetable of the Government's business.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to take up any more time other than simply to seek a clarification. Did the Deputy House Leader indicate that the Minister of Communications does plan to introduce legislation regarding the Canadian film industry?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: As the Hon. Minister indicated in Question Period, once she has the opportunity to bring that legislation to the House, I am sure she will bring it forward and then we will put it into the timetable of the Government.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Pat Carney (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of Question Period which relates to the answer given by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) in response-


John Edward Broadbent: Answer?


Nelson Andrew Riis: He asked questions.


Pat Carney: I want to direct my point of order to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). I think you will find, in checking the "blues", that this is a pretty accurate reflection of what he said. He said that he would not be the first Minister who did not know what was going on in Washington.


Some Hon. Members:: Guess who he's talking about.


Pat Carney: I think it might be wise to draw to the attention of Members of the House that-it is interesting that the NDP will not even allow me the courtesy of raising a point of order in the House.
It may be wise to remind Hon. Members that they should direct their questions to the Minister responsible for the issue involved and not cast aspersions on other Ministers who, under the rules of the House, cannot answer in this forum. I think you might consider directing the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) to cast such aspersions in a forum where we
April 28, 1988

can show the rest of the country his vast ignorance of this matter.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the sensibilities of the Minister have been somewhat deranged by my comment. I took it that I was not casting aspersions but simply making a straightforward contention of fact.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer of the Hon. Member for Oshawa is unhelpful. I am speaking to the rules of this House, and the rules of this House do not permit such aspersions to be made against other Ministers, any Minister who, under the rules of this House, is not in a position to make a response. I think the cheap, shoddy shot of the Hon. Member for Oshawa contributes to the degrading of the atmosphere of the House, and I wish to bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do want to be consistent with the rules, but my understanding is that, as long as I was talking about Ministers in plural, I certainly would not want the Minister to feel that I was exempting any of her colleagues from what I had to say. It was a whole batch of Ministers, and my understanding of the rules is that it is perfectly acceptable, but I can well understand why she should be so upset by her past record. It is all right.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am amused by the fact that the Hon. Member is continuing the kind of argument which I raised in the first place. It proves my point about the unhelpful manner in which the Hon. Member is dealing with this.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the rule and the issue I raised. The Hon. Member does not even know what he said. He said that the Minister for International Trade would not be the first Minister who did not know, so I am asking you to address the issue raised.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney) has raised a matter and has specifically drawn attention to the interpretation of the rules. I will take the matter under advisement and return to the Chamber if it is necessary.


PRIVILEGE
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion just over a month ago, on March 22, to raise a question of privilege relating to a denial of the Government, through the House leadership refusing to present a motion authorizing the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism to visit the regions of Canada to hear from persons in the
Privilege-Mr. E. Epp
ethnocultural groups and multicultural organizations in response to the report of the committee.
This morning in the legislative committee which is dealing with the multiculturalism Bill a very similar matter arose. I will not read Citation 16 of Beauchesne's again but only emphasize that Members of Parliament who have responsibilities to deal with matters of public policy need to be aware of what the Canadian people think about these matters. They should have the opportunity to hear from multicultural organizations on their views of the matter.
Three government Members proposed a motion this morning to bring an end to consideration by the committee of testimony by witnesses on Bill C-93. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council is the only non-governmental organization which has been heard to this point. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council has proposed a number of witnesses from organizations.
A motion proposed and carried by the government majority on the committee imposed a guillotine, a six or eight-hour marathon session in which selected witnesses will be heard. Submissions from five of these six organizations will be denied.
I submit that this is a prima facie case of denial of my privileges as a Member and the critic for multiculturalism in the legislative committee. If you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, and find that, I will, of course, be very happy to move the necessary motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I can assist Hon. Members in this matter. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) referred to an event of several weeks ago in which there was a complaint. As it turned out, I did not have to rule on whether there was a question of privilege, but there was a complaint with respect to the number of witnesses that were being heard in another committee. I suggested at the time that Hon. Members on both sides of the House discuss the matter. As I understand it, the matter was satisfactorily resolved, or at least resolved without having to come back to the Chamber.
The Chair is not happy to interfere with affairs inside a committee, as I mentioned several weeks ago. It would seem to me, having listened carefully to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, that this is a matter which lies completely within the jurisdiction of the committee in question. It is very difficult for the Chair to see that, under the circumstances, there is a prima facie case of privilege.
The Hon. Member has as complaint and that complaint may, in another context and another place, be pursued. However, despite the force of the Hon. Member's argument and the obvious concern which the Hon. Member has for certain witnesses that were not considered, I do not believe that under the circumstances it is appropriate for the Chair to interfere.

April 28, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 27, consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being three o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 13 (4) (a) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of 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.
Call in the Members.
[DOT]	(1530)
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In view of the fact that the fire bell has stopped and we have 10 minutes left in calling in the Members, we will now call in the Members again. The bell will ring for another 10 minutes.
[DOT]	(1550)
And the division bells having rung:


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have discussed this point of order with the leaders of the other two Parties. I wish to make two points with respect to the fire alarm that just rang.
I wish to suggest that I am very concerned about the congestion which occurred at the west door of the House of Commons. It was very difficult for people to get out of the House. I suggest that when the fire alarm rings constables should be instructed to take whatever action they have to take to clear that exit in order to make it possible for firemen to get in if they have to.
The other thing I would say is that I am concerned that people were allowed into the building while the alarm was still ringing. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and this has been agreed to by my colleagues, that that breeds disrespect for the fire alarm. One day it might cause serious problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to make a report and to advise the Press Gallery of what happened here this afternoon, as well as to
ensure that the halls are cleared and that people respect both the Sergeant-at-Arms and the constables in that area. We will have a further report on that particular incident.
The first question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris). Mr. Harris moved:
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 7
(a)	by striking out line 14 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"the order, any area in Atlantic Canada, which may be a sub-region in a province,"
(b)	by striking out line 18 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"employment by means of pilot projects and multi-year comprehensive area
development strategies and action plans and other means as necessary."


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris). Mr. Harris moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 28 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"velopment of Atlantic Canada, and to reduce the economic disparity between Atlantic Canada and other regions of Canada, with particu".


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The confusion caused by the fire alarm has subsided. We seem to have our numbers and there appears to be a trend emerging in the votes.
Would the Opposition consider saving taxpayers some dollars and Members some time and allow us to proceed with the business of the House, namely, the western initiative? Would there be a predisposition to have the count on the last vote apply to the substantive motions which are still before us?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, Members will have noticed that we have been debating the very thoughtful amendments put forward by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) to improve the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Bill. We thought it would be appropriate to have the Members stand to oppose these very positive initiatives so as to identify who they are and also to point out that 133 Conservatives are not even in the House today-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris). Mr. Harris moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 12 by adding immediately after line
35 at page 4 the following:
''(2) In carrying out its object the agency shall ensure that there be equity between the Atlantic Provinces in the allocation of resources, effort and programs in a manner to be determined by the Agency, and the Agency shall report annually to Parliament on the fulfillment of this objective."
Ahhouse
Axworthy
Benjamin
Blaikie
Caccia
Cassidy
de Jong
Dewar
Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster
Fulton
Gagliano
Gauthier
Grondin
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Orlikow
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rossi
Skelly-40


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
Killens MacLellan Malepart McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Orlikow
Ouellet
Parry
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
++NAYS
Robinson
Rompkey
Rossi
Skelly
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe)-40
Members
Andre
Bertrand
Binns
Blais
Boyer
Brightwell
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Carney
Cochrane
Collins
Cossitt
Crosby
(Halifax West)
Crouse
Desjardins
Dorin
Duplessis
Fennell
Fontaine
Fraleigh
Friesen
Girard
Gray
(Bonaventure-Iles-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Grise
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Jacques
Kempling
King
Leblanc
MacKay
Martin
McCain
McCuish
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Moore
Nickerson
Nowlan
Oberle
Peterson
Redway
Reimer
Ricard
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Siddon Sparrow Stevens Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Vankoughnet Vincent White Winegard Wise-72


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 5. Mr. Baker moved:
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 36 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"mentation with equal emphasis in each of the four Atlantic Provinces".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next vote is on Motion No. 6. Mr. Baker moves:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out line 37 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall".


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is always possible in this Chamber that people do get a little silly. However, I would like to point out to the House that the Government is willing to reach some accommodation in order that we can complete this voting in an efficient fashion. We have been doing some figuring. The direct cost is about $7,500 per vote.
Althouse	YEAS Members Harris	OrlikowBenjamin	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Isabelle	Parry(Brant)	Jewett	Prud'hommeBlaikie	Kaplan	RiisBoudria	Killens	RobichaudCaccia	MacLellan	RobinsonCassidy	Malepart	Rompkeyde Jong	McCurdy	RossiFinestone	McDonald	SkellyFoster	(Broadview-	TardifGauthier	Greenwood)	(Richmond-Wolfe)-36Grondin	McLaughlin	Guilbault	Nicholson	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)	Bertrand	NAYS Members Grise	NowlanBinns	Gustafson	OberleBoyer	Halliday	PetersonBrightwell	Hardey	RedwayCadieux	Hawkes	ReimerCaldwell	Hicks	RicardCardiff	Hnatyshyn	ScottCochrane	Holtmann	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Collins	Horner	SparrowCossitt	Jacques	StevensCrosby	Kempling	Tardif(Halifax West)	King	(Charlesbourg)Crouse	Leblanc	TaylorDesjardins	MacKay	TowersDorin	Martin	TurnerDuplessis	Mazankowski	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fennell	McCain	ValcourtFontaine	McCuish	VankoughnetFraleigh	McKenzie	VincentFriesen	McKinnon	WhiteGirard	McMillan	WinegardGray	Merrithew	Wise-66(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	Minaker	la-Madeleine)	Moore	Greenaway	Nickerson


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 7 in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East. Mr. Harris moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 13
(a)	by striking out line 7 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"port and promotion of enterprises and community economic development organizations, and"
(b)	by striking out line 36 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"enterprises and community economic development organizations, and more particularly small"
(c)	by striking out line 44 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"prises and community economic development organization, and more particularly small and".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has asked to rise on a point of order. I will recognize him, and then I will recognize the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the right of any Member of Parliament to express his opposition or his agreement with a vote as he sees fit. We have nothing to learn, I say regretfully, from the Hon. Member for ... what is the name of his constituency?

April 28, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


An Hon. Member:: He is a Parliamentary Secretary.


An Hon. Member:: The Hon. Member for Calgary something.


An Hon. Member:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West.


George Albert Proud: You will understand that when they are disagreeable, Mr. Speaker, I try not to learn the names of their ridings. So the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has no lesson to teach us. Personally, I had to leave earlier because I have my Liberal nominating convention on Sunday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Albert Proud: Just the same, I think it is very important to vote this afternoon, even if I should be in my riding to attend to some unfinished business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) on the same point of order.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I understand the intention of the Government and certainly the intention of the Government House Leader to try to come to an agreement to take the vote more expeditiously. However, what I do not understand is the choice of the messenger. When the Government House Leader asks the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) to stand up and ask us to co-operate, he is asking a Member who has been using the extension of the hours-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I regret that that is not a point of order. The next question is on Motion No.


Jacques Guilbault: A point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Baker moves-


Jacques Guilbault: A point of order. They want to have co-operation?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Was the Hon. Member still on his feet?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader to keep his Members in line, if he wants our co-operation.


Felix Holtmann: Why do you not have another caucus meeting?


Jacques Guilbault: I think we will vote, Mr. Speaker. They do not feel like co-operating.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Baker moved:
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out line 9 at page 5 and substituting the following therefore:
'sized enterprises, with emphasis on the utilization of primary resources, particularly the fishery and agriculture in Atlantic Canada,'.


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


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Ms. Jacques) is perhaps not very familiar with our Standing Orders due to her lack of experience.
April 28, 1988

Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
I would like to mention that she entered the House after we	(Division No. 346)
started to vote, and that she voted, Mr. Speaker. I believe her vote should therefore be cancelled.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think there are some very rigid rules that should be applied when the vote is being taken. I know the Speaker has been very generous. There are Members on both sides who have been moving around rather freely-


Mr. Benjamin:: Not in and out of the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A person is not even allowed to move from one seat to the next, but that has been going on. If we are going to apply the rules, they should be applied strictly across the board.
We have become more tolerant with each other in this exercise. While I appreciate what the Hon. Member has raised, I think he would do well to check that procedure with some of his own colleagues on his side.


Carlo Rossi: On the same point of order. When we leave our seat on this side we do not come back to vote. We stay out and come back when you read the motion. But in that case, she did come in after the vote started.


An Hon. Member:: Forget it.


Carlo Rossi: I will not forget it.


Ms. Jacques:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to inform the Hon. Member that he may need glasses, because I was here in the House when the vote started. I was in my seat. And I know the Standing Orders as well as he does. I may not have been in the House very long, but I know the Standing Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We have to accept the Hon. Member's word in this House.
The next vote is on Motion No. 9. Mr. Harris moved:
Motion No. 9
	YEAS	
	Members	
Althouse	Guilbault	NicholsonBenjamin	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Blackburn	Harris	Nunziata(Brant)	Hovdebo	OrlikowBlaikie	Isabelle	OuelletCaccia	Jewett	ParryCassidy	Kaplan	Prud'hommede Jong	Killens	RiisEpp	MacLellan	Robichaud(Thunder Bay-	Malepart	RobinsonNipigon)	McDonald	RompkeyFoster	(Broadview-	RossiGauthier	Greenwood)	Skelly-34Grondin	McLaughlin	NAYS	Members	Bertrand	Halliday	RedwayBinns	Hardey	ReimerBrightwell	Hawkes	RicardCadieux	Hicks	St. GermainCaldwell	Hnatyshyn	ScottCardiff	Holtmann	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cochrane	Horner	SiddonCollins	Jacques	SparrowCossitt	Kempling	StevensCrosby	King	Tardif(Halifax West)	Leblanc	(Charlesbourg)Crouse	MacKay	TaylorDesjardins	Martin	TowersDorin	Mazankowski	TurnerDuplessis	McCain	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fennell	McCuish	ValcourtFontaine	McKenzie	VankoughnetFraleigh	McKinnon	VincentFriesen	McMillan	WhiteGirard	Merrithew	WinegardGray	Minaker	Wise-67(Bonaven ture-I les-de-	Moore	la-Madeleine)	Nickerson	Greenaway	Nowlan	Grise	Oberle	Gustafson	Peterson


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 10. Mr. Baker moved:
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out line 29 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"each province in Atlantic Canada and shall be broadly representative of the business, social cultural, governmental and educational participants in the economic development of Atlantic Canada."
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out line 25 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"13(c) to improve the business environment, particularly as it relates to the development of the fishery and agriculture,".


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are getting closer to five o'clock, which is the normal hour for Private Members' Hour. I wonder if the Opposition would be willing to facilitate the vote and the vote count if upon completion we were to call it five o'clock, so that we do not lose any time on Private Members' Hour, even though the Opposition has managed to wipe out Government Orders.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, now that the arrogance of the back-benchers on the other side seems to have simmered down, we may be able to come to some arrangement to try to expedite the remaining divisions, especially out of respect for the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner) in whose name the Private Members' Motion stands.
May I suggest that the last vote be applied to the remaining motions, provided that once we have applied this vote, we call it five o'clock?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, earlier it would have been helpful to have that suggestion of applying the vote. However, just to make it clear, we have had undertakings from the Deputy House Leader on a number of occasions. While they were not made on the floor of the House of Commons, a number of those commitments have been breached.
I want to make it perfectly clear, and I want to hear it from the Hon. Member that, if we apply the last vote to the remaining motions, the Speaker will see that it is five o'clock. Again, the Government has indicated its intention and willingness to abuse the rules on a number of occasions in the last few days, and I would not want to give it that opportunity between now and five o'clock.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Deputy House Leader who is away on government business, I want to indicate categorically that we do not accept the notion that he has breached any agreement at any time. In his presence, Hon. Members might choose to raise that where it might be debated.
On the undertaking that I heard from my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party, what I heard was that on all of these substantive motions the vote on the last motion would apply to the main motion, of course, to complete the report stage. Then I guess it would apply in reverse, because the Government intends to support that. Then the understanding would be that we would call it five o'clock, Government Orders would be completed for the day, and we would move to Private Members' Business.
If that is what I am hearing from across the floor, I see no problem for government Members on that.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary understood correctly. That is what I suggest. I simply want to make sure that the names of two of my colleagues who were not in the House during the previous vote are added for subsequent votes. I am referring to the Hon. Members for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Speaking as Whip of this Party, and I hope speaking for the Whip of the Government, I would hope that there would be agreement that we would dispense with the bells on the concurrence vote, and that we could proceed in the same way that we have already agreed. In other words, we would apply that vote without the bells to the concurrence motion.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Chair could advise the House, within the process of
April 28, 1988

parliamentary reform, the status of the proposed electronic voting process?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the Hon. Member could raise that with the Elections, Privileges and Procedure Committee. It would be a good item for him to bring up in that committee.
Is it agreed that Motion Nos. 11, 12 and 33 be counted as negatived, with the addition to the divisions of the names of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)?
Motions Nos. 13, 16 to 32 inclusive are negatived on division, agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 34 to 50 inclusive, and Motion No. 33 are lost on division.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. Mr. Baker moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 21
(a) by adding immediately after line 13 at page 9, the following:
"(2) The annual report referred to in subsection (1) shall contain:
a statement on the annual impact of the operations of the Agency upon the regional disparities between Atlantic Canada and other regions of Canada. The rate of economic disparity shall be calculated on the basis of a formula reflecting the economic disparity of those regions as measured by low employment, low earned income per capita and low gross domestic product."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 12. Mr. Baker moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-103 be amended by striking out Clause 24 and substituting the following therefor:
''24. Every indeterminate employee in the Public Service of Canada who is declared affected as a result of the creation of the Agency shall be transferred to the Agency within ninety after the day on which this section comes into force, and is deemed to have been appointed to the Agency in accordance with subsection 15(1)."


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate) moved:: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 25.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The vote on Motion
No. 13 will apply inclusive.	to Motions Nos. 16	to 32 and 34 to 50
The next question is on Motion No. 33.		Mr. Baker moved:
Motion No. 33		
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 43 by adding immediately after line		
24 at page 17 the following:		
"(2) The decision to separate the functions of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation from the Cape Breton Development Corporation shall be reviewed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Regional		
Industrial Expansion and, within two years		following the coming into
force of this Act, the Committee shall report on whether the functions of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation ought to be reintegrated with those		
of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.'		
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on		
the following division:		
	(Division No. 351)	
	YEAS	
	Members	
Althouse	Gauthier	NicholsonBenjamin	Grondin	(Trinity)Blackburn	Guilbault	Nunziata(Brant)	(Saint-Jacques)	OrlikowBlaikie	Harris	OuelletBoudria	Hovdebo	ParryCaccia	Isabelle	Prud'hommeCassidy	Jewett	RiisCopps	Killens	Robichaudde Jong	MacLellan	RobinsonEpp	Malepart	Rompkey(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	RossiNipigon)	(Broadview-	Skelly-37Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	Garneau	NAYS	Members	Bertrand	Crosby	GirardBinns	(Halifax West)	GrayBrightwell	Crouse	(Bonaventure-iles-de-Cadieux	Desjardins	la-Madeleine)Caldwell	Dorin	GreenawayCardiff	Duplessis	GriseCochrane	Fennell	GustafsonCollins	Fontaine	HallidayCossitt	Fraleigh	HardeyFriesen	Hawkes
April 28, 1988

Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Horner
Jacques
Kempling
King
Leblanc
MacKay
Martin
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McKenzie
McKinnon
Merrithew
Minaker
Moore
Nickerson
Nowlan
Oberle
Peterson
Redway
Reimer
Ricard
St. Germain
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Siddon Sparrow Stevens
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Towers
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Vankoughnet Vincent White Winegard Wise-66


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be concurred in.
Adjournment Debate
Jacques	Minaker	RossiJewett	Moore	St. GermainKempling	Nicholson	SiddonKillens	(Trinity)	SkellyKing	Nickerson	SparrowLeblanc	Nowlan	StevensMacKay	Nunziata	TardifMacLellan	Oberle	(Richmond-Wolfe)Malepart	Orlikow	TardifMartin	Ouellet	(Charlesbourg)Mazankowski	Parry	TaylorMcCain	Peterson	TowersMcCuish	Prud'homme	TurnerMcDonald	Redway	(Ottawa-Carleton)(Broadview-	Reimer	ValcourtGreenwood)	Ricard	VankoughnetMcKenzie	Riis	VincentMcKinnon	Robichaud	WhiteMcLaughlin	Robinson	WinegardMerrithew	Rompkey	Wise-99


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It has already been agreed to and adopted in reverse.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It was the intention of the New Democratic Party to vote in favour of the motion. I am seeking clarification on whether or not that has been done.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time?


Ms. Nicholson:: At the next sitting of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If that is the case, I

would suggest that we take a vote on this motion. All those in favour of the motion will please rise.


SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
[Stage Direction]
(Division No. 352)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse
Benjamin
Bertrand
Binns
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Boudria
Brightwell
Caccia
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Cassidy
Collins
Copps
Cossitt
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse de Jong Desjardins Dorin Duplessis Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Fennell
Finestone
Fontaine
Fraleigh
Garneau
Gauthier
Girard
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Grise
Grondin
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harris
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Horner
Isabelle
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis)- Veterans Affairs-Request for adjustment measure/Policy on veterans designated AWOL; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Horticulture-Bees-Need for replacement stocks/Request that honey producers be given government compensation; The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (M. Nickerson)-Northern Development-Negotiation of energy accord with Northwest Territories.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


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

April 28, 1988
Illicit Drugs Promotion


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Horner that Bill C-264, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (instruments and literature for illicit drug use) be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When this motion was last before the House the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) had the floor. Since no Hon. Member is rising on debate, is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Accordingly, the Bill stands referred to a legislative committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for Private Members' Business has now expired. Shall we call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think there was some anticipation that there might be an opportunity to move to the "Late Show" a little early tonight. However, I am not sure if the Hon. Members who have questions on the adjournment debate are present in the House. I am not sure which Members might indeed be disadvantaged. Perhaps we could suspend for a couple of minutes to see where those Members are.
When we do things rather quickly we hate to offend the rights and privileges of individual Members. Perhaps members of the three Parties could look for their members to see where they are and to see if we can get them into the Chamber so we can proceed with the "Late Show".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), and the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) are the Members with questions on the adjournment debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, since I am one of the Members who has some comments to make at this time, I am prepared to make those comments now. That would allow for at least 10
minutes or 15 minutes for the other Members to be identified, located and brought into the House to make their presentations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there a Parliamentary Secretary in the House to respond?


An Hon. Member:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore, we can proceed to the adjournment debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to expand on one of the questions I raised in the House earlier this week regarding the situation of the late Mr. Gordon Broad. In 1943 at age 18 this individual joined the Canadian Army. He served in Europe until peace was declared. Since I happened to know this individual personally and knew him for many years, I am fully aware of his war record. Mr. Broad served gallantly. He, along with his comrades, were prepared to lay down their lives so that those of us today are able to live and cherish the peace and freedom that we have come to know in our country and in our part of the world.
After peace was declared in Europe, Mr. Broad volunteered for the Pacific theatre and got 30 days leave before he was about to debark. At that time in 1945, war with Japan ended. He was then age 20. He asked for industrial leave in Nanaimo, B.C. His sergeant denied the request, although Mr. Broad had a job to go to in the interior of the province. The sergeant said that men were needed to police the grounds, but for the individual troops this meant that they would be hanging around to do KP duty while awaiting their appropriate papers. Since Mr. Broad had a job to go to-he was anxious to seek employment-he left on October 17, 1945. Some of his friends and colleagues at the time were applying for and receiving leave.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that amnesty was declared for 14,000 absentees or deserters, as they were called, although in no way would these individuals be considered deserters. They had served their country well, gallantly and had been prepared to give their lives. When the war ended and peace was declared, the young men saw no reason to remain. They were
April 28, 1988

anxious to get on with their lives and with building their careers. This included Mr. Broad.
At the time amnesty was declared, Gordon Broad was prospecting in the interior of British Columbia and was unaware of it. You know from your constituency of Alberta, Mr. Speaker, that when you are in the bush prospecting you are neither listening to the news regularly nor reading daily newspapers and are, therefore, unaware of government initiatives. Such was the case here.
The 1946 Order-in-Council PC 3264 was made under the 1945 National Emergencies Transitional Powers Act. It was applicable to all service personnel who went absent on or before January 1, 1946, in Canada, and who had not been apprehended or surrendered themselves before August 15, 1946.
I received that in the letter of the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) of April 24, 1987. This Order in Council provided that such persons would be deemed never to have served in the Canadian Forces and consequently would not be entitled to any of the rights, privileges or benefits normally accorded to former members of the Armed Forces.
Mr. Broad approached the Canadian Legion a number of years ago, and through countless attempts was unsuccessful in obtaining the appropriate pardon. On August 25, 1980, a letter from the National Personnel Records Centre confirmed the Order in Council application to his record.
In early 1985, through the then Minister of National Defence, I asked that a review of Mr. Broad's case be undertaken, and the Minister of National Defence of the time wrote in a letter of June 18, 1985, that no discretionary power existed under the Order in Council for individual cases and those of the 14,000 other people affected by this, although dispensation had not been undertaken in any single case as was made clear in that letter.
On December 5, 1986, I wrote to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) asking that he review the case as Mr. Broad was not eligible for any benefits. At this time, Mr. Broad was in extremely ill health. Under doctor's orders, he had been prohibited from working. He had no income apart from his unemployment insurance benefits. I am sad to say that his wife was also ordered not to work by her physician. The Minister of Veterans Affairs sent a letter on to the Associate Minister of National Defence as he had no jurisdiction, he said, back on December 17, 1986.
The Order in Council still stands. Despite representations made on behalf of Mr. Broad and others, the Government has failed to take any action.
I wrote again to the Associate Minister of National Defence on March 10, 1987, asking if Cabinet would consider amending the Order in Council to enable Gordon Broad, after having served so well in the overseas theatre during the Second World
Adjournment Debate
War, to be eligible for appropriate benefits that ought to be available to veterans and particularly those who actually served overseas. On April 24, 1987, the Associate Minister of National Defence wrote that the whole question of dealing with absentees received the most careful and exhaustive examination, and in the end, it was concluded that the course of action which was followed was the best and most practical way of dealing with a difficult problem. This brings little comfort to people like Mr. Broad.
The Canadian Legion made representations as early as 1946 and again over the years, but there was no alteration to the Government's position regarding that Order in Council. Today, I simply want to make an appeal on behalf of an individual who served his country throughout his entire life. He has a long record of serving his community and his country in so many different ways. It would take literally pages to list the different ways Mr. Broad and his wife have served our country.
While in this case I am referring to a specific individual, the same thing applies to many, many others. I simply want to say that I think it is appropriate now that the Government take whatever steps necessary and whatever extraordinary steps necessary to ensure that these men and women receive a pardon and that their families be eligible for the appropriate benefits that any veteran who served his or her country in the last war is eligible to receive. I am really asking the Government to give special consideration to this and to related cases.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Kamloops-Shuswap has a particular case in mind and is really asking the current Ministry to revisit history and perhaps to change it.
The Hon. Member does know that under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act of 1945, an Order in Council was passed which indicated that any Armed Forces personnel who had gone absent from Canadian Forces on or before January 1, 1946, in Canada, and who had not been apprehended or had not surrendered themselves before August 15, 1946, close to some eight months later, would be deemed never to have served in the Canadian Forces.
That was the decision made at the time to accomplish two things, to be fair to those who had served with distinction and had obeyed the rules in the situation in force at that time, and to recognize that some people leaving the Forces without the proper papers of discharge were doing so for some perceived actual or real advantage to themselves by not doing what was required of them at that time.
That would have created quite a large problem because there were about 14,000 absentees or deserters who fell into that category. Somehow their lives needed to be regulated. They needed to be able to return to civilian life and not have their futures destroyed. That was the decision taken by the

April 28, 1988
Adjournment Debate
politicians of the time. That is why the Order in Council was passed and it did indeed accomplish that.
Very strong representations were made on this issue in 1972. The issue was reconsidered and the decision was made that the original Order in Council should stand and should be upheld for the reasons which I have outlined.
The matter can be reviewed in an individual case if there is something on the file which indicates that a mistake was made. In the 40 years during which this order has been in existence, individual petitions have been made and files have been examined but no such mistake has been uncovered.
In response to the Hon. Member's question on April 26 the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) told him, and repeats today, that it is the Government's decision to abide by the Order in Council of 1946. It was fair and just and remains so.
HORTICULTURE-BEES-NEED FOR REPLACEMENT STOCKS/


REQUEST THAT HONEY PRODUCERS BE GIVEN GOVERNMENT COMPENSATION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on April 19 I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) which was responded to by his Parliamentary Secretary. I asked the Government what it was going to do with regard to the tremendous crisis facing honey producers in western Canada.
On January 1 the Government closed the border to bees being brought into Canada because of a parasitic varroa mite which is affecting a number of states in the United States. This is having a devastating impact on some 2,000 honey producers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, including the Peace River country.
The Government assured these producers last July that they would be able to bring in replacement bees as they do every year for their hives in western Canada. However, on January 1 the border was closed. The cost of replacement bees from other countries such as Australia and New Zealand is almost double.
I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if the Government would be prepared to provide the extra transportation costs which amount to approximately $25 per hive. I got a zero answer, a comment about the Government providing assistance under the Special Grains Program for honey producers which, of course, has nothing to do with the varroa mite problem.
That compensation is being provided because the U.S. Farm Bill has effectively dropped the price of honey in this country from at least 60 cents a pound to some 30 to 40 cents a pound. The compensation being provided under the Special Grains Program covers that, but that is another problem.
The Parliamentary Secretary tried to smother this parasite infestation problem with another problem of the United States Farm Bill driving down the price of honey and effectively gave me no answer. Time has passed and the Government has not provided the compensation. Alberta has provided some but
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia have provided none.
The time has almost passed for transporting in replacement supplies of packaged bees from Australia or New Zealand. The Government has procrastinated for so long that we are now getting to the stage of compensation because the producers are effectively put out of business for an entire year. This will cost them tens of thousands of dollars.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not prolong the agony these producers are facing and will announce a compensation program of at least $30 per hive, which is judged by many producers in the West as being more adequate compensation. It will allow them to get back into business in the coming year even though their income will be effectively destroyed for this year.
The Government has a responsibility to take some action in this regard. I hope it will make an announcement this afternoon for the benefit of these producers in western Canada. While it seems like a relatively small industry to those of us who are not directly involved, it does involve 2,500 jobs in western Canada and $10 million worth of honey. It impacts on millions of dollars in production of clover, seed, Canola and alfalfa because the seeds need to be properly pollinated. The industry has a broad impact across western Canada and compensation by the Government is definitely in order. It should be paid immediately.


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the honey industry is divided on the issue of the ban on importation of honey bees from the United States and has been for some time. Its national body, the Canadian Honey Council, has not taken a consensus position to provide advice to the Government. Instead, this issue has rested on provincial beekeepers' associations of which all but one have indicated that they are not willing to live with the risk of importing bees from the United States.
The polarization of the industry on this issue has been emphasized by the strong lobby of the beekeepers who want to import bees from the United States, and, recently, some beekeepers formed an organization called Alberta Beekeepers for Mite-Free Bees to represent the producers who favour the border closure.
Recognizing that some citizens were not well informed about the prevailing situation and to clarify facts and distribute uniform information across the country, an industry-Government meeting was held on March 23, 1988. At that time, U.S. officials in attendance outlined the progress the scientists and regulatory officers had achieved in attempting to control the varroa disease and its spread. Agriculture Canada officials are still concerned about the completeness of the scientific data and the effectiveness of regulatory measures used to assist in disease reduction in the United States. To
April 28, 1988

date, there is no indication that these will ensure 100 per cent control over the disease.
There are presently 19,000 beekeepers in Canada, of which approximately 2,000 are commercial. Together, they operate 700,000 beehives or colonies. There is a maximum of 120 commercial beekeepers who will be affected by the border closing measures, representing approximately 100,000 colonies. Of these 120 beekeepers, most are bulk honey producers and will hire about 500 people as seasonal help. At an average of 150 pounds of honey per hive, 15 million pounds of honey will be lost to production in 1988. The five-year Canadian average production is 85 million pounds. Therefore, the decrease in production is estimated at 18 per cent for an approximate value of $7 million at the current price of honey.
It is not clear how the decreased honeybee population will affect the pollination of clover and canola. While honeybees are the recommended pollinators of clovers, wild bees and leaf cutting bees also contribute to their pollination. The biology of the Canola plant also allows the plant to be productive without the presence of honeybees. This data has not been clearly researched and it would be presumptuous to attribute a dollar value to the impact of the losses of honeybees to these crops.
Alternative sources of bees have been available to supply the increased Canadian demand. Agriculture Canada officials, as well as provincial Government officials and some beekeepers, have been in close contact with New Zealand and Australia who awaited bee orders to gear up production all winter. We are familiar with the Australian animal health system and have confidence in its regulatory measures. There is no evidence that varroa and tracheal mites exist in that country and we have concluded that bees could be safely imported from both Australia and New Zealand.
Adjournment Debate
Canadian beekeepers were also willing to provide bees to their fellow package bee operators. The problem, therefore, was not one of supply, but of price. The Special Canadian Grains Program should help to ease part of the financial crisis faced by beekeepers. The Province of Alberta has offered financial assistance to all beekeepers to compensate the increased cost of honey production. Unfortunately, other prairie provinces have not accepted this responsibility, thus creating disparities between provinces.
We have concluded that a fair and equitable compensation payment cannot be made at this time. Eastern beekeepers did not receive compensation when the border east of Manitoba was closed in 1986. It must be pointed out that the Government has never compensated for actions to prevent the introduction of undesirable diseases into the country. As I have already mentioned, some relief will be forthcoming from the Special Canadian Grains Program and should help to alleviate the financial burden facing many honey producers. A meeting on tripartite stabilization was held at the beginning of the month. If provinces and beekeepers agree on the program, there is a strong possibility it could be in place for the 1988 marketing season.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, positive actions have been triggered by the setbacks the industry faces and I assure you that the Government will continue to work with the industry to build a strong sector.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, April 29, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers