1988-04-27

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, according to Jeff Simpson of The Globe and Mail the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) declared that acid rain represented the litmus test of Canada-U.S. relations. If so, the Americans have flunked the test, and so by implication has the Prime Minister. His Government's strategy of less rhetoric, reduced lobbying, fewer public complaints, and the special envoys' process produced meagre results-more U.S. research and a statement by the President that acid rain was indeed a transboundary problem.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's policy also disheartened Canada's congressional allies. Every time they sought to get something going, the Reaganites could respond that even the Canadians accepted the administration's approach.
The Prime Minister now says Congress is at fault for not passing acid rain control legislation. Yet his Government's policy hurt congressional efforts.
This toughening reflects the political reality that nothing further can be gained from the administration. President Reagan is already history. The rhetoric also reflects the need to deflect criticism back home that the close relations with President Reagan led Canada up a deadend street.
What a sham, Mr. Speaker.


ABORTION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, "The testimony of modern science and technology asserts most
emphatically a truth that was not so certain even 20 years ago, namely, that from the moment of conception everything is present for the gradual development of a unique human person; nothing is added by the mother or any other source".
This sentence is taken from an open letter to Members of Parliament from His Excellency the Bishop of Alexandria-Cornwall. He goes on to say: "With this present scientific knowledge and the assurance of our Christian faith my request to you", that is, Members of Parliament, "is to enshrine the right to life from the moment of conception in law and in our Charter of Human Rights ..."
I urge the Government and all Members to heed this message from the Bishop.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, telegrams from Canadians are demanding that the Government stop its new program of trying to railroad Salvadoran refugee claimants back to El Salvador.
Recently a Salvadoran trade unionist who had been imprisoned and tortured for his union work there, lost his plea for refugee status in Canada and was to be deported to El Salvador until Amnesty International intervened to ensure that his appeal is heard before he leaves Canada. On the record documented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the General Accounting Office of the U.S. Congress, he has good reason to fear persecution if forced back to El Salvador.
Another Salvadoran whose bus driver brother was murdered by the Salvadoran Army, fled rather than be conscripted by that same army to kill his neighbours. Here he was imprisoned so that he was unable to get a lawyer to help his case, and in discouragement withdrew his refugee claim. Fortunately, his case will be reviewed by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, since in El Salvador he is under death squad threat.
Is this the purpose for which the Government recently dumped some of the best qualified members of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, to intimidate the rest into sending Salvadorans back to death squads?

April 27, 1988


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians are in favour of free trade. I would like to point out the visit my Prime Minister is paying to Washington today. Three cheers to Brian Mulroney for his tenacity and his efforts to strengthen bilateral trade with our southern neighbour!
Liberals and New Democrats, the end is near. You have only one thing left to do: pay tribute to our Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, who is leading our country so brilliantly. He is a very talented statesman whom we are pleased to follow and support. I thank the residents of the riding of La Prairie for giving me the chance to live such moments in this House.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a postscript to this comment. Canadians are living through a time of glory, rejoicing and pride, all because of the Conservatives in the country.
Victory in Manitoba! Congratulations! And even at the risk of repeating myself, I say that Canada has the greatest Prime Minister ever elected.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday with pride and joy I joined approximately 6,000 Montrealers in song and dance to celebrate Israel's fortieth birthday.
Growing from the ashes of the Holocaust, that blot on the collective memory of mankind, this state has settled Jewish refugees from over 75 nations of the world, renewed the land, planted trees, built roads, housing, industry, set up hospitals and health services, and put in place a modern democracy founded on the basic values of traditional Jewish culture, respect for learning, justice and charity.
Yet even with these successes no nation is whole without peace. This fledgling state has withstood assaults from its Arab neighbours, and survived continuous hostility and a condition of quasi-war ever since it was born.
Since its founding days Israel has fought five wars for survival, and its citizens still face an ongoing difficult security situation.
While the present unrest concerns us all, we must not give up hope. We must persevere in our support for peace in the
region, a peace which history has yet to record for Israel and its Arab-Palestinian neighbours, a peace negotiated directly by Israel and the Palestinians, a peace that includes full recognition of Israel by her neighbours and acceptance of her right to secure borders.
Surely Israel and the Palestinians deserve such fundamental democratic rights as we hold so dear here in Canada.


WELFARE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, if there is one accomplishment in which this Government can take pride, it is the significant reduction in poverty levels since it took office.
The National Council of Welfare, in its recent publication "Poverty Profile 1988", says that, in our first two years in office, the poverty rate decreased from 17.3 per cent to 14.9 per cent. Some 525,000 individuals were removed from the ranks of the poor between 1984 and 1986 alone.
The real success story has been the reduction in poverty among Canada's elderly. Our prime area of concern is now to repeat this success for families headed by single women.
The economic and social policies of the Conservative Government have been unparalleled when it comes to alleviating hardship amongst the less well off.


DISARMAMENT
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, last year, prompted by growing public concern about the export of arms and military related goods from Canada, I called upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to establish a public commission of inquiry to undertake a thorough and careful study of Canada's military export policies and practices. Unfortunately, the Minister failed to establish such a commission of inquiry. However, he has now agreed to set up a technical working group, as recommended recently by the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, to examine the feasibility of an arms register. This is an encouraging and timely development.
While I welcome the Minister's decision, I must protest his Department's failure to invite representatives of disarmament groups, particularly Ernie Regehr, of Project Ploughshares, who has skilfully and eloquently promoted a need for an arms register for many years, to attend the inaugural meeting of the working group.
April 27, 1988

Unless the Minister broadens the representation of this group to include disarmament organizations, the group's credibility is put seriously in question.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians who live with mental or physical disability face many challenges that are, in and of themselves, hard enough to overcome. If, on top of that, you happen to be a native Canadian, the barriers can be truly awesome.
In 1981 a special parliamentary committee recommended a series of steps to help disabled natives lead independent and dignified lives. In 1985 those recommendations in respect of native Canadians were endorsed a second time, in the parliamentary committee report "Equality for All".
To date, however, there is little indication from either native or non-native sources that any significant progress has been made.
In the initial report of the Committee on the Disabled, brought down exactly one year ago, I advised the House that the Department of Indian Affairs had no services for disabled natives, had no future plans for such programs, and did not consider disability prevention to be an issue of concern.
It will come as no surprise, therefore, that the Parliamentary Committee on the Status of Disabled Persons intends to investigate this situation.

[ Translation]


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, after looking at their newspaper today, Quebecers must feel very neglected by the Conservative Government. After being cheated on the frigates and all the other contracts for the shipyards, because the Conservative Government has closed down two shipyards in Quebec, after being had in the rail transport area when CN was allowed to buy locomotives in the United States rather than from Bombardier in Quebec, we learn that under the federal Government's science and technology policy, Quebec receives only $25 million out of $251 million. Only 10 per cent! That is scandalous, considering that the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. de Cotret) is a Quebecer. It is unacceptable and I would hope that he will take corrective action as soon as possible so that Quebec receives its fair share.
Oral Questions


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, opinion polls, they say, 19 times out of 20 are far less accurate in Manitoba than in other parts of Canada.
Yesterday Manitobans went to the polls, and the survey said the Conservatives are the most popular Party and the New Democrats have fallen into a bottomless pit. No doubt, some credit should be given to Sharon Carstairs who was able to convince more Winnipeg people to vote Liberal in two years while the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has failed to convince anyone to vote for the Liberals in the past 15 years, other than a few friends in his riding.
Is it possible that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) is more popular than the pollsters would say, that is, 19 times out of 20? Is it possible that the NDP is far less popular than the polls indicate, that is, 19 times out of 20?
Doesn't the suspense of this information just drive you crazy, Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question either for the Deputy Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the Prime Minister's visit to Washington, particularly concerning acid rain.
The Government's record in solving the acid rain problem with the United States is one of retreat and failure. The Prime Minister has adopted a non-strategy of little or no lobbying of the United States Congress, fewer appeals to American public opinion, and has been utilizing the special envoys' process. For what conclusion and for what achievement? The answer is nothing.
Now the Prime Minister belatedly discovers that the Congress of the United States, the Senate and the House of Representatives, does exist and is a key player in the acid rain game.
Will the Prime Minister in his address to the Congress this afternoon finally lay his so-called special relationship with the

April 27, 1988
Oral Questions
President on the line, and state Canada's position on acid rain clearly and unequivocally on behalf of people north of the 49th parallel who now consider this to be the most important issue of our neighbourship with the United States?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this Government has not only known that acid rain is a major priority in the relationship between Canada and the United States but we have acted on that knowledge. We have acted on that knowledge in the United States in seeking agreements, including specific agreements, in the context of an accord, and we have acted here at home by giving leadership with the provinces to a number of actions that allow us to go to the Americans and indicate that we are doing our part in dealing with that continent-wide problem.
I am very interested to note that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would make reference to acid rain in the context of a speech by a Canadian Prime Minister to the United States Congress, because the last time there was such a speech by a Liberal Prime Minister acid rain was not mentioned once.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman knows that our Prime Minister at three consecutive summits has been inveigled into a presidential commitment from the United States for yet more research, when everybody knows the solution is not more research but more action.


UNITED STATES POLICY ON NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs hopefully is aware, and Canadians today learned with dismay, that the U.S. negotiators in Geneva have rejected Canada's demand that a planned increase in the United States emissions of nitrogen oxide, which is the key ingredient of acid rain, would only be permitted and should only be permitted if this increase did not result in more pollution for Canada. That was Canada's demand which American negotiators have rejected.
Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Prime Minister today in Washington will insist that the President reverse this short-sighted and disastrous policy announced in Geneva today, because it really means that the United States still plans to increase, and not decrease, the acid rain pollution of our lakes, forests, rivers, and our environment. Did the Prime Minister know the President was going to allow this to happen by way of his negotiators in Geneva on the very day he was addressing the United States Congress?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, one-third of the acid rain that wreaks havoc on the Canadian environment comes from nitrogen oxide. About two-thirds of that NOx comes from the United States. Clearly, the Prime Minister will be raising that dimension of the problem with the President during his private and public meetings.
The position of Canada has always been clear in Geneva at successive meetings of our top officials there. We oppose any American position that has been on the table at successive meetings that would have the effect of increasing NOx emissions from such a source. We have opposed it in the past, we oppose it now, and we will oppose it at future meetings. The Prime Minister of Canada will be expressing his opposition in the most unqualified terms in Washington today and tomorrow.


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL SHOW FIRMNESS IN SPEECH TO UNITED STATES CONGRESS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it may be an unfortunate coincidence for the Canadian Government and the Prime Minister of Canada that, on the very day he addresses the U.S. Congress, American negotiators in Geneva announce a decision that is very negative for Canada.
Now that the Prime Minister has discovered the existence of the U.S. Congress, will he show some firmness in his speech today before Congress or is he going to soften his position so as not to compromise the passage of his free trade agreement with the United States? Are we heading towards free trade in acid rain?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I really am puzzled. The Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition attaches a great deal of symbolic importance to the fact that there is a meeting in Geneva today when the Prime Minister of Canada is in Washington. The negotiators from 34 countries have been meeting almost non-stop for the last year and a half, or two years.
The meeting in Geneva is important, but it is no more important than the meetings held in February or in November, or those that will be held in future months. We are not completing a protocol in Geneva this week. Indeed, I would doubt whether enough progress will be made by the international community to make it possible to sign such an Accord by next October, which was the original deadline.
In any event, the Prime Minister of Canada, unlike the Prime Minister of the day in 1977, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, will be expressing, on the floor of Congress, Canadian concerns in very unqualified terms. This is in sharp contrast to the situation that prevailed when the Liberal Party of Canada was in power. It would not raise the subject on the floor of the House of Commons, let alone on the floor of Congress in Washington.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 27, 1988


Lloyd Axworthy: How sweet it is, Mr. Speaker.
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. He has just said how the Prime Minister will be taking tough stands and strengthening his rhetoric with the President. It was not so long ago that in this House the Prime Minister was castigating a Member of the U.S. Congress who had the nerve to suggest that the Canadian Prime Minister and the Canadian administration were selling out on acid rain.
Why has the Prime Minister now changed his tune? Will he retract or repudiate those statements he made in this House when he was saying that it was wrong for U.S. Congressmen to be asking for a Clean Air Act and that they should go along with the Reagan plan?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said no such thing. The Government of Canada should be judged by its actions and those actions are a heck of a lot tougher against acid rain than those taken by any previous Government. We have slashed acid rain-causing emissions from Canadian sources by 50 per cent and that will take effect by 1994, based on levels that prevailed in 1980, as far as sulphur dioxide is concerned.
We have instituted the toughest anti-NOx program in the world. When we took office in September of 1984, emission controls in Canada for nitrogen oxide were only one-third as strict as those that prevailed in the United States, greatly undermining our capacity as a country to point the finger at Washington for stronger measures. Now we have slashed allowable emissions by 60 per cent for light cars and trucks, and by 50 per cent for heavy-duty vehicles. That control program is the toughest in the world. We should be judged by our actions, and our actions have been very strong.


GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said we should judge the Government by its actions. We know that the actions of the Government were to cut back on efforts in Washington to work with Congress to develop the Clean Air Act. It tried to sort of soft sell and soft soap the President to get action. It completely disbanded efforts by the Canadian embassy to work with the administration. Those are its actions.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Lloyd Axworthy: Is the Government going to change its actions now? What it has done has resulted in absolutely no success, no achievement, no accomplishment in dealing with this major problem of acid rain coming from the U.S. Is the Government going to change its actions now?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not need to take a back seat to the Liberal Party on acid rain. When the Liberal Party was in office, Sir, the Prime Minister of the day would return to
Oral Questions
Ottawa from Washington and other foreign capitals, after meeting with then President Carter, and we would ask him in Question Period whether he used the occasion to raise Canada's very deep-seated concern about this lethal pollutant. Prime Minister Trudeau would shrug his shoulders and say: "Well, the Hon. Member cannot expect the Prime Minister of Canada to raise just any bilateral problem." For Prime Minister Trudeau acid rain was merely another bilateral problem.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, all the Minister did was to confirm that after four years of talk our Prime Minister has got absolutely nothing from the President. I do not know what he is boasting about.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Last week, the Prime Minister's office published the list of ministerial task forces, which no longer includes the Montreal Region Development Committee. A spokesman for the Prime Minister confirmed this unfortunate state of affairs.
Today, however, according to the media, the Minister's spokesman said the Committee still exists. Who is telling the truth?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to set the record straight. The sub-committee of the Economic Development Committee for the Montreal region was created at the same time as the Montreal Region Advisory Committee, so that appropriate recommendations could be made, based on information provided by the Advisory Committee.
Subsequently, the Advisory Committee's recommendations were considered and largely agreed to by the ministerial task force, and these recommendations were referred to the respective departments, while the Economic Development Committee, which is in charge of these matters, took over the responsability.
So we are talking about an ad hoc committee, a subcommittee like many other committees that still exist today and are not on the list. This Committee did a lot of work during the time it was working with the Advisory Committee, which has submitted its report. The report has been approved and its implementation is in progress.

April 27, 1988
Oral Questions


QUERY WHY GOVERNMENT IGNORED PICARD REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, according to officials at the office of the Mayor of Montreal, the Committee still exists. However, if I understand correctly, the Minister confirmed today that the Committee is no longer active.
My second question is very straightforward: According to the office of the Mayor of Montreal, the Picard Report made some very concrete and practical suggestions but the federal Government completely ignored them. Why?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Sub-Committee on Economic Development of the Montreal region, which reported to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, may be asked to meet at any time, if this is judged to be appropriate. The sectoral Departments are acting on the recommendations of the Picard Report. There were about 86 recommendations. Some of them are exclusively concerned with the city and others with the province. Of the remaining recommendations we approved about 95 per cent. We are acting on these recommendations, and the benefits are being felt in a very concrete way in the Greater Montreal area.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows perfectly well that the people of Montreal did not like the Government's response in this respect and more specifically, the Picard Report recommended that the federal Government support the Vieux-Port, the Space Agency and a number of projects concerning the region's infrastructure. Why hasn't the federal Government given a concrete response to projects that are so important to the people of Montreal?


Robert René de Cotret: If the Leader of the Socialist Party was as well informed about events in Quebec as he is about events in the other provinces, he would know that in many instances the Government has already taken action. He referred to the Vieux-Port. We have approved the entire plan. We are now taking concrete action on capital investment in the Vieux-Port. For instance, we have just agreed with Quebec to sign a threeway agreement by May 15.
I can mention many more programs that have been started in the Montreal region. There is the program for Montreal East, where $35 milion in new money has been invested by the federal Government. The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts has received $20 million from Communications Canada and $5 million from Tourism Canada. The International Reception and Information Centre in Montreal has received $3.3 million.
Petromont received $15 million in 1984 and $55.8 million in 1985.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Leader of the New Democratic Party doesn't know what is going on in Montreal. However, there is one point where they are both wrong: the Minister is equally ignorant of the reason why the Committee was established.
The Minister will recall that following complaints by Montreal businesses, by Montreal's elected representatives and by the Survival Committee for Montreal East about the fact that Montreal Island does not have a single Member or Minister who is effective enough to make the Government listen to these people, the Prime Minister had, in response, formed the so-called Montreal Economic Development Committee with the Picard Committee, headed by the Minister.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Now that the Minister is no longer responsible, could he perhaps inform the House why the Government disbanded the Montreal Development Committee, although no concrete announcements were made following the Picard Report?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie says I am no longer responsible for the Montreal region, because an ad hoc committee Finished its work and the Committee over which I preside is taking care of the follow-up. Whether I happen to head a sub-committee or the committee, it boils down to the same thing. And I can inform the Hon. Member that we are acting on all the recommendations we approved in the Picard Report. We are acting on recommendations for the development of Montreal. That is, in fact, one of the reasons why 114,000 jobs have been created during the past few years in Montreal, while there was a sharp drop in employment under the previous Government.


OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN TO MONTREALERS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, this is a big joke! Whether he was chairman or not doesn't make any difference, since we are still waiting for the space agency. We are still waiting for $130 million in new money for the development of the Vieux-Port of Montreal. Nothing has been done about the Port of Montreal or preretirement benefits for the people of Montreal East. What I want to know is ... today we heard that as far as science and technology contracts are concerned, Quebec will get only $25
April 27, 1988

million out of $251 million. Now there is no one left, how are the people of Montreal going to make themselves heard here in Ottawa? Quebec has to pay a lobbyist to speak on its behalf. Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the people of Montreal can expect to monitor these projects and get concrete answers on the development of the new Port of Montreal and the space agency?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out, for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, that Montreal's economy is in better shape today than it has been for a number of years, with 114,000 new jobs, a sharp drop in unemployment, significant economic renewal and a substantial contribution by the federal Government. Mr. Speaker, all this happened despite comments by the Leader of the Opposition in August 1987, that the City of Montreal had suffered considerable hardship and was not out of the woods yet, and that it might take 20 years before subsequent governments would be able to reverse the trend, provided Quebec remained in Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, in four years we managed to reverse the trend. Despite the gloomy forecast of the Leader of the Opposition, it didn't take us 20 years to make Montreal a little more visible, a little more dynamic and enhance its economic potential for Quebec and Canada.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-CLOTHING INDUSTRY-POSITION OF U.S. SENATORS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. Thirty United States Senators released a letter yesterday saying that Canada should drop support plans for the clothing industry since Canada's moves "could seriously jeopardize ratification of the free trade agreement". Even before this deal is passed the United States is trying to tell us what to do.
Is the Prime Minister going to speak bluntly today to the United States Congress? Is he going to say that we are an independent country and that we do not need this kind of direction from the United States?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am far more interested in what 250 Canadian economists had to say about the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. They said that it is Canada's best option in the face of increased protectionism because it increases access to the American market. They said it would provide better investment opportunities and lead to a higher standard of living for Canadians.
Oral Questions
Those are the people we listen to, Canadian economists and other Canadians, not the U.S. Senators to whom the hon. gentleman is always referring and of whom he is so afraid. We are not afraid of them.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly more interested in the 76 per cent of Canadians who say that there should be an election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Call an election.


John Edward Broadbent: Go ahead, have the election on free trade. See if Reagan will approve it today. Maybe Brian can ask Ronald today.


ECONOMIC LIBERTY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do these efforts to control and reduce Canada's independence in this matter related to the textile industry not show that the trade agreement itself would impede our economic freedom in future?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 76 per cent of Canadians say that they want an election. They certainly did not say that in Manitoba. They had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the election. There is hardly an NDP Member left there-


John Edward Broadbent: Count your vote. It went down, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: -and Premier Filmon will take care of the rest of them before he is through.
With respect to the body of the question, if there is anything left of the body of the question, Mr. Speaker, this U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement increases economic opportunities for Canadian people, increases their chance to better their standard of living, gives them more options, and is no threat to our sovereignty whatsoever, only to that of frightened, timid New Democratic personages.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, my question is directed to the Acting Minister. It concerns Terminal III at Pearson International Airport.

April 27, 1988
Oral Questions
The Minister knows that there is a dispute between the City of Mississauga and the developer over $5.2 million of development fees, and perhaps $2 million more of hydro fees. The Minister said in Toronto on Monday that this was a dispute to be settled between the parties, yet this is contradicted by a term of the lease which was made public in Mississauga this morning. The lease states: "Unless otherwise permitted by Ottawa, the developer must comply with provincial, regional and municipal bylaws whether or not there is a legal requirement to do so".
Does Ottawa intend to exempt the developer from paying these substantial development fees?


Hon. Gerry St. Germain (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, the discussions are going on between the developer and the City of Mississauga. I believe it would be inappropriate at this time to comment further on this particular issue while negotiations are taking place.


POSITION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, let the negotiations go on, but I am asking about this contractual power that is reserved by the federal Government, to waive requirements that the developer comply with municipal bylaws. Does Ottawa intend or not intend to waive those requirements for this developer?


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a legal dispute possibly arising as a result of information presented by the Hon. Member. I think it would be best left in the hands of the City of Mississauga and the contractor to resolve. If the Minister of Transport can assist, he will be there.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs assured the House that he would look into the question of the alleged use by Expro of previous licences to export gunpowder after he had ordered that no further export permit be given to the company. Is the Minister prepared to tell the House of Commons, first, what the results of the investigations are, and second, why the previous permits were not withdrawn last November?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to answer the questions raised by another Hon. Member on Friday and raised again by the Hon. Member. We are informed that no
explosive material was sent to Portugal since last October. Three shipments of explosive material were sent to Holland last year, but I believe ... my officials are analysing the information, I am informed that there are no more . . . that the amounts involved were not sent by the Dutch authorities to another destination.


EXPRO COMPANY-FEDERAL ADVANCE
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Since it must have been evident to the Government last November that the major part of Expro's production was destined for a market that was not only murderous but illegal, according to Canadian law, why did he authorize an $8 million advance to the company? Was it to pursue its illegal traffic, or was it to finance the lock-out of its employees?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice, except there is an implication in it that the Government of Canada would be deliberately assisting in illegal operations. That is not the case.
Indeed, since this matter of export permits came to light in October last year, our position has been very clear. We have been looking into the possible abuse of export permits or other matters. We have had co-operation by and large from Expro. I have given the Hon. Member assurances as a result of the investigations I undertook to make last Friday. I have just given those assurances.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.
This is a great day to talk about the environment, at a time when our Prime Minister is trying to make up for 25 years of neglect by the Liberal Party. In Quebec, an obvious example of Liberal arrogance and neglect is Saguenay Park.
I therefore want to ask the Minister of the Environment if he could tell the House what he intends to do in this respect.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Saguenay region is important to all Canadians because of its environmental characteristics, and especially the presence of the beluga whale. Relocating the National Park to the Saguenay region is one of my priorities. First of all, because of the need for protecting this very special site, my Department has ordered a feasibility study that will be completed very shortly. I intend to take an active part in
April 27, 1988

speeding up this particular process, in co-operation with the Government of Quebec.
I will keep the Hon. Member for Chicoutimi informed of further developments.
* *
*


WELFARE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Current figures from the National Council of Welfare show that over one million Canadian children, or one in six, live in poverty. Yet the Minister's proposed tax reform will return to a couple with two children and a total income of $20,000, only $175 a year. This is after he has taken much more than that from them in the past three years. Why is the Government not recognizing the dire situation of child poverty in this country?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question by the Hon. Member. This is a matter which has been of concern for the Government.
Let me point out that since we came into office the number of children under age 16 who live in poverty is down by 193,000. That is contrary to the impression she left with her question. I am sure she regrets that.
The other point I want to make is that, as my colleague has said on another topic, we should be judged by our actions. We have introduced a refundable sales tax credit. We have increased the child tax credit and have brought in a prepayment provision on the child tax credit. Under tax reform some 850,000 people will not be paying tax next year for this current tax year.
We have shown by our actions that we are concerned about that problem and are getting those numbers down.


Aideen Nicholson: The figure that I quoted came from the National Council on Welfare. It is 1,016,000 children under age 16.


TAX STRUCTURE-EFFECT ON FAMILIES
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister talks about some current proposals, he leaves out the fact that his Government increased taxes over a three-year period. With the current proposals, a single person with a $20,000 income will save $340 in income tax as against $175 for a couple with two children. Does the Minister not recognize that his tax structure is discriminating against families with young children?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said that she is quoting from a certain set of figures. I do not quarrel with those figures.
I am stating quite clearly that in the three years prior to our taking office, the number of children under age 16 who were in poverty increased by 94,000. Since we came into office that figure is down by 193,000. That is the difference in the actions. It reflects what we have done as a Government.


Mr. Gauthier:: Are you happy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member asks me whether I am happy. I am happy that it is down by 193,000. However, I am not happy with the level. The level is still too high.
That is why we have introduced a number of changes that are directed at changing the situation. Let me give the Hon. Member some additional programs that we brought in.
The spousal allowance for those people who are age 60 to 64 living on low incomes has increased. The training for those people who are on welfare-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In 1976, Canada, Saskatchewan, and the Saskatchewan Federation of Indians reached a compromise formula to calculate treaty land entitlements based on the December 31, 1976, band populations. On March 3 of this year the treaty land entitlement bands of Saskatchewan rejected the Minister's proposal to base settlement on the date of first survey, which would reduce the settlements by 90 per cent.
Since the Minister's communication strategy is based on honouring commitments and being fair, why has the Minister chosen to tear up the 1976 tripartite agreement?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question on entitlement in Saskatchewan, and other prairie provinces, is an important one. The reason at this time that I have informed the entitlement bands that the Government is prepared to go to date of first survey is because the bands themselves have asked for changes in entitlement.
Originally, when the 1979 formula was signed, bands were requesting land only. Now some of the entitlement bands are requesting money in lieu of acres. They are asking for urban

April 27, 1988
Oral Questions
acreage as compared to rural acreage. There is not a consistent way of measuring the value and the acres that can be offset.
That discussion will take place in Cabinet. When we have reached a decision we will inform the entitlement bands.


FEDERAL FUNDING
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister is trying to suggest that the bands are now asking for less, and they are not. In the Minister's Estimates we find a reduction in funding for specific claims from $30 million in 1987 to $1 million in 1988, a reduction of over 90 per cent. In the Minister's secret summary on treaty land entitlement we find the statement: "not prepared to go further unless forced to by the courts".
Where does the Minister expect that policy to lead when his own policy now prohibits test case funding at the trial level? Where is it all leading?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has put forward a question that is based on inaccurate information.


James Ross Fulton: It is in the Estimates. You tabled them.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: What the Hon. Member does not understand, although I am sure he does and just does not want to express it publicly, is that specific claims are based on findings. If there are no judgments for specific claims, naturally the amount of money provided would be less this fiscal year.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, on April 21 as reported at page 3205 of the Debates of the other place, the Government House Leader, a member of the Cabinet, said: "-setting fishing quotas in Canadian waters, is the responsibility of the Canadian government, not of a third party." Yet the Hon. Member for St. John's West on behalf of the Government announced Friday night third party mediation between France and Canada for the fishing dispute.
Does this now mean that Canada is actually contemplating giving France more than the already generous 7,000 metric tonnes in area 3PS? It wants 50,000 metric tons. That is 9,000 tonnes more than the total TAC, total allowable catch, for all of Canada. Will the Government tell France to stop overfishing in 3PS a.s.a.p. before they "KO" the "TAC"?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member usually has "OD" on "b.s."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The position is that the negotiators for Canada and France have reached an agreement on a process of mediation. Of course, mediation is exactly that. It is not binding on either of the parties. It is to get an outside third party who can help the two parties involved to see if they can reach an agreement between them. There is nothing compulsory about it. Canada is not offering any more quotas to France.
As the hon. gentleman knows, we have taken a firm position that is having results. If this position had been adopted in 1972 we would not have this problem today.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister is saying today that what they have is nonbinding mediation, whatever that is. He should call it the Minister's "Milk of Magnesia mediation".
Why then when I said in the House last week that the Government was going to announce non-binding arbitration- in fact I said we are going to be Ex-laxed at that time-did the Minister deny it, and then on Friday night he turned around and announced this third party non-binding mediation with the Government of France? Whether it is "Ex-laxed" or Milk of Magnesia, you get the same results, don't you?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member is an expert on those results. He is certainly very loose on what he says in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I can only refer to my statesmanlike first answer. Hopefully, if we can find a mediator acceptable to both sides he will help us reach a settlement of this issue. The hon. gentleman can be sure that we are going to continue in the firm and reasonable posture that we have adopted. We would like to settle this matter in a fair and reasonable way. We think we have made fair and reasonable offers.
I ask him to hold on a little longer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INDUSTRY
Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Seven weeks ago in the House I asked the Minister, for reasons that I outlined at that time, if he would rescind the remission order
April 27, 1988

worth up to $50 million that had just been granted by the federal Government to Goodyear Canada. Since then the Ontario Government has come up with a $32 million interest-free loan to Goodyear Canada. Last week it was revealed that the U.S. parent company is now imposing a new service charge on Goodyear Canada that will take some $25 million to $30 million from this Canadian company.
My question is a very simple one. Can the Minister still justify this continuing financial support to Goodyear in face of this truly outrageous arrangement whereby Goodyear Canada is merely a conduit for Canadian tax dollars going to Akron, Ohio? '


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his concern about this issue. First, as he correctly noted in his question, the funds that have been forthcoming so far have been from the provincial Government and not from the federal Government. I want him to know that I share his concern about this particular matter.
Right after the annual meeting of this company in Canada I contacted my officials to make sure that these issues were properly understood. I have instructed them to meet immediately with the company to clarify the matter.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the fact that last January the Canadian Government agreed to trade northern cod just to get the Government of France to the bargaining table on the boundary dispute over St. Pierre and Miquelon.
Now after some theatrics by the fishermen and some politicians of St. Pierre, the Government is offering to go to non-binding mediation to give some more fish to the St. Pierre fishermen, and also, we hear, to metropolitan France, just to get them talking about fish again.
Why has the Government refused, or is no longer continuing to keep together the two issues of the boundary dispute and the issue of fishing in Canadian waters? Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no concessions to the French Government unless it agrees to submit the boundary dispute to third party arbitration?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman does not seem to understand the process that has been under way now for several years. That is a process in which the Government of Canada is most anxious to settle the question of the territorial boundaries of
Oral Questions
St. Pierre and Miquelon. It can only be settled by an international arbitration, or by the International Court because the two parties cannot otherwise agree. We believe it is the duty of both to go to an international adjudication on this.
In the same manner as France and Great Britain went to international arbitration on the question of the Channel Islands, so should France now agree to go with us.
Unfortunately, France is trying to tie to that and make a condition of it agreeing to go to arbitration on that question, the settlement of the issue of what quotas it should receive under the 1972 treaty in Canadian waters for the next three years or so while the matter goes to arbitration. France has been making that a condition, and that is what the process has been about for the last several years.
The Government has taken a firm position. We have closed our ports to French vessels because of their overfishing in 3PS. We will continue on that course. We will take a firm and reasonable stand meeting our international obligations, but trying to get these issues settled in a way that will protect the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise the House that there will be a single question from the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou, followed by a single question from the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, and that will close Question Period.


Jack Harris: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The question was long, and it was answered. In view of the time, I wish to move on. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou.


CANADA POST CORPORATIONS
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation. Last Sunday, RAM Ontario, Residents Against Mailboxes, organized a national conference for Canadians from Newfoundland to British Columbia to protest the Government's policy of supermailboxes being installed throughout the country this spring. At that conference were politicians from all levels and all Parties. All the citizens present were unanimous in demanding that the Government abandon its supermailbox policy.
Will the Minister listen to the demands of RAM, Residents Against Mailboxes, and abandon that policy, or will the Minister wait for the Residents Against Mailboxes to ram the Mulroney mailbox?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, what happened on Sunday was that the

April 27, 1988
Tabling of Documents
unions paid for a lot of people to fly in to hold a media event, which I acknowledged was a successful media event.
I find it a little pathetic, frankly, that people who are supposedly concerned about this country and public policy would gather together and say, "The most important issue facing Canada is that, along with door-to-door delivery of milk and door-to-door delivery of bread, door-to-door delivery of mail may be changing in some areas". That is a pretty pathetic thing on which to base a political policy.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Regarding the potential acquisition of control of CDC Life Services by a French state controlled corporation, Institut Merieux, could the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to preserve for Canada and Canadians the critical, and I might say, unique manufacturing and biotechnology research capacities of the two subsidiaries, Connaught Laboratories of Toronto, and Bio Research Laboratories of Montreal?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that there are a number of unresolved issues in this particular case. I have taken some steps to date. First, I have asked Investment Canada to review thoroughly whatever information we had on the transaction; second, to obtain additional information before the end of the day today; third, to obtain outside legal advice on the position of Investment Canada in this case.
Given my deep interest in this question, I can only assure the Hon. Member that we will be following it very closely, and I might be in a position to give him a definite answer as early as tomorrow in Question Period.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in both official languages the Annual Report of the Canadian Wheat Board for the 1986-87 crop year. Pursuant to Standing Order 67(4),
this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


PETITIONS
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages, the Government response to 10 petitions, Nos. 332-4103, 3324134, 332-4159, 332-4160, 332-4168, 332-4174 to 332-4176 inclusive, 332-4192 and 332-4193.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the thirty-first and thirty-second reports of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, the duty, and certainly the privilege of presenting a petition signed by 1,194 residents of Calgary, 884 of whom reside in the constituency of Calgary North.
The petitioners state that whereas biology and genetic science proves conclusively that human life, including all inherent characteristics of sex, intelligence, and physical features commence at conception; and whereas abortions deprive the unborn of the right to life; and whereas no one should be entitled to an unrestricted right to take away another human life, the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to expediently enact legislation to prohibit procurement of an abortion, except for life threatening reasons. In duty bound the petitioners will ever pray.
I think that this is a very straightforward petition, and I would like the Government to take rapid action in this area.
April 27, 1988


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and privilege today to present to the House 16 petitions regarding Bill C-72. These petitions represent the views of some 400 Canadians from Calgary South, southeast, north, northeast, west and centre, and indeed all of southern Alberta. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to cancel Bill C-72, so that unilingual speaking people have a chance for a position in government.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. One is signed by well over 100 residents of the community of Pickle Lake, Ontario, and also by the reeves or mayors of 12 communities in my riding. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to keep the flow-through share mechanism which is attractive to investors because of the very beneficial effect it has had on economic development in remote communities in northwestern Ontario.


John Edmund Parry: The second petition that I have the honour to present, Mr. Speaker, calls upon Parliament to declare all communities in Tier III ridings as eligible for the northern residents tax deduction.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of the City of Toronto, who point out that the trade agreement recently signed between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States has no mandate from the Canadian people since it opposes the position he took before the last election.


An Hon. Member:: Not true.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The petitioners go on to point out that the trade agreement would reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs that Canadians need, and would integrate Canada further into the North American "defence" industrial base.
For these reasons, the petitioners ask Parliament to ensure that a national debate take place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, and that that debate take place in the form of a national general election before the trade deal is finalized.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions signed by residents of
Petitions
Canada in such diverse locales as Ottawa, Nepean, Yellowknife, and Toronto. The petitioners are concerned about the proposal to transport plutonium by air over the Canadian North, including our northern waters.
Given the devastating consequences that could result from an accident or an act of terrorism involving aircraft transporting plutonium, the petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to recognize the dangers of such flight and to say "no" to the transport of plutonium over northern Canada.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from the Tillsonburg Right to Life group, a petition that has been signed by over 100 residents of Tillsonburg. The petitioners indicate their displeasure at the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. They go on to indicate that it is their belief that the unborn is a human being from conception, and they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to draft laws to protect the unborn.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of residents of my riding, and other residents of the National Capital Region. The petitioners in this instance are schizophrenics and their relatives and friends, all of whom are desperately hoping that a cure and method of prevention can be found for schizophrenia as soon as possible through larger research efforts being dedicated to this major illness in Canada, an illness that affects approximately 1 per cent of our population. It is a disease which causes severe mental anguish and suffering on the part of those afflicted, as well as on their relatives and friends. As well, it is an affliction that is costing Canadian society more than $3 billion annually.
The petitioners, therefore, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the research effort in respect of schizophrenia in the future will be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 106, on a matter of concern to many of my constituents, namely, the Mulroney trade deal with Washington. The petitioners call upon the Government to call an election as soon as possible so that the people of Canada can decide the issue, and not a Government without a mandate in respect of that issue.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present, pursuant to Standing Order 106, a petition signed by citizens of Edmonton, Toronto, and Hay Lakes, Alberta.
Whereas the Progressive Conservative Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade agreement with the United States, and whereas the trade

April 27, 1988
Questions on the Order Paper
agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, or to equalize opportunities between the regions, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Government to dissolve Parliament and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement through a national general election.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition, on behalf of a number of my constituents, pursuant to Standing Order 106. To summarize, their concern, in line with the poll released today indicating that 76 per cent of the people want an election called before the trade deal actually goes ahead, is that there be a general election before the trade deal is finalized.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Crossfield and High River areas of my riding. The petition states, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to cancel Bill C-72 so that unilingual-speaking people have a chance for a position in Government, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present, on behalf of a number of citizens of Shellbrook, Prince Albert, Birch Hills, Spruce Home, a petition calling for a national general election before the Canada-U.S. trade deal is finalized, on the ground that the Government had no mandate to conclude a trade agreement. They hold the view that the trade agreement compromises Canadian sovereignty, and for that reason they feel that Parliament should be dissolved, with the people themselves being given the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement through the holding of a national general election.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 277 will be answered today.


Mr. Althouse: In December, 1987, did Atomic Energy of Canada Limited make arrangements to have 20,000 pounds of potatoes irradiated as part of a promotional campaign at an A & P store in Flamilton, Ontario and, if so (a) were any of them distributed to (t) charitable organizations, such as food banks (//) employees of any department or agency of government and, if so, to which ones (b) were the bags labelled to indicate that the potatoes had been irradiated?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Ressources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
No potatoes were irradiated for the market test of irradiated potatoes, announced by A & P Canada in November, 1987. However, approximately 12 tons of potatoes were irradiated for the market test planned for May, 1987.
(a)	(i) & (ii) When the May market test was cancelled, the irradiated potatoes were distributed to AECL employees, to government employees involved in this technology in the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Mines and Resources, Health and Welfare and Consumer and Corporate Affairs and to the Canadian Nuclear Association's New Brunswick Chapter.
Some unirradiated, non-chemically treated control potatoes were offered to the Ottawa Food Bank and were accepted.
(b)	All irradiated potatoes were fully labelled with a label that conformed to both current and proposed regulations by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 27, 1988



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Beatty that Bill C-77, an Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, leading to all-Party agreement on the disposition of Bill C-77, an Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
As will be seen from the projected order of business for today, Bill C-77 was to be called at 6 p.m. this evening, with the question on the motion for third reading to be put immediately.
As all three Parties are in favour of the Bill, there is unanimous agreement that Bill C-77 be called as the first item of business this afternoon, with the question being put immediately, in order that the Bill may be referred to the Senate, with the unanimous consent of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there have indeed been discussions among the Parties, and we certainly are prepared to co-operate with the Government at this point in respect of Bill C-77.
The way in which the progress of Bill C-77 has been handled, both in the House and in committee, presents us with a fine example of just how well this House and its related committees can work.
The Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), and the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) put forth 43 amendments, all of which were accepted by the Government. Those amendments improved the Bill.
Bill C-77 will replace the War Measures Act, a piece of legislation which we have been wanting to replace for some time.
All concerned, through their co-operation, made the process a success. For our part, we appreciate the co-operation shown by the Government, and in particular the willingness on the part of the Government to accept the amendments put forward during consideration of the Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House agreed that I put the question on the motion for the third reading of Bill C-77?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: The question is as follows: It is moved by Miss Carney, for Mr. Beatty, seconded by Mr. Clark (Yellowhead), that Bill C-77, an Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be now read a third time and passed.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT, ATLANTIC CANADA, 1987 MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the 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.
Mr. Speaker:: There are 50 motions on the Order Paper and notices offered in amendment to Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Motions Nos. 1 to 4 inclusive, Nos. 1,9, 11, 12, 15 and 33 stand in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris). Motions Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16 to 32 inclusive and 34 to 50 inclusive stand in the name of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). Motion No. 14 stands in the name of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard).
An amendment similar to Motion No. 1 was moved, debated and negatived in committee. There is a slight variation in the wording, but the intent and object remain the same. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 114 (10), it will not be selected for debate.
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are acceptable and each will be debated and voted on separately.

The Chair has some reservations about Motion No. 12, because it provides that the Agency will have to hire all employees who are affected, while Clause 24 of the Bill provides as follows:
24. Every indeterminate employee in the public service of Canada who is transferred to a position in the Agency ...

April 27, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
The House will appreciate the dilemma these two wordings created for the Chair.
However, after due reflection, I decided to give the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt and declare the motion in order. It will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 14 in the name of the Hon. Minister and Motion No. 15 in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East are out of order for three reasons. They both go beyond the Royal Recommendation. They are substantive amendments to an interpretation clause and are also beyond the scope of the Bill.
Having said that, the Minister has a Royal Recommendation for his motion, and I understand that discussions have led to unanimous consent for the Minister to move his Motion No. 14. At the proper time I will ask the House if it wishes to give that consent. I could not seek such consent with respect to Motion No. 15 as it is not covered by a Royal Recommendation and only a Minister of the Crown can request such from Her Excellency, the Governor General.

Motion No. 33 is in order. It will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 13, 16 to 32 inclusive and Nos. 34 to 50 inclusive are in order but will be grouped for debate.
The vote on Motion No. 13 will be applied to Motions Nos. 16 to 32 inclusive and also to Motions Nos. 34 to 50 inclusive.
The House will now proceed with the first grouping, Motion No. 2, and I will now propose the question to the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In your comments you said that later this day or at another time you would put Motion No. 14 in the name of the Minister.

... and that the Minister has a Royal Recommendation for this amendment. I wonder whether you could inform the House when the Chair will propose the question to the House. When can we expect this motion to be debated? After all motions before the House have been disposed of or in between?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Just a notation here that this particular motion in the name of the Minister is to amend Clause 26. There are amendments to Clauses 24 and 25 prior to Clause 26 if I am not mistaken. If those amendments were adopted, they would make this particular motion by the Minister out of order. However, that I suppose does not prevent you from putting the question before the other questions are put.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Can you confirm that the unanimous consent which may be
sought will be for the purpose of debating that motion here in the House, not for unanimous consent to pass such a motion? In order for the motion to be debated, unanimous consent is required. Will that be done at the time of debate, or now?


Mr. Speaker:: First, to respond to the Hon. Member for St. John's East he puts the matter correctly. It would be consent to debate.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) asks when this motion would come up. It would normally come up according to the chronology of the motions as set out in my reasons. I have just had a moment to discuss this with the Table. I think that that is the situation.
With respect to the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, I think we will just have to wait and see.


Jack Harris: 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."
He said: Mr. Speaker, as was just indicated, there are a series of amendments to the Bill that I have proposed as a member of the legislative committee. A number of other amendments were proposed in committee which were defeated, including Motion No. 1 which referred to the requirement by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to have, as one of its advisory boards, an advisory board to advise the agency on programs with specific relation to women in business. As Mr. Speaker has just ruled, it can no longer be debated in this House.
The motion presently before the House provides for an amendment to Clause No. 7. Clause No. 7 provides for special areas to be designated by the Minister within the Atlantic provinces, special areas for which special rules may be able to govern. If we look at the provisions in the legislation with respect to special areas, we will see that the Minister has the power to designate special areas in the Atlantic region. The Bill says:
-a designated area, for the period set out in the order, any area in Atlantic Canada where, in the opinion of the Minister, exceptional circumstances provide opportunity for locally based improvements in productive employment.
The motion provides to amend that particular clause as follows to clarify so that it will be beyond any doubt that those areas may be "a sub-region in a province". It need not be an entire province. It need not be a particular community but it may be as well a sub-region of a province. It would add as well to the end of the clause the following, and would now read:
April 27, 1988

That where, in the opinion of the Minister, exceptional circumstances provide opportunities for locally based improvements in productive employment by means of pilot projects and multi-year comprehensive area development strategies and action plans and other means as necessary.
This motion would amplify and make it clear that these special areas in Atlantic Canada would have opportunities under the agency to have not merely special programs and special rules related to the accessibility to funds under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, but also support by the agency directly for plans made by community based development groups, such as those presently organized under the Department of Manpower and Immigration. An example of this is the Community Futures Program.
The legislative committee heard representations from organizations such as the Cumberland Community Futures Committee which was quite concerned about the fact that its work, in a sense, mirrors on a community or county basis the community-based or local decision-making that the Minister suggests would be undertaken in Atlantic Canada for development projects. Together, there is a co-operative plan between businesses, communities, municipalities and the federal Government. The comprehensive plans for development will meet local concerns. These organizations are aware of the plans of local communities and of how special programs could be set up to meet the needs of those communities.
In the Province of Newfoundland and certainly in my own riding, there are areas where there are not only special opportunities but also special needs for particular development programs and strategies that are comprehensive in nature. I am thinking in particular of the community of Bell Island in my riding, a once prosperous mining community with a population similar to that of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon of which we have heard so much lately. This island is less than a mile from the mainland of Newfoundland. Its population has gone down from about 16,000 in the 1960s to somewhat less than 5,000. Job opportunities are very few and special programs are necessary in areas like this.
This legislation would allow a strategy or action plan to be developed for such a region, permitting broadly based initiatives of community development organizations which could offer a broad range of activities in support of small scale economic development as well as long-term planning for promotion, marketing, assistance, training and providing development and planning assistance to businesses and municipalities. I suppose it is an opportunity to recreate on a more local level the kind of activity the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency proposes to undertake on a regional level in Atlantic Canada.
Therefore, I would commend this particular amendment to the House. It improves upon Clause 7 and amplifies the ability of the Minister to create special areas under the Bill and have them defined in such a way as to provide these kinds of opportunities. It would make it clear that those opportunities
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
are available to integrate some of the activities of community development to bring about greater success and more opportunities in economic development initiatives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the motion submitted by my colleague. As someone who spent a number of years doing community development work in Thunder Bay, I can appreciate the need for this amendment to the Bill. As well, coming from an area that is similar in many ways to Atlantic Canada in terms of smaller populations, fewer centres and widely diverse communities, I recognize that we must be able to look at the smaller components. We must be able to allow locally based entrepreneurship of a co-operative nature to flourish. I think my colleague's amendment would help to facilitate that.
When we are talking about community based development projects, we are not talking about megaprojects. We are not talking about bringing in steel mills or automobile manufacturing facilities, we are talking about two, three, six, eight or 10 jobs being developed to provide a particular service or to meet a particular need in a community. Obviously, part of the goal is the creation of employment, but the other part of the goal is the furthering of the local economies to ensure that the people in these areas have the opportunities we have elsewhere in Canada.
I know that Atlantic Canada has a great history of community based development. In fact, there is a university in Atlantic Canada that is known throughout the world for its coop programs and its attitude toward teaching about the developing of co-operatives. I think it is ideal to enshrine this particular amendment in a Bill that deals with Atlantic Canada. It is appropriate to recognize that Atlantic Canada has as one of its key roots people working together against the elements and against an economy based outside their region to ensure that they too have opportunities.
Let me tell Hon. Members of an existing example of this in Atlantic Canada, the Kent-LEDA initiative. This is a federally funded local economic development agency with a total funding of $350,000. The Kent-LEDA organization has made debt and equity investments in numerous small projects and has provided counselling and technical assistance to local entrepreneurs.
The organization is directed by a group of local Kent area business people and invests, on average, in 10 new or expanding businesses a year. Thus far, its success rate compares favourably with DREE's former RDIA program. Ninety per cent of the firms in which it invested are still operating. It has created over 50 new jobs in a year in one of the most economically-depressed regions of the country.
There are also reasons to believe that this example gives a more accurate assessment of jobs created than those claimed

April 27, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
under DREE's old RDIA program. In many instances, LEDA represents the lender of last resort, so that the new businesses would not have gone ahead without its financing.
A community based organization that reviews proposals is composed of people who know the applicants. They know the track records of the applicants and they know how hard they are prepared to work. They also know their community. Rather than having a bureaucrat or a politician who is far removed either in a provincial capital or in the nation's capital have this opportunity, the local people will have the opportunity to help shape their own economy.
In my riding, the community of Atikokan has opted into the Community Futures Program. It has developed an excellent approach that will see not only community-based decisions made but it will see the tax dollars it has been given by the federal Government rolled over and over. As the business ventures it has invested in grow and it repays the loans, that money in turn will be invested back into the community once again. This is not an open-ended tap that will see tax dollars pour continuously into smaller areas, it is an investment.
We must recognize, as the motion states, that two communities in close proximity might have totally different economies. Yet they are lumped into the same catch-all category for Statistics Canada, for unemployment insurance and for the like. We should allow them to carve themselves out and to say that they are unique and should not be lumped in with community x or community y. This, I think, will be of great assistance to them. I would encourage Hon. Members to support my colleague's motion. I think it makes eminent sense.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this amendment because I think it is really important that it be adopted. One area where we have failed badly in this country concerns regional disparity. We have not taken into account the need to look at what local community development groups are all about. It seems to me some of the studies done on local economic development have recognized the fact that if we encourage co-ops and local groups to develop what they see as priorities in the local economy, not only are we making a sound investment but we are making it possible for long-term development to take place.
We have seen what mega projects from outside have done and it certainly has not been successful. What we are looking at here is the ability of an organization like the Community Futures Committee to be able to identify what its priorities are.
There have been some good examples right across the country where investments have been made in this type of community development, and they are still ongoing. Perhaps they are not as fancy as a huge factory which employs huge numbers of people, but they do not result in heavy lay-offs because of plant closures. Instead you find ongoing local community development.
It seems to me that it would have been a great advantage to a large part of the Canadian economy if we had done more work from the grass roots up rather than from the top down. Certainly this amendment will make that possible, and I commend my colleague for putting it forward. Certainly it will help the Atlantic region.
It is worth noting that more than 73,000 people in Newfoundland are involved in co-operatives. When we realize that, we recognize that this is an instrument we want to use in local community economic development.
As I said, I rose to speak on the amendment because I feel strongly that if we really do care about local economic development and people having some choice in where and how they are going to work, this amendment will make it possible.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this amendment. Many years ago I was an officer in the region of Inuvik in the Northwest Territories. In the process of trying to develop the kind of economic base necessary to keep certain communities going, it became very obvious that there was a need to designate areas in such a way that they could develop their own programs as part of the texture of the particular community rather than having something directed from the outside. To do this you must define your areas in very specific terms. You must also allow the kind of experimentation appropriate to that particular community.
Places like Newfoundland have seen a lot of attempts to impose development on them. In most cases large corporations come in and skim off the money allowed to them by provincial or federal Governments for development. They have no real vested interest in long-term job creation in those communities. Consequently, they have a tendency to take what they can as quickly as they can and leave. Instead of that, it is much more to the point to allow people who have a vested interest in the community to be part of the development. To do that, you have to direct the money very much more directly to those communities.
My colleague from St. John's mentioned Bell Island in northern Newfoundland. If someone goes in there once a week or once a month to try and direct development, it will not work particularly well. However, if you have assistance based in that community, it will work well. That is what is necessary to develop these kinds of programs so I call upon the House to support the amendment.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the clauses in question are already extremely broad and give the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency the power to assist any enterprise in Atlantic Canada, including co-operative enterprises and the like. Therefore, I certainly do not see why we should support this amendment.
One has to wonder whether it is a deliberate tactic on the part of the NDP to have five, six or 10 speakers on each of these clauses in an attempt to hold up, for some reason, a Bill
April 27, 1988

which is so important to Atlantic Canada. We even had a contribution from the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) and former mayor of Ottawa. I would not be surprised if we get a contribution from her on every single blessed amendment.
One has to hope that the members of the NDP will be reasonable, short and pithy so we can vote on these amendments and send the Bill to the Senate where we will see what happens to it. The unelected Liberal majority there are coiled, ready to spring. I forecast that the Liberal majority in the Senate will not allow this legislation through. I believe the Celtic Sphinx is waiting there to pounce and that he has given orders to the Liberal caucus that they are not to let this Bill through the House. He vows that if it does go through the House, he will not let it through the Senate.
I trust NDP Members will assist us in getting it up to the Senate so we can test their mettle and see whether they are really going to prevent this kind of development in Atlantic Canada or not. Therefore, I ask Members to be reasonably pithy in their comments.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by reiterating what the Minister said regarding the length of time we spend on this. Bill C-103 was at second reading stage for 11 hours and four minutes, at which time 26 Members of the House took the opportunity to address it. The legislative committee spent 34 hours and 20 minutes on hearings and gave an opportunity for 73 witnesses to appear. Certainly there has been a fair amount of debate on this issue, and I share the concern that what we may be seeing today is an effort to drag this out and in some way deny the people of Atlantic Canada the benefits this legislation has to offer.
Speaking specifically to the amendment, the way the clause is worded now places only two restrictions on designated areas. One, they must be in Atlantic Canada. Two, they cannot extend to all of Atlantic Canada. In other words, designated areas, the way Clause 7 is currently written, could be within a province, could comprise the whole of a province, or even straddle two provinces. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary because the power already exists in Clause 7 to deal with a designated area.
The second amendment deals with a number of references to pilot projects in multi-year comprehensive area development strategies and so on. Clause 23 authorizes regulations to be made with respect to designated areas which vary from the generally applicable regulations. This will permit ACOA to give special treatment to areas which provide exceptional opportunities. With respect to pilot projects, strategies, action plans and so on, the agency, under its powers flowing from Clause 12, has been given the authority to undertake these types of initiatives.
Therefore, there is in this legislation adequate provision to cover both of the items outlined in the proposed amendments
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
and it is certainly not necessary for the House to accept the amendments proposed today.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a couple of words on the first amendment being proposed to this Bill which establishes ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It should be renamed the "Atlantic Canada Overblown Agency" because there is nothing new in this legislation. The amendment introduced by the Hon. Member would, I suppose, ensure that the Minister has the power to carry out pilot projects and multi-year comprehensive area development strategies-whatever that means-and action plans and other means as necessary. All of this, of course, depends on the Minister. The clause says:
The Minister may, by order, establish as a designated area-where, in the
opinion of the Minister, exceptional circumstances-
What exceptional circumstances, Mr. Speaker? Could it be an election? Is that an exceptional circumstance? Could it be whether or not that particular area is represented by a government Member? Is that an exceptional circumstance?
As well, who is the Minister? According to the Bill the Minister is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said: "Look at all the witnesses we had before the committee and all the Members who spoke before the committee". However, the person who introduced the Bill into the House of Commons did not appear before the committee, and that was the Prime Minister, the person who is moving the adoption of this particular Bill.
We all know that the Prime Minister is moving the adoption of the Bill because the Minister who has the authority under this Act is not here in this place at all. Where is he? I am not allowed to say where he is, am I? I am not even allowed to say where the Minister is. Someone listening to that would think it is a bit crazy that I am not allowed to say where he is. However, we are not allowed to say that. He is in what they call "the other place". In other words, he is not in this place here at all, not in the House of Commons. He is in the other place down the hall about a half a gunshot away. He is in the other place. He is not allowed to introduce something into this place, so the person who introduced it into this place is the Prime Minister who was not in his place to address the Bill in the first place. That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

April 27, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Jack Harris: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 28 at pages 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-".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the most important motions before the House at report stage. The motion expounds upon the object, powers and duties of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency specified in Clause 12. The legislation written by the Government proposed that:
The object of the Agency is to support and promote opportunity for economic development of Atlantic Canada, with particular emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises, through policy, program and project development and implementation and through advocacy of the the interests of Atlantic Canada in national economic policy, program and project development and implementation.
My motion indicates that one of the objects should also be "to reduce the economic disparity between Atlantic Canada and other regions of Canada". That is the core and the essence of what we in this Party think the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency ought to do. That is the pinnacle, the whole purpose of having this agency in the first place because of the astounding disparities that exist in the various regions of this country.
My Party and I make no apologies for the fact that in addition to myself, the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), to whom the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) referred as the former Mayor of Ottawa-and a fine mayor indeed she was-is speaking on this Bill. As the Mayor of Ottawa I would expect the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain to have great concern about regional disparity in this country. Members of this Party from other regions of Canada have already spoken on this Bill. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) from northern Ontario has spoken. He is interested in regional development, not only in northern Ontario where he and his constituents reside, but also in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. It is not only before those
Members of the House of Commons that we place this amendment. We place it before all Members of the House of Commons and in particular those Members who are not from the regions which suffer from the disparity that we have experienced in Newfoundland for many years.
I say shame to the Member for St. John's West for being upset that an Hon. Member from what we sometimes call Central Canada is concerned about issues of regional disparity. We need more Members like the Member for Hamilton Mountain to speak out in this House on issues of regional disparity and regional development. It is shameful for the Minister for International Trade to say that when someone does that there is something inherently wrong. It is a sign of the concern that this Party has for regional development that our Members from other parts of the country are willing to speak out on behalf of the needs of Newfoundlanders, Nova Scotians, New Brunswickers and Prince Edward Islanders who need the assistance of an agency such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in order to reduce the disparities which exist.
Why is the Government afraid to put into the legislation a commitment to the reduction of regional disparity? It may or may not want to answer that question, but I have my own interpretation of the Government's action. It has developed an agency which does not have that goal. This is an agency that is basically designed to assist business and economic development. It has no goal to reduce the regional disparity between the Atlantic region and other regions of the country that are more prosperous. Without that objective, we simply see another agency to assist business and enhance the economy.
The amount of money the Government is allocating to this Agency is a measure of its commitment. If there was a real commitment toward the reduction of regional disparity, the Government would have committed substantially more funds to this Agency.
There is an increase of $200 million per year over a five-year period. This is the famous $1.05 billion we hear about. However, that money represents a five-year commitment for four provinces, amounting to $200 million a year.
The Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is close to $130 billion, $200 million of which, in addition to the other regular expenditures, is destined for the four provinces through this agency. That $200 million represents 15 per cent of 1 per cent of the entire Budget. It shows that the Government's priorities do not include the regional development that is required to reduce disparity.
The reduction of regional disparity is not a goal of this legislation because the Government has no real commitment toward reducing that disparity. Otherwise, it would be willing to be tested on its success in reducing regional disparity.
April 27, 1988

While there has been much discussion about government policy on regional disparity and regional development in the last 30 years, we have not seen any progress. Although the statistics I gave at second reading are quite startling, I will not repeat them again, except to say that some of those statistics show there has been very little progress and, in some cases no progress at all in the reduction of regional disparity between the Atlantic provinces and other regions of Canada.
This amendment is essential in order to focus the attention of the Agency, the Government, and the people of Canada on the elimination of regional disparity in this country. Regional disparity results in an inequality of opportunity not only for businesses, with which this legislation is concerned, but in areas like education, where there is a lack of opportunity and equality. That is what our Party aims to reduce.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, the concept behind this amendment is not really new. It is certainly not the first time the Member has brought forward the topic of regional disparity and the impact the agency might have on that.
In the legislative committee an amendment was proposed by the Member that would provide in the five-year annual report from the Agency an evaluation of its activities and the impact of those activities upon regional disparity. However, to include it as it has been proposed by this amendment is really a negative concept of a Bill that I believe provides a very positive opportunity for Atlantic Canada.
This Bill promotes opportunities in Atlantic Canada. Certainly, as an Atlantic Canadian Member, I am much more anxious to promote opportunities than to go about measuring disparity. It has already been said that this Agency has a slender staff operation throughout Atlantic Canada and its efforts should focus on finding a way by which the Government of Canada, through Bill C-103, can help develop economic opportunities in that region of the country.
We are anxious to build upon what exists, and upon the opportunities that are presented in Atlantic Canada. This is more productive than making an effort to write a report and provide statistics that will really have no meaning. It would be extremely difficult to evaluate a reduction in disparity because one must be able to make the comparison. I presume the comparison would be between the Atlantic economy and the economy of another region, but is it northern Ontario, British Columbia, western Canada or central Canada? What does one measure it against? Certainly, the areas chosen for the comparison make a significant difference. I suggest, for instance, that there are parts of Atlantic Canada that are doing much better than other areas of Canada. If we measure that, we see great success in reducing disparity in Atlantic Canada.
On the other hand, there are other places which do not enjoy some of the benefits of the economic activity in central Canada and would not measure the same way. In that regard, it makes
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
very little sense to put verbiage in the legislation which does not have any real bearing in practical application.
It would also require us to make an evaluation when we do not have all the areas under our control. For example, the Atlantic economy could get very strong and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency could be expanding greatly those opportunities. As well, there could be an increase in the world price of oil and gas resulting in a resurgence of that industry in western Canada. Therefore, when we measure the western Canadian economy against eastern Canada, the results would really have nothing to do with the agency but with factors far beyond the control of the Minister and the legislation being put forward here today. If the economic activities on the Prairies declined as a result of a drought there, Heaven forbid, the disparity between those provinces and the Atlantic provinces would decrease. However, one cannot suggest that the Agency is very successful because another part of the country had the misfortune of a drought.
We want to put the staff time, energy and effort toward expanding our opportunities rather than measuring negative factors that really have no value in assessing how the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency works.
Obviously, we believe this amendment should be defeated because it is only verbiage that will not give us anything.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a substantive and very important amendment. I suggest that if legislation is to lay out objectives, those objectives should be made very clear. The objectives listed in this Bill simply state that the Agency is designed to support and promote opportunities for the economic development of Atlantic Canada with particular emphasis on small and medium sized enterprises through policy program and project development and implementation, and through advocacy of the interests of Atlantic Canada in national economic policy program and project development and implementation.
It does not lay out its over-all objective, beyond a vague description of what it will be doing. It simply says that it will help. It does not lay out any reason for the help. It does not lay out any goal or any real objective which one would normally see stated in a statement of objectives in a new Bill for a new agency. My colleague from Newfoundland has proposed that that problem be corrected, that that shortcoming be rectified by giving it an objective, namely, to reduce the economic disparity between Atlantic Canada and other regions of Canada.
I do not think that we have to go out with very discreet measuring devices to know that Atlantic Canada has for quite a long time had a higher rate of unemployment than the rest of Canada. We do not have to do a lot of research or measuring to know that the incomes in Atlantic Canada are generally lower than in the rest of Canada. This sort of general knowledge has gone into some of the previous initiatives in the

April 27, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
country over the past 40 or 50 years. We have had forms of revenue sharing at the federal level with regard to tax revenues so that the lower income provinces have the benefit of increased revenues from the federal coffers. There has been quite a well established system for defining which are the have and which are the have-not provinces in this country.
It only makes sense if we are going to be proposing, as this Bill proposes to do, an economic development proposal for a particular region in the country that one of the clear mandates of that new agency should be to try to reduce the economic disparity that now exists and is recognized with or without any further measuring techniques. It is there and measured each year when the amount of funding to go to revenue sharing is decided upon. This work is already being done. It is simply a test that one would give oneself as a manager or a Minister in charge of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, to see whether or not some ground is being gained or not.
I think that if the Minister, whoever it is, goes into his or her job without having any objective other than to interfere in Atlantic Canada, no further vision as to what the role of government should be in Atlantic Canada, that Atlantic Canadians will not gain anything from this particular initiative.
We do not think that this handcuffs the Minister in any way. It provides him and future Ministers with a very laudable goal, one of decreasing the economic disparity that now exists and is measured and is known for Atlantic Canadians. We think it is a very useful item to be put into the Bill as one of the main objectives of this legislation.
It is something that this and future Ministers can use as their target to say: "If I am Minister of this Agency my job is to reduce the economic disparity between the Atlantic region and the rest of Canada. I will therefore attempt to reduce unemployment and to increase incomes on investment in this particular area". This is something that the Bill does not now give as a mandate for the Minister. I think this amendment would correct that shortfall.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this particular amendment, we cannot see anything wrong with it. Certainly, if Atlantic Canada were to become an area that was richer than other areas of Canada, then we would expect the federal Government to pay more attention to the other areas of Canada. Under the present circumstances Atlantic Canada is at considerable disparity with the rest of Canada, employment-wise and in every other way. We cannot see anything wrong with this amendment. If Atlantic Canada were better off than the other regions of Canada, then what is wrong with still having that in the Act? There is nothing wrong with that.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that the representative of the Official Opposition will agree with just about every silly suggestion that might be made by the Hon. Members of the
unofficial Opposition. We can hardly expect that he will take an impartial view to this.
It has just been explained by the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) why this would be an inappropriate amendment.
It might also be pointed out that we did accept one of the amendments of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) which deals with Clause 21 and with respect to the Agency producing after every five years a comprehensive report providing an evaluation of all activities in which the Agency was involved and the impact those activities have had upon the region of disparity. It was accepted to see if we could make a measurement to see what progress is being made. As the Hon. Member for Moncton has advised the House, this would be inconsistent with the present objective which is much clearer and much more satisfactory.
We are not just wanting to overcome regional disparity in Atlantic Canada. We do not think it is satisfactory just to make comparisons between Atlantic Canada and the rest of the country. Atlantic Canada could progress tremendously and other areas might progress even more. It all depends upon the economic resources or on the price of oil and gas and the connection with western Canada and the like.
The present object is to support and promote opportunity for the economic development of Atlantic Canada, with the particular emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises, and so on. What could be more clear? We do not need, and it would be detrimental to introduce, this negative concept. Naturally, we are wanting to overcome regional disparity. That is the whole objective. We are trying to promote economic development and growth in Atlantic Canada.
I hope that our colleagues will agree not to pursue this matter and drop this amendment so that we can vote on it and proceed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
April 27, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Jack Harris: 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.
He said: Motion No. 4 provides a direction to the Agency that in carrying out its object-this is right after the objects clause that we just discussed-it 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 fulfilment of this objective.
I suppose it speaks for itself in terms of what we are aiming at with respect to this amendment. The reason that this is necessary is that because this particular Agency as devised by the Government is one that is designed to be responsive to applications generated in particular by business enterprises.
We know that as a part of the disparity between the Atlantic region and other parts of Canada that there are disparities in the level of development of business enterprise, the level of development of entrepreneurial enterprises, from one region to the other.
Within the Atlantic region there is a similar type of disparity. In some areas of the Atlantic region there are large numbers of corporations that are active in enterprise and ready to put in their applications and take advantage of any program that might be devised. We have seen that not only in the Atlantic region, but in the operations of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which was a predecessor of DRIE. The consequences are that these programs that were originally set up to support regional development ended up helping regional development in north Toronto, and regional development programs ended up responding to requests, demands, and lobbying from larger business enterprises.
In the first period since the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was announced on June 6, 1987 in St. John's, Newfoundland, we have seen the expenditure of this Agency operate in accordance with that type of history. We have seen the programs administered by that Agency respond again to
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
the same types of economic forces where there was a certain level of development; in some cases development already promoted by government as in the case of Cape Breton, and in other cases driven by other aspects of the economy, as in the case of other parts of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. I am told that there are some dozens of times more in absolute quantity of business enterprises in New Brunswick than there are in the Province of Newfoundland.
From June 6 to February 29 under programs such as the Atlantic Enterprise Program and the IRDP program, which when one includes loan insurance as well as the IRDP, the Atlantic Enterprise, and the IBD contributions, the expenditures total $126 million. Of that money, $63 million was spent in Cape Breton alone, which is part of one province. In Newfoundland $9.4 million was spent in the whole province with a population in the range of five times more than that of Cape Breton. In Nova Scotia, exclusive of Cape Breton Island, there was an expenditure of $19 million. In Prince Edward Island $5.3 million was spent out of a total $126 million. In New Brunswick $20 million was spent.
Therefore, we have a concern that in carrying out its programs the Agency itself, which is supposed to promote the economic development of the Atlantic region, will be favouring one region or one province, or one part of a province over another. That is not necessarily by design, but merely by something akin to the law of the jungle.
If a business enterprise, or a large number of business enterprises in the Province of Nova Scotia are ready because they have sufficient equity or have in place their business plan or market plan and have the backing and the financing for a percentage of a project and know that they can get the rest of it from ACOA, then they will be off and running. Whereas, in some parts of Atlantic Canada, and I am particularly concerned about Newfoundland, the enterprises and the entrepreneurs with the ideas and the projects, the activities and the plans, while being very good plans that would promote and lead to economic development in their region, will be left behind. Perhaps they will be smaller and not be able to take the same advantage of programs that may be offered to the whole Atlantic region.
This amendment would force the Agency to ensure that if the programs that it already had, or had been handed over from other Departments, or those it devised on its own, were acting in a way that was not fair to all of the provinces, that others would be devised which perhaps would have a particular application to the Province of Newfoundland, or the Province of Prince Edward Island, or in some other way would balance the equity between the provinces with respect to this program.
I think that there are ways of doing that. There are ways of allocating resources that are equitable. They are not included in the proposed amendment. They are available for the Agency to design and to decide those measures and formulas, if formulas are needed, but the requirement, in addition to ensuring equity between the provinces, is that they must report

April 27, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
annually on how they achieve equity. The Agency must say that it has a certain set of standards, "Here is how we applied them and here is how we achieved equity". If we do not like that, we can argue about it in the House and propose other amendments. But we will know what the Agency is doing and what the justification is. If we leave it to the Agency's own devices, we do not know what will happen, and after the fact we will be wondering what went on and be attempting to get some justification from the Government on it.
It is a big concern because we do not want to see Newfoundland fighting with Cape Breton or Prince Edward Island fighting with New Brunswick over the allocation of money for a program that is supposed to benefit the entire region. I have a fear that that might happen, if the Agency is not told from the very beginning to pay attention to this principle and ensure equity between all four provinces. The Agency is to report annually on what progress has been made, or if the programs were lopsided one year, then what it plans to do the next year to make up the balance. I do not think it is a very long way to go to insist that an agency of the Government be fair as between the provinces in the operation of this particular program.
The Atlantic provinces are not a homogeneous unit. There are problems of development that are different in Newfoundland than those in Nova Scotia. This fear is not merely my own. It was expressed by the Newfoundland Government in its discussion paper presented to the Government in December, 1986. It proposed a formula of allocation based on some type of regional disparity index that it devised. It looked at such issues as low earned income and the unemployment rate. The gross provincial product, the low earned income per capita, and the unemployment rate are three factors that could influence a disparity indicator which would show that a particular province deserves more attention than perhaps another province in terms of handing out the funds.
I am not suggesting any rigid formula to the Agency. I am suggesting that the Agency adopt, and be forced to adopt by legislation, the principle of equity between the provinces, and report to Parliament annually on how it has achieved that in order that we could determine in committee, or wherever, whether the Agency has applied the funds fairly.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak for a moment on this particular clause. It is a very straightforward and direct requirement to recognize that there are diverse provinces and regions that in some cases, have different requirements and different amounts of regional disparity. This particular clause does not establish a basis on which the Government or the Agency must deal with these differentials and disparities, but it recognizes that it is the Agency's responsibility to look at each of the provinces and ensure equity between those provinces and regions as they are defined in the Act.
Mr. Walpole, in giving a definition of what he considered to be economic disparity, suggested that regional disparity existed where the earned income of a particular area was no more than two-thirds of the Canadian average. In establishing equity as between the various regions of Atlantic Canada, one might look at that standard of disparity, with the attempt being to bring the Atlantic provinces as close as possible to the Canadian average.
That is the kind of equity which Clause 12 would require of the Agency.
To my mind, it is fairly straightforward, and it is a point on which the Agency should be given direction.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, I have read, with interest, the proposed amendment. As well, I have listened to the various comments made thus far in the debate. Those promoting the amendment constantly refer to how flexible it would be, and the fact that it would not be necessary to do certain things.
Let me read the proposed amendment:
In carrying out its object the agency shall ensure that there be equity
between the Atlantic Provinces-
The use of the word "shall" implies that there be some kind of a formula by which the Agency "shall" ensure that there be equity between the Atlantic provinces.
The amendment goes on to talk about equity "in the allocation of resources".
Like the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) I, too, have some statistics in respect of the ACOA program from June 6, 1987 to March 31, 1988. I could read you some of these numbers and ask you to tell me what is equitable. For example, it talks about the authorized contributions in the Province of New Brunswick under IRDP and the AEP being SI5 million. In Nova Scotia it was $31 million.
Does that constitute equity? In the Province of Newfoundland, it was $9 million. But when one looks at that in conjunction with the loan insurance, the numbers change considerably, with Newfoundland moving up to $44 million; Nova Scotia to $81 million; and New Brunswick, to $63 million. Is that equity?
When one looks at the special category of Cape Breton, no reference is made to it. I presume from the lack of a reference that it is included in the figures for the Province of Nova Scotia. When one looks at the programs in the context of the federal moneys they have been able to deliver to Cape Breton, one sees that the contribution is $50 million, and that the authorized loan insurance is $17 million.
There is nothing in the proposed amendment that would separate Cape Breton from Nova Scotia. In that circumstance, how does one measure that? If there are special programs for Cape Breton-something which will be discussed later in this
April 27, 1988

debate-should we then ensure that that much more goes into New Brunswick, into Prince Edward Island, and into Newfoundland?
We are all aware of the difficulties that have been experienced in attracting industry to Cape Breton. Is that equity?
We can talk about equity in terms of the number of jobs created. In Newfoundland, for a total projected cost of $44 million, 692 jobs were created. But in Nova Scotia, for a projected cost of $81 million, only 520 jobs were created; and for New Brunswick, at $63 million, 583 jobs. How does one measure equity in the allocation of resources?
The amendment then goes on to speak of "equity of effort". That is a dandy! I would like to be able to measure "equity of effort". I do not know precisely what one would measure. There are offices in Newfoundland, in New Brunswick, in Prince Edward Island, in Cape Breton, and in Nova Scotia. Who is going to run around measuring the "effort" of the employees of those various offices in terms of the delivery of this program?
Motion No. 12, to be debated later, talks about the assignment of existing employees.
I can envisage a real scramble around the managerial table to ensure that they do not get anyone who will not be able to add to the "effort" of that particular office, because someone, somehow, is going to run around and measure that effort.
The last item in the trilogy relates to the measuring of the "equity of programs".
One of the aims of this legislation is that the Minister, in conjunction with his advisory board, have the opportunity to create programs, to designate areas. But all of a sudden, he must ensure that there is equity as between the provinces. That, in my view, would seriously limit the flexibility that the Minister must have.
The amendment also talks about the Agency reporting annually to Parliament in respect of the fulfilment of the objective of equity. One can immediately envisage the scurry in New Brunswick to rush an application through on December 31 in order to have that reflected in the annual report on the equity of resources.
I would much prefer that the Agency take its time and make its decisions on applications on their merit. The criterion should not be merely to justify a bureaucrat's annual report in respect of equity in the allocation of resources.
To my mind, this amendment, among others, would bring about a situation in Atlantic Canada which was not contemplated by the legislation itself. Certainly, it would decrease the flexibility of the Agency. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Program is not meant to be an entitlement program. We just got rid of an entitlement program in the context of the various tiers in past programs. As a representative of a municipality on
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
the edge of another tier, I can tell you that I have seen industry move just across the border in order to get additional benefits.
We do not want to entitle a certain region or a certain province to a given amount of money under this program; rather, we want all Atlantic Canadians to have the opportunity to chase after every economic opportunity that presents itself.
In reading the proposed amendment, the implication is that moneys will have to be withheld from certain areas in order to achieve equity as between the provinces. What about putting more money into given areas? If there is a bona fide economic opportunity in Newfoundland, I want to ensure that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will be able to provide funding and assistance to that area in order that the economic benefit can be achieved.
The Agency has to be able to take advantage of every opportunity presented. I do not want the Agency placed in the position of having to deny an application on the basis that to approve it would be to throw out of whack the "equity" formula.
If this amendment is adopted, a formula will have to be devised in order to ensure that there is equity in the allocation of resources, effort and programs as between the Atlantic provinces.
To my mind, the best way to ensure fair and equitable allocation of the resources of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency within Atlantic Canada is to rely upon the parliamentary process, with the parliamentary representatives of these areas making the appropriate representations to the Minister, to the employees of the Agency. In that way, there will be every opportunity for good projects to get positive consideration. It should not be done in accordance with some formula, or in accordance with some numbers set by Ottawa in respect of achieving equity between the Atlantic provinces in the allocation of resources.
As a Member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, I would not want to run up against any such formula. I want to be in a position to fight as hard as I can for any project that is going to be good for my region of the Province of New Brunswick; and as an Atlantic Canadian Member of Parliament, I will fight hard to ensure that every economic opportunity that presents itself in Atlantic Canada gets every consideration possible from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
For all of the reasons I have set out, I do not think we should consider accepting this amendment. Any amendment that would result in someone going around measuring equity of resources, equity of effort, or equity of programs should be rejected.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely for the reasons listed by the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) that this amendment is necessary; it is for those very reasons that this amendment has been introduced.

April 27, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
In so far as "equity" is concerned, if there is $12 million available, that amount could be divided equally among the four provinces, giving each province $3 million. Then if you had $8 million, you would divide four into eight and get $2 million. That is one measure of equity. You could do it on a per capita basis. Certainly the intent of the motion is very clear.
There is only one thing in the motion he presented on which I have to differ with the hon. gentleman. It is a minor point. It is certainly better to have the amendment approved than disapproved. Where I differ with him is where he says, "in a manner to be determined by the agency". I do not think the Agency should be allowed to determine the manner in which the distribution of equity would be made. That is more precisely why the following motion is being proposed in my name, but it removes the authority of the Agency to determine what is equity and what is not.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Speaker remind the House of the rules for voting. Is it not to be done from a Member's seat?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, it is done from Members' seats.


George Baker: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 36 at page 4
and substituting the following therefor:
"mentation with equal emphasis in each of the four Atlantic Provinces".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is approximately the same as the motion just dealt with, but it omits the method by which equity would be determined and it omits the ability of the Agency to determine what the equity is. In other words, this says quite clearly that there will be equal emphasis in each of the four Atlantic provinces. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. The reason for the motion is very clear. We have under this Agency 300 or 400 people I suppose, some of them highly paid. Some of them will make $100,000 a year. Imagine making $100,000 a year to determine what projects will be approved or disapproved for funding under this particular agency. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. It is not good enough to have somebody making $100,000 a year in a poor province in which the average income is perhaps $8,000 a year and some prime executive, what we would call some fat cat, sitting down making decisions simply based on what is thrown at him.
If the process were left alone, the majority of the applications for funding under this Agency would, as they say, with emphasis on small and medium-size enterprise, come from the fairly industrialized areas of Atlantic Canada. In other words, where business and money exists, that is from where the applications will come if the process is left alone. I object strongly to having people who are making $100,000 a year in Atlantic Canada or anywhere else just sitting down judging applications as they come over their desks. They should be forced in Atlantic Canada to go out and make sure that the applications come from the poorest areas of Atlantic Canada, not from the richest areas, not from where the moneyed people are located or where the industries are presently located. They should make sure the applications do not come from the growth centres of Atlantic Canada, the cities of Atlantic Canada, where there is presently lots of employment and where people from the poorer areas of Atlantic Canada have to flock to get jobs. These are the places where the businesses are and where the people with the money can get money from the banks and the agencies to create more jobs. No, Mr. Speaker. This Agency will have highly paid civil servants, earning $100,000 a year, and assistants making anywhere from $60,000 to $75,000 a year. I looked at the salary list and said, isn't this wonderful to have those types of salaries being paid to so many people?
Then I looked at their functions. There is only one place in the Bill to make sure these people get out and work for their dollar which will force them out of the city offices into places where jobs should be created, where the opportunities are but where private enterprise is not willing in some cases to invest money in the creation of jobs for the resources.
A good example would be in the Province of Newfoundland where we still export the vast majority of our natural resources
April 27, 1988

in a raw state-even our fish. We have the frozen cod block syndrome in Newfoundland-


John Carnell Crosbie: Free trade will change that.


George Baker: It is sent to other foreign countries to be sent back to us as a finished product.


John Carnell Crosbie: Support free trade.


George Baker: I am not in agreement with allowing the Government of Canada to create these highly paid jobs, giving people the fattest of salaries and the greatest of guarantees to sit in offices in Atlantic Canada without saying to them, "You get out of those offices, dig up the applications, help the poor people, the poor regions and create the jobs where they should be, not where you, the fat cats, think they should be or where the financial institutions think they should be". That is a sure bet, but where it is not such a sure bet is where the taxpayers' money is being spent. These people should be forced to spend the taxpayers' money in areas where there is high unemployment, not in our so-called growth centres, such as certain cities in Atlantic Canada which over the years have benefited more than the other regions of Atlantic Canada.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to the remarks made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).
This motion of the Hon. Member is similar to my previous motion. It is slightly different. It requires equal emphasis in all four provinces. I would like to think that that would be interpreted in the same way as providing equitable treatment to the four provinces. I do not think that the Hon. Member intends the money to be divided in quarters and passed out or that the same kind of money be spent in Prince Edward Island perhaps with its population as will be spent in Nova Scotia with its population.
I think the thrust of the Hon. Member's motion and his remarks are very important. There has to be in this legislation something to ensure that the people working in this Agency are required to promote economic development in those areas where that development will not grow naturally. I support the Hon. Member's remarks about the fact that private enterprise on its own will not provide equity between provinces or even within a province. Private enterprise will go where the money already is. Those who already have the money, the equity and the economic development will go to the Agency to look for more money and it will grow where it already exists.
We need to force the Agency to be fair not only by ensuring that everyone has copies of applications. That is not enough. The results of this will be as predictable as day following night.
Suppose that there are applications in every town, village and post office in Atlantic Canada, or at least in those post
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
offices that will remain after the Government has finished closing them down. Suppose there were applications in every post office, every town hall and every municipality in Atlantic Canada, and suppose there was equal access to the applications for the programs in that way. The results will be that the money, the programs and the economic development will be attracted to the places where those things already exist.
The Agency must be required to place its emphasis equally on the provinces by insisting that each province have equitable programs. If a program is picked up in one place and not in another, new programs must be devised and implemented in those other parts of the Atlantic provinces.
Although the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) did not use the word "equitable" when he spoke, "equity" meaning fairness, he used the phrase "equal emphasis". Should the previous motion fail, should the Government use its overwhelming majority to denounce it when it comes to a vote, then I think the motion of the Hon. Member should be supported.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will not speak at any length on this because we dealt with the same concept a few minutes ago. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has certainly just done his own home City of Gander a great disservice. It was a paean of criticism of growth centres, even in Atlantic Canada. It was anti-city, anti-town. I do not know where he wants development to go. Why should he be prejudiced against a town like Gander, for example?
The Hon. Member's dissertation was to suggest that development should not go to the towns and the growth centres that already exist. That is just astonishing. I hope that Mayor Sheppard and his council will pay particular note to the fulminations of the hon. gentleman against his own home town.
The Hon. Member would add the words: "with equal emphasis in each of the four provinces". What in the name of heavens does that mean? How can we emphasize equally activities in each of the four Atlantic provinces? What does that mean? If anyone would know what the heck that meant, it would certainly be quite a rigid standard. Of course, it would be contrary to the whole spirit and the approach of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which is to encourage initiatives being taken by the people who live in the regions, by the entrepreneurs, the co-operatives or whatever group it might be. That is how this has been designed, not to place artificial barriers.
If the people are more alert, more on the ball, more active and have more initiative in Nova Scotia, P.E.I., New Brunswick or Newfoundland than in the other places, then they deserve to have a response to their initiatives. The success of this program will depend to a great extent on the areas involved. The program is designed to give entrepreneurs, risk-takers and those who have initiative a chance to move ahead.

April 27, 1988
Message from the Senate
How can we have a rule such as the one the hon. gentleman suggests?
The few remarks of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) were simply a poem against success. He sounds as though he did not like success, as though he were against the people who are successful. The implication of his remarks was that the people who are successful should not be assisted by this Agency. Has one ever heard such absolute tommyrot? Should this Agency only give assistance to those who have never had a success in their lives, those who have been completely unsuccessful up until now? Is that what the Hon. Member for St. John's East suggests? He suggests that there is a need to force the agency to do this and that. He is completely confused.
I would certainly suggest to the House that we defeat this even more feeble attempt on the part of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate who cannot be creative like the Hon. Member for St. John's East. At least the Hon. Member for St. John's East is creative and is making some suggestions. In fact, several of his amendments were adopted. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate is trying to climb on the Jack Harris bandwagon by making this more silly and frivolous suggestion than the one made by the Hon. Member for St. John's East.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-125, an Act to enable the Northern Canada Power Commission to issue shares, to authorize the sale of those shares to the Government of the Northwest Territories, to repeal the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, and to provide for related matters, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa
April 27, 1988 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Claire L'Heureux-Dube, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 27th day of April, 1988, at 5.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
George Baker: 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".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the clause in which the Government spells out exactly what the Agency is responsible for. Clause 13 starts out by saying, "In carrying out its object," and we already dealt with the object of the Agency. In carrying out this object for economic development, which is
April 27, 1988

very all-encompassing and broad, "the Agency," and then it spells out for two or three pages what the Agency's intentions are.
The Bill provides, for example, that the Agency will support business associations, it will study the development of business opportunities, it will improve business communications, it will promote scholarship related to business, it will assist investors, it will make loans to people, it will guarantee repayments and it will do practically everything. However, it will do nothing because the key word in Clause 13 is "may". The Bill says that in carrying out its object which is contained in the previous clause, the Agency may do this and the Government may do that.
The purpose of this amendment is to say that the Agency shall do these things. There is quite a difference between the words "may" and "shall". "May", according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means expressing possibility. That is not what we are dealing with here today. These hundreds of people will be paid such great salaries to belong to an agency in Atlantic Canada. We want to make sure they do something, not just express the possibility of doing something. Therefore, I suggest we substitute the word "shall" for the word "may". The word "shall" according to the dictionary means that it is a command, or an obligation to do what the Act says it will do. What is the sense in having an Act if the agency you are creating need not do anything in the Act? That is precisely what this particular clause is all about.
We spoke a few moments ago about equality. There is no equality under this Agency when you have, for example, 17 employees in Newfoundland, 14 in Prince Edward Island, and far more in Ottawa, as is presently the case.
This amendment is very clear. It simply changes the word "may" to "shall" and forces the Agency, as the Bill suggests, in concert with concerned departments and agencies of all Governments in Atlantic Canada, to carry out its responsibilities. It will have no choice, it has to carry out its responsibilities or it should not be in existence. That is the purpose of the amendment.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, when we apply what the Hon. Member is saying to a few parts of this particular clause it may not look too bad. However, I am going to show you some parts of the Bill where it will certainly make a difference when you apply the program to Atlantic Canada.
One of the things that is so important in this legislation is that the Agency have as much flexibility as possible so that it can choose the appropriate program instrument according to the circumstances. The Agency can look at an application from Prince Edward Island and decide which program will give the most beneficial kind of support to the application. Obviously we are concerned about flexibility, and normally in legislative drafting program authority is discretionary. The Minister can determine the allocation of resources in the most appropriate
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
manner possible in order to take advantage of the biggest number of economic opportunities in Atlantic Canada.
Having said that, if you change the word "may" on page 4 to "shall" it would probably not be a big concern with regard to Clause 13(a), (b) or (c), but when you get down to Clause 13(d) it will say:
-shall
(d)	assist investors-
What if they do not want assistance? What if they do not want, unfortunately, to establish an enterprise in Atlantic Canada? We shall assist them whether they want assistance or not. Going on a little further to Clause 13(e):
-shall
(e)	make loans to any person with respect to the establishment and
development of enterprises-
What if they decide that this is not the proper procedure and the guy does not want a loan? Perhaps he wants something under IRDP or ERDA. No, we shall make a loan. You do not know what is good for you and we are going to give you a loan. He might prefer a direct contribution with nothing to be repaid. The circumstances in the particular area where the application is generated may dictate that that instrument be applied, but according to this amendment we are going to give him a loan. Then it goes on to say:
-shall
(f)	guarantee the repayment-
What if we do not want it back? What if it is a direct contribution from one of the programs? No, we shall guarantee repayment. Or, we shall guarantee loan insurance or credit insurance. What if they do not need it? According to this amendment we shall go out and make sure they get loan insurance or credit insurance.
The amendment may look all right when you talk about planning or directing and managing and so on, but one of the key elements of this legislation, and I do not know how they missed this in the 11 hours of debate on second reading and 34 hours in committee, is to provide flexibility so that we can provide the optimum federal government assistance in a particular area of the Atlantic provinces so that we can all expand our economic opportunities. We want that flexibility, and adoption of this amendment will not allow us that flexibility. It will not allow the applicants the flexibility we now have with the current wording.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I guess it would not be surprising, after hearing the last speaker, to think that the Government does not like the word "shall". It wants to use "may" every time. Yet in the very next clause the Bill says that the Agency shall assist the Minister. It lists four, five or six things that the Agency shall do to assist the Minister. If the Agency shall assist the Minister, why can it not be required to do the things that the Agency is set up to do? I do not see what is so wrong with that and I support the good

April 27, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
intention of the mover of this motion in requiring the Agency to do the very things it has been set up to do.
Elowever, I must confess to a certain difficulty further on down in the clause when such an amendment would require the Agency to make the loans to any person with respect to the establishment and development of enterprises, and more particularly small and medium-sized enterprises in Atlantic Canada. That would allow us all, everyone in this House and I presume everyone who asks for a loan, to be given a loan by ACOA to set up any kind of agency or enterprise that he or she wants. I do not think even the Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate (Mr. Baker) would like to see so much largesse distributed by this Agency even if it is in Gander-Twillingate, his own riding.
The amendment, which is very well intentioned, when one applies it directly to everything contained in Clause 13, can be applied and still maintain the integrity of the program. I thank the Hon. Member for bringing once again to the attention of the House the fact that the Government does not want to assist the Agency in carrying out its obligations.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Jack Harris: 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 organizations, and more
particularly small and".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment may be considered somewhat technical in nature. It relates to the powers of the Agency in terms of establishment of programs in Clause 13. Even though Clause 13 is written in a permissive way, we would like to have it amended to add "community economic development organizations" to the kinds of organizations and enterprises which the Agency may assist. That is repeated in the motion three times, in Subclause (a), (b), and (c). We would like to add this to emphasize the important role which these kinds of organizations play in economic development within the Atlantic region.
An example of such an organization is the Cumberland Community Futures. Co-operative organizations have put forth similar arguments and proposals to the legislative committee. In Atlantic Canada there are various kinds of community-based initiatives for people, many of whom are not engaged in economic development for personal profit but rather for economic development in their community. One such example is the Community Economic Development Cooperative on Bell Island in my riding. There are community cooperatives in many other ridings in Atlantic Canada as well.
The Great Northern Peninsula Development Corporation is not a co-operative but is in essence owned by several regional development associations. It is a community-based economic development organization which supports particular programs and activities. It may not be an enterprise, but it is certainly a community economic development organization which is promoting economic development in its own region. We would like ACOA to be empowered to assist those organizations as well.
In some of the programs which have been announced by ACOA there has been a form of assistance to certain kinds of enterprises or non-profit agencies. That is commendable, but we would like that emphasis to be in the legislation so that it is clear that we can expect this type of program and other types of programs among the activities of the agency in the future.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
******I
April 27, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


George Baker: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out line 9 at page 5
and substituting the following therefor:
"sized enterprises, with emphasis on the utilization of primary resources,
particularly the fishery and agriculture in Atlantic Canada,".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion was suggested by many Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada and people who appeared before the standing committee who are concerned that nowhere in the Bill is it mentioned that the fishery, agriculture, and mining would qualify for programs under the Agency being established by the Government of Canada.
There is nothing at all wrong with this amendment. You will note that various parts of the clause to be amended emphasize "particularly" this or that. What is wrong with inserting "with emphasis on the utilization of primary resources, particularly the fishery and agriculture in Atlantic Canada"? There is nothing wrong with putting particular emphasis on the primary resources of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island which remain underutilized and underdeveloped. We know that the fishery is underdeveloped and underutilized. The Government of Canada and the provincial Governments in Atlantic Canada, particularly the Government of Newfoundland, will have to pay special attention to the utilization of primary resources, particularly in the fishery, to create finished products. There should be particular emphasis as well on agriculture in Atlantic Canada.
It was brought up in this House one day that the potatoes which are used on government jets and by Air Canada and VIA Rail are actually imported from Belgium. If you board a VIA Rail train in Moncton, New Brunswick, where the Parliamentary Secretary is from, you are served potatoes which were grown in Belgium. That is not very nice. If you board an Air Canada jet at an international airport in Atlantic
Government Organization Act. Atlantic Canada, 1987
Canada the potatoes you are served are from Belgium and the cake is from Holland.
Through this motion we want particular emphasis put on our primary resources; our fishing industry, our agricultural industry, and our mining industry in Atlantic Canada under this Agency. Why not spell it out? They spell out data banks and networks and investment requirements in various industries. Why not spell out the industries which are important to Atlantic Canada?
There is no reason in the world why the Government cannot accept this amendment. In fact, by not accepting the amendment the Government is saying that it does not agree that the primary resources; the fishery, agriculture, and mining, are the most important aspects of economic development in Atlantic Canada. In other words, the Government does not know anything about economic opportunities in Atlantic Canada.
The problem in Atlantic Canada is that the money has not been directed to the area to which it should be directed, that is, to making finished products with our primary resources rather than exporting them to foreign countries and then buying them back. We are exporting the jobs in our fishing industry to the eastern United States. Frozen cod blocks are thawed out in Massachusetts where thousands of people are employed. Companies like National Sea Products and Fishery Products International, which are being supported all the time by the Government of Canada, are making loads of money.
It should be spelled out in the Bill that it pays particular attention to the mining resources of Cape Breton Island, the fishery in Cape Breton Island and agriculture in Cape Breton Island, just as it does throughout the Atlantic provinces.
The Government will not accept this amendment because it is afraid to do so. It does not want to get involved in the primary industries of Atlantic Canada, or to create jobs in Atlantic Canada. It would rather create this Agency that will employ some people at $100,000 a year to process applications. The Government will not agree to include the fishery, agriculture and mining resources in this Bill. Shame.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what my colleague, the Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), said with respect to Motion No. 8, which would include in the Act the utilization of primary resources, particularly fisheries and agriculture in Atlantic Canada.
Atlantic Canada is definitely facing economic problems at this time. The Government seems to be restructuring the assistance in order to accomplish what it wants to happen. However, quite often, such objectives are not possible.
I think the Government must give more consideration to the needs of Atlantic Canada and determine where the jobs and economic base can best be fostered. I suggest it is a mistake

April 27, 1988
Royal Assent
not to include the primary resources of the fishery and agriculture.
We have many towns that have only one industry. If that industry is fishing, agriculture or mining, it is not eligible for assistance. As a result, many of these smaller towns will disappear and create a great deal of hardship.
It is significant to note that the Government is ignoring this vital area. Some agricultural areas are experiencing great difficulty, while others have been increasing their yields in recent years. This Bill should permit the Government to aid these primary resource industries. It will be a very definite mistake not to do so.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a):
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of 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 others Acts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the Minister for International Trade. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: According to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(b), if 15 Members rise in their places to object, the motion is defeated. Shall the motion carry?
And fewer than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being fewer than 15 Members rising in objection to the motion, according to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(b), the motion is deemed to be carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this Honourable House in the Chamber of the Honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Acting Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Honour the Deputy to Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, her Honour was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-76, an Act to provide for emergency preparedness and to make a related amendment to the National Defence Act-Chapter No. 11.
Bill C-125, an Act to enable the Northern Canada Power Commission to issue shares, to authorize the sale of those shares to the Government of the Northwest Territories, to repeal the Northern Canada Power Commission Act and to provide for related matters-Chapter No. 12.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 8 (Mr. Baker, p. 14889).
Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on the amendment. While the amendment looks very nice, I am sure it is playing to a certain audience, nonetheless its contents are covered in the legislation and in the wording currently proposed.
The philosophy behind Bill C-103 is to provide support where opportunities exist in Atlantic Canada for economic development. The agency has the flexibility to respond to all opportunities to get involved in good business proposals. Emphasizing one or two sectors in Atlantic Canada would only serve to unbalance the approach that is being adopted in Bill C-103.
Where in the agriculture and the fisheries industry there are opportunities, ACOA will have a role to play. If there is an opportunity and a business is involved in agriculture, in fishing, in forestry or in mining, then ACOA is anxious to assist them in the development of that opportunity.
In addition to that, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) currently have programs to assist people in those sectors. Provinces have programs, as does the federal Government through those two Departments. Obviously, ACOA does not necessarily want to parallel those programs and to provide an overlap. It wants to fill its role in order to co-ordinate the effort of Governments toward those various sectors.
April 27, 1988

When we look at the legislation we see that it is clear in this clause that it will help in the promotion of enterprises, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and when they are available in those sectors ACOA will have a role to play and will be glad to provide assistance. However, when we look at other clauses in the legislation, for example, Clause 5, we see that it deals with the fact that the Minister may exercise powers and perform duties and functions that affect economic opportunity and development in Atlantic Canada over which Parliament has jurisdiction and that are not by or pursuant to law assigned to any other Member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, or to any Department, board or agency of the Government. So if there is an opportunity in a sector that is not assigned to someone else, then there is an opportunity for ACOA to get involved.
Clause 9 deals with a rather unique aspect of the legislation. It states:
Where the Minister is satisfied that the implementation of a program or project authorized by any other Act would further the purpose of this Part, the Minister may, conditionally or unconditionally, undertake to transfer funds appropriated for the purposes of this Part to supplement funds that the Minister responsible for the program or project has undertaken to expend in connection therewith.
In other words, if there is an opportunity in the agriculture industry, the forestry sector or the mining sector and there is not enough money in an existing program, then the Minister can say: "We are going to put Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency money into that program to supplement funds of the national program or programs that are available in the other Department".
There is a great deal of flexibility here. The Hon. Member mentioned the fisheries industry. Just yesterday there was an announcement with respect to a company called Pioneer Fisheries which is involved in a lobster holding and marketing plant on Prince Edward Island. It has received a $1.3 million grant to begin operation. This is an example of a business opportunity in the fisheries sector in which the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has responded.
It can happen. It is happening. These amendments are not necessary for it to happen. Obviously, we feel that the measures are provided for in the legislation as it exists. The operation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency interprets it that way. This is a good example of assistance being provided to one of those primary sectors to which this amendment makes reference.
We feel the matter is adequately covered in Bill C-103 as it exists. There is absolutely no need for the adoption of this amendment.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division stands deferred.


Jack Harris: Motion No. 9
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."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this particular motion proposes to amend Clause 18 which provides for the establishment of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Board consisting of the President and not more than 18 other members appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister.
This motion will amend Clause 18(3) which presently states, "The Board shall include persons from each province in Atlantic Canada", to state, "The Board shall include persons from 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".
The reason for that amendment is to attempt to ensure that the Board giving advice which is required to assist the Agency in carrying out its functions shall not only have representatives such as those it presently has. The Minister has appointed 18 people in addition to the President, most of whom are business people. There are representatives from three Governments and one agency, and there is one person who is involved with the labour movement. But in its composition the Board does not have anyone from the academic community assigned, or people who are involved in the type of economic development organizations that I have mentioned.

April 27, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
There is no one from the co-operative sector. When this was raised at second reading, the Agency went out of its way to announce that co-operatives were included. But it was not very clear from the attitude of the Government, particularly in terms of the make-up of the Board, that this was the case. In fact, people are phoning me from New Brunswick and Newfoundland and saying that ACOA does not know how to deal with co-operatives, and that they are not even sure that ACOA understands what a co-operative is. I was informed that someone in New Brunswick was told not to set up a cooperative because that will take a long time to get organized; do it through a business corporation. This was a co-operative that wanted to set up a co-operative enterprise. The Agency was either ignorant or insensitive to that type of development or economic enterprise.
The Agency might state in its brochure or in its policy that it provides assistance to co-operatives, but if it does not know what co-operatives are or how they act, or has no experience with the history of co-operatives in the Maritime provinces and in Newfoundland and the important role that they play in economic development, how can programs be devised and economic development assisted with those types of agencies?
Today the Speaker ruled out of order a motion to set up an advisory committee. To remind the House, the motion states:
(4) The Minister shall establish an advisory board comprised of women to advise on the policies and programs necessary to ensure that women participate in the activities and initiatives of the Agency, and provide for the membership and further duties and functions of such a board.
That motion was ruled out of order. But in this particular motion there could be provision to include representatives of women's organizations to insist that the Agency, in operating its programs and in devising its staffing and other activities, pay special attention to the needs of women in business. Because they have different approaches, they have different needs in order to move forward and develop economic programs and business enterprises.
This particular amendment will provide diversity and broad representation needed to make the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency aware of what is going on in Atlantic Canada, aware of the role played by co-operatives, by women in business, by the community economic development corporations, by the regional development associations, by the academic community that has concerns and ideas, and by the scientific community.
With this amendment we are asking that the Board be required to be broadly representative of those parts of society that are furthering economic development, and not only business people. Business people have a very important role to play in economic development. That is important, and perhaps even primarily important in terms of the make-up of a particular board. We do want people with business experience, and people with successful business experience who are aware of what it takes to make a successful project work.
We also want the Agency to understand the broad range of economic development activity that takes place in the Atlantic region, in the fishery, in the mining industry, and in the regional development sector that has been very active in Newfoundland and also in other provinces over the last number of years. They have a very important role to play. They have an understanding of communities in Atlantic Canada that perhaps some of the more successful businessmen might not have, if they are operating in larger centres. We want to see more of a balance than we have received. Without having the Minister told that the Board has to be broadly representative, we would like to see more of a variety in the appointments. We think that this amendment would achieve that end, and I would ask the House to support it fully.


George Baker: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, a word of support for this amendment. For the life of me, I cannot see why the Government would not agree to the amendment. As it is presently worded, Clause 18(3) states, "The Board shall include persons from each province in Atlantic Canada". It says "persons", Mr. Speaker. I suppose there could be one from one province, three from another province, and five from yet another province. They could all be defeated Progressive Conservative candidates. They could be defeated politicians. The amendment asks for the Board to be representative of the business community, social and cultural agencies. In other words, representative of the people in Atlantic Canada.
I would like to see a couple of people on the Board who are unemployed, or a couple of people on the Board who are used to drawing unemployment insurance, or a couple of people on the Board who tried setting up businesses in Atlantic Canada but went broke. Perhaps the Board could include a couple of community leaders from town councils who were elected by the people in those smaller communities in Atlantic Canada. In fact, probably it should be spelled out even more than it presently is. The Minister is the person who will appoint the Board, and you know, Mr. Speaker, who those people would be if the present Minister appointed them. I do not mean the Minister who introduced the Bill, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), but the Minister who is in the other place who is responsible for this particular legislation.
I cannot see why the Government would not accept the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment presented by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris). Coming from the Yukon, as I do, the opposite end of the country to Atlantic Canada, I can very much relate to the need to have such an advisory board. I would draw an analogy between the capacity of this Board and the care with which members of the Board should be selected so as to represent a broad range of interests, including that of the business community.
April 27, 1988

I note that the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, the small business association, has expressed the concern that this Board will not represent the interests of small business; that, rather, it will only represent the interests of the large business sector.
That is an extremely important point. As has also been mentioned, women's interests should also be represented on this Board. Women constitute an ever-increasing proportion of the entrepreneurs in our society. Between 1972 and 1983, the number of women entrepreneurs increased by some 140 per cent, while the number of male entrepreneurs increased by only 10 per cent.
In light of those figures, the interests of women present a significant emerging factor in terms of representation on such a Board.
Knowing the Atlantic region as I do, the question of rural and urban representation is an extremely important one. The opportunities available to non-urban areas are often more difficult to create, given the smaller population available to a business, with the result that non-urban areas are often overlooked. I think it extremely important that any such advisory board reflect the rural/urban split as well.
I realize that no advisory board can represent all interests, and indeed it should not be merely a collection of separate interests. However, we have seen all too often that such advisory boards are somewhat uni-dimensional, lacking in representation from the less vocal segments of our society, thereby making it more difficult for those segments to develop activities which will enhance their economic development.
The Department of Employment and Immigration has established local advisory committees whose purpose it is to advise on how projects and programs under that Department are to be allocated. One can easily draw a parallel between that and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Under both, there is an attempt to reflect, in the projects undertaken, the different sectors of society, the large/small business community, and the rural/urban split.
In summary, I strongly support the proposed amendment. Through this amendment, the various sectors of the community can have adequate representation on the advisory board, thus enabling them to take maximum advantage of the programs offered.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House is on Motion No. 9. 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.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


George Baker: 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".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to make the Minister do what we tried to make the Agency do through an earlier amendment, an amendment which is opposed by the Government.
The Minister of whom I speak is not the Minister in whose name this Bill appears, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), but the individual who sits in the other place. This is a Minister who is not elected, a Minister who does not have to answer to the public, a Minister who can do whatever he wishes without the necessity of having to answer to the electorate.
For the first time in our history, we have a Minister in charge of a major economic development program for Atlantic Canada who does not have to face re-election, by virtue of being in what we in this place call "the other place".
Under this legislation, the Minister is given tremendous powers. In fact, in the light of the powers bestowed upon the Minister under this legislation, one wonders why the Prime Minister, in selecting a Minister to administer this Act, selected someone who does not sit in this Chamber, someone who does not have to answer to the electorate, someone who does not have to stand on a podium anywhere and defend his actions.
Under this legislation, the Minister has incredible powers. Under Clause 20, the Minister can make regulations "specifying programs and projects in addition to those referred to in paragraph 13(c)".
Well, Mr. Speaker, the entire scope of this Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and its responsibilities and actions, is set out in paragraph 13(c). Yet, under Clause 20 of the Bill, the Minister can make regulations specifying programs and

April 27, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
projects "in addition to" those already set out in paragraph 13(c). In other words, the Minister could create an entirely new Act.
I doubt that Clause 20 would be in order, if one were to follow the rules of the procedure in an exact fashion.
Through this amendment, we are asking the Minister-the Minister "in the other place", the Minister who does not have to stand for re-election-to try to improve the business environment, as stated in the Bill, but particularly as it relates to the development of the fishery and agriculture.
This is something that was requested by the organizations representing the fishery and agriculture, the primary resources right through Atlantic Canada. That is the reason for the proposed amendment. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the Government would not accept it, especially given that the Minister charged with administering this legislation is not even a sitting Member of the House of Commons.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) realizes, we have already been through this in dealing with Motion No. 8, and the same reasons for rejecting that amendment apply in this particular circumstance.
There is adequate flexibility in Bill C-103 to handle programs that may apply to any sector where business opportunities present themselves. Certainly, the arguments in respect of rejecting the amendment proposed under Motion No. 8 apply in this case. As in the case of the amendment proposed under Motion No. 8, this amendment is unnecessary, and as such should not be supported.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that the clock is at six o'clock and I know the Government has decided to extend the hours of the sitting. The Liberal caucus is holding a caucus meeting, about which we are all aware. The Board of Internal Economy normally meets on Wednesday night at this time, about which we are all aware. We have had a standing tradition in this House that Wednesday evenings be set aside for Parties to hold their individual caucus meetings. We had an understanding that we would be dealing with report stage of Bill C-33 in the House today and that if we did not complete it we would continue tomorrow.
I want to say that I am very aggravated and disappointed that the Government has seen fit to break an understanding and has seen fit to go against the traditions of the House. To think the Government would extend hours on a night when the Liberal Party was having a very important caucus meeting-


An Hon. Member:: Why are you so worried?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Because I believe in the parliamentary system. I regret this decision. In an effort to co-operate-


Mr. Shields:: You phoney.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Go wash your face.
I find it an odd way to do business in the House of Commons when the Deputy House Leader for the Government and I had an understanding about what business we would deal with today and would if necessary continue it tomorrow because he has obviously decided to break that understanding. As I say, I find it very difficult to do business in a co-operative way.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that there was absolutely no understanding.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You liar.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I also wish to advise the House that we were fully cognizant of the fact that the Liberal caucus has a meeting. We would have accommodated the Liberal caucus, but I want to make it perfectly clear that we recognize a filibuster for a filibuster. There is absolutely no filibuster coming from the Liberals. When we see people from Ottawa representing Hamilton pretending to have an interest in Atlantic Canada, that is a filibuster. That is why we extended the hours, and we intend to do the business of the country.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the New Democrats, they have only one Member from Atlantic Canada. They need another Member to second their motions.
April 27, 1988

I would like to support the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on this occasion. He is receiving heckling from the government benches on his point of common decency. He mentioned that the Liberal Party has a caucus tonight at six o'clock and that it has not been the procedure in this House to hold extended hours on Wednesday evening. As well there is a meeting of the Board of Internal Economy this evening. The Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) spoke about filibustering, but we just started Bill C-103 this afternoon. This is incredible. It is obviously a move of bad faith on the part of the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not feel the floor of the House is a place to be negotiating. I have recognized the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) on debate on Motion No. 11.


Ms. Copps:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Marion Dewar: I have a personal point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton East on a very short point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my point of order responds probably to the point of personal privilege stated by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar). Whatever Members may think about where somebody originally came from, this Member-while I fought hard on the other side in the election-was duly elected to represent the people of Hamilton Mountain. I verily resent anyone on the government side of the House claiming that somebody does not have the right to speak for all Canadians. I think the statement made by the Government House Leader was a lot of bunk.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) has something to say?


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is that I was speaking to an amendment. I tried not to take my full time. I wanted to talk on local community economic development, and I was accused of filibustering.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is neither a point of order nor a question of privilege. It is debate.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are a liar, sit down.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), the House Leader for the New Democratic Party, called someone on this side of the House, I believe it was our House Leader, a liar.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is right.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


Jack Wendele Shields: And he just now referred to me as a liar and to sit down. I demand that he withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will check the "blues" tomorrow. If the Hon. Member feels that he would like to withdraw his comment, I would appreciate it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to explain why I called the Deputy House Leader a liar. First, I do admit that I called him that.


Jack Wendele Shields: Withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like the Hon. Member to withdraw the statement that he made, otherwise I will not recognize him.


Nelson Andrew Riis: With a great deal of hesitation, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw calling the Hon. Deputy House Leader a liar.


Jack Wendele Shields: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has a question of privilege?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I want that Member to stand up and withdraw the remarks that he made to me. He called me a liar also. I would like his withdrawal on the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I said I would check the "blues". If he has used these words, then he will withdraw them.
The Hon. Member for St. John's East is recognized on debate on Motion No. 11.


Jack Harris: 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.
(b)	by striking out line 27 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"of this Part for that fiscal year, and such reports shall stand permanently referred to such committee of the House of Commons as is established to review
matters relating to regional industrial expansion."
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 11 asks and requires the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in its annual report to make a statement on the annual impact of its operations on regional disparity between Atlantic Canada and other regions of Canada. I am speaking as a Newfoundlander and as an Atlantic Canadian.
I resent the implication from the government side of the House, the Deputy House Leader, that nobody else in this

April 27, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
House has the right to speak on regional disparity and to speak up for people in other parts of the country. If that is the standard by which the Government will judge the actions of people on this side of the House when they are speaking for the rights of Canadians, I think it is time the Government was thrown out and tossed to the wolves where it belongs.
To hear the very Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) come to this House and speak up in support of legislation that is good for Atlantic Canada, that is what we expect in Atlantic Canada. If she did not, I would condemn her for it. If she refused to support Atlantic Canada, I would condemn her as I would condemn the Government House Leader saying that by doing that she is somehow pretending to be interested in the people of Canada. It is this side of the House, particularly our Party, which is fighting hard for legislation and fighting to improve this legislation so that Atlantic Canadians are protected. I welcome any addition to the debate which the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain can make.
I would encourage other Members from the central Canadian cities and towns, from the areas of Canada which are doing very well by this economy, to stand up and support legislation and support improvements to legislation that will protect Atlantic Canada. That is what is wrong with this whole issue. There are not enough people who are not from Atlantic Canada who have stood up for Atlantic Canada. If we had more people in this House who represent the richer parts of the country, the parts that are doing better than Atlantic Canada, speaking and being concerned about all of Canada, then we would not be dealing here today with a Bill designed to try to make up for what has been lost by neglect and the fact that Atlantic Canada has been denied its rightful place in Confederation. I think the comments of the Hon. Deputy House Leader, the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis), underline and underscore the real problem in Atlantic Canada.
In Newfoundland we have seven Members. Some of us are louder than others. We hear from the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) quite often. I try to speak out as often as I can and as loud as I can, sometimes louder than others, but there are only seven of us in this large House.
In Atlantic Canada, there are not enough people to form a majority to vote in anything that the rest of the country does not want. We are divided up into Parties as well. We expect and rely upon the support of Members from other parts of Canada within our own Party and, hopefully, even within other Parties, to support Atlantic Canada when measures are being brought forth that are for the benefit of Atlantic Canada.
This particular measure emphasizes the need for this Agency to report annually and to focus on regional disparities and the indicators that are present. I will give one example of what is going on in Atlantic Canada. One economic indicator which is a most valuable one to test regional development and
the economic support in the economy is that of earned income per capita. Earned income per capita is income that does not come from social assistance or unemployment insurance but from earnings. Earned income per capita is a very good measure of the economic health of a region.
At the time of confederation in 1949, the ratio of earned income per capita in Newfoundland compared to that of all of Canada, the Canadian average, was 48.8 per cent. The average earned income per capita in Newfoundland was 48.8 per cent of the national average. Do you know what it is now, Mr. Speaker? I bet you do not. After 38 years of confederation, it is now 55.5 per cent of the Canadian average. That is the progress we have made in 38 years. We are now 6 per cent closer to the national average in earned income per capita.
At that rate, do you know how long it will take us to reach the national average, Mr. Speaker? It will take 288 years. That is how long we will have to wait, yet when the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain rises to speak out in favour of Atlantic Canada, she is accused of pretending to be interested.
After the next election, I hope we will have many, many more Members here like the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, Members who no matter what part of the country they are elected from, whether from the Prairies, northern Ontario, central Ontario, southern Ontario or British Columbia, will support regional development measures in Atlantic Canada, a commitment to not having to wait 288 years for the kind of progress that is needed but to demanding and insisting that there be equality now. We must work quickly to reduce the regional disparities in Canada and to ensure that there is equality of opportunity across the country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there is a quorum in the House at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It requires that 20 Members be in the House. I believe there is a quorum. Debate.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) proposed an amendment at committee. It was debated, discussed and accepted by members of the committee and is being reported here today. This motion certainly does very little to expand upon that one. It talks about a report exclusive of the annual report. It talks about evaluation. There has been no real significant change, and we feel quite comfortable with the amendment that was accepted by the committee at the request of the Hon. Member.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
April 27, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Jack Harris: 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 days 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)."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment deals with the staffing of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and with the public servants, particularly in the Department of DRIE. During the course of the establishment of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, many of them were given notice or were told that they were to be made redundant as a result of the creation of this agency.
While the legislative committee was in Charlottetown, the Professional Institute of Public Servants wrote a letter advising the Minister from the other place and made a presentation to the committee in Charlottetown advising us that long-term professional public servants who were quite capable of operating in various parts of the Public Service were being denied an opportunity to work at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. This was a very different approach from that which was taken in the establishment of the Western Diversification Office.
The Minister responsible for that Agency assured all those working in DRIE or at the other Agencies or programs that were being transferred to the Western Diversification Program that they would have an opportunity to work in that Agency and that there would be no redundancies as a result of that move. There were sufficient person-years in the complement of the new Agency to accommodate all of those who would be affected by changes in the transferring of the program.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
The Senator from the other place who was responsible for this legislation made no such commitment to the public servants of Atlantic Canada. A large number of them are being made redundant and there is no reason for that. There are plenty of person-years available and perhaps 100 person-years more than necessary in the new Agency to cover these people. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will probably have the exact figures at hand. It is quite clear that there is sufficient person-years in the new Agency to take care of all those who were working on programs that had been transferred to the Agency.
If these public servants were quite capable and professional and were working in other Departments properly implementing programs that have now been transferred, why are they no longer acceptable to the Public Service? Why is it that they are not being treated in the same manner as their western counterparts were? If these public servants were incapable of carrying out their duties, they should have been fired when they were working at their previous jobs. They should have been disciplined or there should have been some procedure to deal with them. They should not simply be made redundant so that the Government can hire 300 or 400 more people rather than ensuring that these public servants are transferred and given first choice at jobs available in the new Agency. This amendment would ensure that those public servants are treated fairly.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, Clause 24 exists as a transitional provision. The clause may not even be necessary because the current situation is that it is expected that before the Act comes into force, offers will be sent to approximately 100 of the 136 affected DRIE employees. Of the remainder, many are not interested in transferring over. They are interested in retirement or some other provisions that may be made for them. It is expected that very, very few of them will not be accommodated by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
We must remember that we are anxious to have the flexibility to use the employees that are felt to make the best contribution. I find it interesting because two or three of the other amendments put today by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) dealt with doing something in the legislation to guarantee equality or equity of effort. If these are such good public servants, why is he so concerned about measuring equity of effort? Why was the other Hon. Member concerned about equal emphasis on each of the provinces?
I assume that most of the people working in DRIE and who will subsequently work for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency are anxious to and are interested in doing a good job. They are good employees. They have been good employees. I do not find this necessary, particularly because of all the other negative comments today which suggest they may not have been good employees. They are good people and will probably have in most cases an opportunity to go over to ACOA.

April 27, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
We need the flexibility. It was said by Dr. Savoie in his report, and by people in Atlantic Canada who responded to him, that there was a need for people with experience in business, entrepreneurs who would work for the Agency as account managers. It was important that we have some room to add new people. Clause 24 is really a transitional provision which we may not even need. In fact, right now it looks like very few people who want to go to the Agency will not have that opportunity.
Obviously this amendment is not necessary in light of reality. Mind you, I understand the Hon. Member has a hard time recognizing reality when he sees it, but we see most people affected being given an opportunity to go with ACOA.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 12 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport) moved:: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-103 be amended in Clause 26 by adding immediately after line 27 at page 10 the following:
"Cape Breton Island" means Cape Breton Island and that portion of the Province of Nova Scotia within the following described boundary:
beginning at a point on the southwesterly shore of Chedabucto Bay near Red Head, said point being S70 degrees E (Nova Scotia grid meridian) from Geodetic Station Sand, thence in a southwesterly direction to a point on the northwesterly boundary of highway 344, said point being southwesterly 240 feet from the intersection of King Brook with said highway boundary, thence northwesterly to Crown post 6678, thence continuing northwesterly to Crown
post 6679, thence continuing northwesterly to Crown post 6680, thence continuing northwesterly to Crown post 6681, thence continuing
Northwesterly to Crown post 6632, thence continuing northwesterly to Crown post 6602, thence continuing northerly to Crown post 8575, thence continuing northerly to Crown post 6599, thence continuing northerly to Crown post 6600, thence northwesterly to the southwest angle of the Town of Mulgrave, then along the westerly boundary of the Town of Mulgrave and a prolongation thereof northerly to the Antigonish-Guysborough county line, thence along said county line northeasterly to the southwesterly shore of the Strait of Canso, thence following the southwesterly shore of the Strait of Canso and the northwesterly shore of Chedabucto Bay southeasterly to the place of beginning;"
[Editor's Note: For text of Recommendation, see Votes and Proceedings.]


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, just by way of explanation, when the legislation was drafted it made reference only to Cape Breton. Some of the provisions of the legislation applied to an area just on the edge of the Strait of Canso in addition to Cape Breton Island. The Government looks upon the whole area around the Canso Causeway on both sides of the strait as an economic unit for purposes of the Cape Breton tax credit. The committee had an opportunity to visit that area and we saw that Port Hawkesbury on one side and Mulgrave on the other were co-operating with regard to industrial development around the causeway and on both sides of the Strait of Canso.
When it came to the attention of the Government that the definition in this Bill did not include the part across the Canso Strait it was agreed that we would add it. We had considerable debate in committee and a little posturing and, I am sure, game playing and it was unfortunately not unanimously agreed to. The Royal Recommendation is to add that part of the Cape Breton tax credit area to the legislation as it relates to ACOA and the enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to Motion No. 15 which was ruled out of order, as was Motion No. 14, the one we are now discussing. The motion would add the Town of Mulgrave to the definition of Cape Breton Island. That town is not on Cape Breton Island, as I am sure you are well aware. I am sure that the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) is well aware of that. Indeed, I am sure all the people on Cape Breton are well aware that Mulgrave is not on Cape Breton Island. It is on the other side of the strait. There are a number of other little towns along the Canso Strait going down to the Town of Canso which are also not on Cape Breton Island.
The Town of Mulgrave and the surrounding area is included because I suspect the Government recognized it had to do this, having not included it in the Bill in the first place. The Government alleged we had extensive consultations with every single person in Atlantic Canada, if you can believe it, before it put the legislation before the House. Yet all of a sudden it has to redefine Cape Breton Island in order to include the Town of Mulgrave. I think that town should be included in the programs offered to Cape Breton by this legislation. These are special programs recognizing the special needs of the island
April 27, 1988

population and, in this case, the Town of Mulgrave. Of course, in my riding in Newfoundland as well as that of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) there are also towns and villages which are not included in these special provisions.
However, I want to be on the record as saying that when we as a legislative committee went to Cape Breton and held hearings in Port Hawkesbury, which is just on the Cape Breton side of the Canso Causeway, we had representations from the Town of Canso along with Guysborough and a number of other communities which are similarly industrially deprived, which have similar economic problems and difficulties in attracting industrial development to their region. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) was there and welcomed the Mayor of Canso to the committee. He suggested to the Mayor that he hoped that when he, at an appropriate time, urged the committee to move in the direction of including Canso, he would gain the necessary support from the committee when the committee reported to the House to have that effected.
We came back to Ottawa and had a committee meeting here. In that meeting it was proposed, not by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso but by the Minister of Transport, to include only the Town of Mulgrave, which coincidentally happens to be the home town of the Hon. Member of Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso. It did not include the Town of Canso or Guysborough or any other little town or community along the way which had made representations to the committee. Then in committee it was suggested that the denial of unanimous consent at that stage was an attempt to deny to the people of Mulgrave the opportunity to participate in these industrial development benefits. That certainly was not the case.
You will see Motion No. 15, which was also ruled out of order for the same reason as Motion No. 14, because it tried, under the definition section, to expand the boundaries of the program. That motion repeats the motion now before the House. It also includes:
-and also within the geographical boundaries of those towns and villages
along the Nova Scotia coastline from the Town of Mulgrave to and including
the Town of Canso.
That says that not only should the Town of Mulgrave be included but also the Town of Guysborough and the other towns and villages between Canso and Mulgrave. Although I am sure it would be out of order, we should define Newfoundland as being in Cape Breton Island in order that it can take advantage of the special benefits there. The people of the Towns of Canso, Guysborough, and the other towns and villages would like to take advantage of them as well as the people of the Town of Mulgrave. I support this amendment but I am sorry that it does not include the rest of the towns along the Strait of Canso to and including the Town of Canso.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion presented to the House by my colleague from the constituency of Moncton in the great Province of New Brunswick which borders the Province of Nova Scotia, my home territory. More important, I want to appeal to all Members of the House, particularly Members from outside the Maritime provinces, to act to expedite the passage of this Bill.
I ask that of Members of the House of Commons because Bill C-103, which establishes the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, has been before this Chamber and committees of this Chamber for a sufficient time to allow all Members a full opportunity to consider the provisions of the Bill. It is now time to consider the interests of the people of Atlantic Canada. The purpose of this Bill, as explicitly stated under "Purpose" is:
-to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada
and, more particularly, to enhance the growth of earned incomes and
employment opportunities in that region.
All Members of this House have been through the evolution of economic initiatives by the Government of Canada. We saw the Department of Regional Economic Expansion change to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. I am sure that my colleague from Newfoundland will agree that everyone in Atlantic Canada was concerned that those Departments did not specifically deal with the special needs of the Atlantic area. Therefore, Members from Atlantic Canada requested the special consideration which has given rise to Bill C-103 for the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
It grieves me that we are debating in the House of Commons changes to this Bill which will not be approved by the House of Commons and can only have the effect of delaying passage of the Bill, an adverse effect on all residents of Atlantic Canada. The time for review has passed and the time for action has come. It is impossible for me to believe that Members of the House of Commons from Atlantic Canada or any other part of Canada perceive that they are assisting the people of Atlantic Canada in their economic needs by delaying passage of this Bill. No Member can seriously suggest that he or she is acting in the interests of Atlantic Canadians by moving amendments to this Bill, which is a simple mandate for a new organization to assist in the economic development of Atlantic Canada and, in the case of the deprived island of Cape Breton and environs, the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
This Bill was only ever intended to establish a new vehicle for assisting Atlantic Canada in its economic expansion which has been delayed and deferred for many years by a national government which dealt with the Atlantic area through Departments of the Government which had other interests in other parts of Canada. We in Atlantic Canada have a chance to have our own agency with our own interests at its heart. Anyone who stands in this House and delays the process by

April 27, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
which that Agency is finalized, made operative, and placed in a position to answer the needs of Atlantic Canada, does a disservice to everyone in Atlantic Canada.
I cannot understand why my colleagues from Atlantic Canada are standing in the House at this hour of this day and further delaying passage of this Bill. I appeal to their better natures to put aside their silly political consideration, to put aside their delaying tactics, which they know will result in no better end than to deprive Atlantic Canadians of the opportunity to work under this new Agency, and to seek the ends which we all desire, that is, economic development for Canada.
In conclusion, I appeal to reason, I ask Members of the House from Atlantic Canada and those from outside Atlantic Canada to pass Bill C-103 to enact the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. When Hamilton's turn comes, I will be the first to stand in the House and assist Hamilton.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, we only started this Bill this afternoon. There are over 50 amendments proposed to the Bill. It looks as though we will be finished in 10 or 15 minutes. There was no reason whatsoever, for the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) to move to extend hours tonight. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever but he did it knowing that we had other arrangements made. To date there have been two Tories-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would like to ask all Members to be relevant to the specific motion before the House at report stage.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, everybody supports the clause before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should get up more often. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now deal with Motion No. 33 which will be debated and voted on separately.


Jack Harris: 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."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not aware that this motion was going to be debated before the previous 15 or 20 motions proposed by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), starting with Motion No. 13 and continuing with Motions Nos. 16 to 32, which delete a series of clauses. If Motions No. 16 through to Motion No. 50 are passed, there will be no need to debate Clause 33 at all because it proposes to review something which, if the other amendments are passed, would not take place at all. Perhaps there is a logical explanation for this. I would like to hear it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point of order of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris), if I understand correctly, is that we should deal first with Motions Nos. 13 and 16 to 32 moved by the Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). However, the motions moved by the Member for Gander-Twillingate are motions to delete. Therefore, depending on the vote on those motions, we may possibly never get to the motions moved by the Member for St. John's East. Therefore, the Chair proposes that we deal with the motion of the Member for St. John's East now.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like inverted logic to me, but I will proceed nonetheless.
The purpose of the last half of the Bill is to separate two aspects of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, the coal mining division and the industrial development division, such that the industrial development division of Cape Breton Corporation would now be under the aegis of Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, while the coal division would carry on its activities without the integration of the over-all industrial development activities that had occurred in the last number of years.
We heard a great deal of thorough evidence on this Agency from Dr. Theresa MacNeil, Chairman of the Board of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, during our hearings in Port Hawkesbury.
The concern expressed by her and others privately to me was that to separate the two parts of Cape Breton Development Corporation from each other would amount to the destruction of a corporate culture that was working quite well for nearly 20 years. The integration of these activities were and still are a model for economic development as a result of using the assets turned over to the Cape Breton Development Corporation to create economic activity in Cape Breton, and using the ideas of the industrial development division to support economic activity in Cape Breton Island, and by using the expertise and the assets which remained as a result of the inevitable downsizing of some of the coal-mining activities. For example, when the fire at 26 Mine occurred, it was able to respond to the economic effects of the lay-offs that would become inevitable. The Cape Breton Development Corporation stepped in through
April 27, 1988

its industrial development division and used some of the assets that were left to create other economic activities and respond to those occurrences.
The entire organization, from the Board to the advisers and the community of Cape Breton, developed a great degree of faith in that organization and its ability to respond to the needs over the years.
While they were not always totally satisfied with it, like any other agency or arm of Government, it has performed very well on the whole.
The amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) would completely stop that destruction of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. In fact, I proposed similar amendments in committee in order to delay this type of occurrence until it was certain that there would be no ill effects from such an action. I still believe that not enough consultation has taken place with the people of Cape Breton. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), as well as the Senator from the other place who is the Minister responsible, have said there was extensive consultation about this issue all over Atlantic Canada. That is not the case with the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The Government had not even decided upon the definition of Cape Breton. It needed Royal Assent to redefine Cape Breton in order to include an area that is not even in Cape Breton.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) went to Port Hawkesbury and said he would urge the rest of the committee to include Canso, then returned to Ottawa and did nothing. This shows that it is quite obvious even he was not consulted when this legislation was put together. If he had been, presumably that representation would not have been made in Port Hawkesbury and he would have told the Mayor of Canso that the Government decided it would not include Canso.
While the rules of the House do not allow me to propose these amendments again, these amendments by the Member for Gander-Twillingate would allow the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion to do an evaluation after two years to see whether it needs to reverse this decision which the Government is presumably about to take.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, it is the opinion of the Government that this amendment is unnecessary. Every Minister has a responsibility to a standing committee to speak out with regard to the activities of their particular portfolio.
The reason to separate the IDD from Devco was to bring it under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency umbrella and eventually rationalize program delivery in Cape Breton.
The Minister responsible for ACOA will be expected at any time in the future to justify before a parliamentary committee the activities of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. This will, of necessity, include the degree to which Enterprise Cape
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Breton Corporation and DEVCO have co-ordinated their activities respecting the economic development of Cape Breton.
Obviously, the fact that the Minister can be called to a standing committee indicates that he will respond to that, depending upon the questions from the members. Certainly, this amendment is not necessary and certainly not supportable by the Government.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 33 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris). 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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed to the last grouping, which deals with Motions Nos. 13, 16 to 32 inclusive, and 34 to 50 inclusive, which will be grouped for debate.
The vote on Motion No. 13 will be applied to Motions Nos. 16 to 32, and also to Motions Nos. 34 to 50.
All the motions are moved by Mr. Baker. I remind the House that these are all motions to delete. Shall I dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


George Baker: Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 27.
Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
Motion No. 19.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

April 27, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 33.
Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 35.
Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 37.
Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 38.
Motion No. 29.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 39.
Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 40.
Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 41.
Motion No. 32.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 42.
Motion No. 34.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 43.
Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
Motion No. 36.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 45.
Motion No. 37.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 46.
Motion No. 38.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 47.
Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 48.
Motion No. 40.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 49.
Motion No. 41.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
Motion No. 42.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 51.
Motion No. 43.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 52.
Motion No. 44.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 53.
Motion No. 45.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 54.
Motion No. 46.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 55.
Motion No. 47.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 56.
Motion No. 48.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 57.
Motion No. 49.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 58.
Motion No. 50.
That Bill C-103 be amended by deleting Clause 59.
He said: I hope government Members do not want to hold up this Bill and this Chamber. There are important meetings taking place. There were commitments made prior to this motion of the Minister who represents St. John's West.
I have proposed some 40 amendments. They are all excellent amendments. They were suggested to me by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), and the hon. gentleman in the other place who still, I think, represents Cape Breton to the best of his abilities. They know what is going on in Cape Breton Island more than I, and perhaps more than most Members of this House, if not all Members of this House.
The reason for the amendments is simple. It is to stop the demise of the established Development Corporation and the Development Committee that have been established on Cape Breton Island to further the economic good of that island. That is what this Bill will do.
I am pleading with government Members not to hold up debate on this Bill and to allow us to get through it immediately and then, depending on how the Minister and the government Members behave themselves, we will determine how long we may wish to speak on third reading.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no time limit under the rules that will restrict me on third reading. There is no time limit whatsoever. On the subject of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities	Agency-the "Atlantic Canada
overblown agency"-I am allowed to speak indefinitely at third reading. I hope that the government Members will not hold up this Bill this evening. I have another important speech to make in another location only a short distance away.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with my colleague's request, I will be brief. The amendments moved by the Hon. Member suggest the deletion of all the aspects that relate to taking Devco's Industrial Development Division into Enterprise Cape Breton and are unacceptable to the Government of Canada. The impression was given that there was no consultation and that this was just
April 27, 1988

something that came from somewhere in the annals of Government here in Ottawa. It was suggested by the Cape Breton Advisory Committee, chaired by Dr. Theresa MacNeil, who is now Chairman of Devco, in a report dated September of 1985 in which the Board identified certain matters as barriers to development caused by the confusion of a multiplicity of development agencies.
The Advisory Committee recommended two things. It recommended that a new development agency, Enterprise Cape Breton, independent in matters of policy, management and operations from the coal side of the corporation, Devco, be established. It also recommended that Enterprise Cape Breton should become a one-stop shop to the degree possible by encompassing the industrial development division of Devco and DRIE.
This committee recommended the very thing that is being put into effect in Bill C-103. The rationale behind the efforts contained in Bill C-103 is for better co-ordination of federal economic and industrial development activities in Cape Breton. It is designed to reduce duplication and overlaps. It is also designed to provide one-stop shopping in Cape Breton with regard to economic and industrial development.
As I mentioned before, it is consistent with the recommendations of the Cape Breton Advisory Committee. Adopting the amendments today would counteract all that is being worked on in order to provide that one-stop shopping atmosphere in Cape Breton.
With those comments we certainly recommend that these amendments be defeated.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I must rise to support these amendments. My late grandfather who was latterly from Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia, would have known that these amendments would have made a bad Bill better. That is why I must rise to support them.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now vote on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate (Mr. Baker). The vote on Motion No. 13 will apply to Motions Nos. 13 to 32, inclusive, and also Motions Nos. 34 to 50, inclusive.
The question is on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). 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 to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the report stage of the Bill now before the House.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)(a), I have been requested by the Chief Government Whip to defer the division until tomorrow at 3 p.m.
It being 6.57 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.57 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, April 28, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers