1988-01-21

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-3479, 332-3492 to 332-3501 inclusive, 332-3504, 332-3506 to 332-3513 inclusive, and 332-3520 to 3533 inclusive. Sixty-nine on Monday and 34 today is quite a record for the week, Mr. Speaker.



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the forty-eighth and forty-ninth reports of the Striking Committee.
With the consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, I intend to move the adoption of the forty-ninth report later today. [Editor's note: See todays votes and proceedings.]



CONCURRENCE IN FORTY-NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['Agreed.']
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the adoption of the forty-ninth report of the Striking Committee which I tabled in the House earlier today.
Motion carried.



Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table with the House two petitions signed by
Canadians who would like to show their displeasure with the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.
The petitioners say; whereas the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada and received nothing in return; whereas Canadian industries are still not protected from U.S. trade laws; whereas the United States obtained everything it wanted in all key sectors, especially agriculture, energy, auto trade, financial services and investment; and whereas thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened and the Conservative Government has not provided for any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a large number of residents of Ontario and Saskatchewan with respect to the fact that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. They note that this agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
They therefore call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a second group of petitions signed by many hundreds of concerned Canadians from across this land who note that the Canadian Government funded unethical brainwashing experiments by the late psychiatrist, D. Ewen Cameron, which were conducted at Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal in the 1950s and early 1960s.
They note that many Canadians were permanently damaged by these experiments that were inflicted upon them without their knowledge or consent, and that the Canadian Government has refused to accept any legal or moral responsibility to these Canadians, or offer any reparation.

January 21, 1988
Petitions
They call upon Parliament to immediately release to the Canadians all the incriminating evidence it has to assist them in their lawsuit, to offer financial assistance and to publicly acknowledge its legal and moral responsibilities to these Canadians.
This is particularly significant in light of the important victory these people had in the federal district court in the United States just a couple of days ago, which I am sure all Canadians celebrate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Finally, Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition which states that in October 1985, the Equality Rights Sub-committee of the Justice Committee tabled in the House of Commons a report which recommended amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit all discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that in March 1986, the government had accepted to amend the legislation accordingly.
The petitioners, therefore, ask Parliament and the government to finally respond to these major recommendations by amending the act to prohibit all discrimination based on sexual orientation.


[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Therese kilims (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):	Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table 157 petitions signed by residents of Ste-Foy, Montreal, the Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic riding, Normandin, l'Ascension, Arvida, Dollard des Ormeaux in Quebec, as well as Ottawa, Summerside, P.E.I., Saskatchewan, Toronto and Almonte in Ontario.
These 157 petitions are in addition to the 31,288 others which I have already tabled in the House. The petitioners are aware that since 1974, the federal road safety regulations authorize the installation of inflatable airbags for passenger car drivers and that this device would reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries.
Therefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to make compulsory the installation of airbags for the protection of front seat passengers and adjustable shoulder-waist safety belts for back seat passengers.
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure and indeed honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from a number of constituents who are concerned that the Conservative Government does not have a mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade deal with the United States.
They believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised, in the course of negotiations that Canada would retain its sovereignty. They feel that it has now been compromised severely.
They also believe that the trade deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future, and thereby undermine Canada's ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
They also believe that it denies Canada the secure access to the American market which in fact was the key objective in the negotiations.
Since it also threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, these petitioners are calling upon Parliament to dissolve now to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal in a national general election.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians who are concerned about the decision of the Government to proceed with the trade deal. They believe that this was not a mandate that the Government received in the last federal election. Indeed, the Government campaigned on an opposite position.
They call upon the Canadian Government to have an election and they call upon Parliament to do all it can to expedite an election prior to this agreement becoming final.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I also have the honour to table with the House a number of petitions that have been certified pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petitioners are concerned that the Conservative Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement or any similar agreement with the United States.
Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised; since the Mulroney-Reagan deal which has now been signed makes it clear that Canadian sovereignty is at risk; and since the agreement not only denies Canada secure access to the United States market, which was a key objective in the negotiations, but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs, the petitioners call upon the House to take whatever opportunities there are to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national election.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour and duty to present a petition to the House. This petition is signed by senior members of Royal Canadian Legion Branch 129 (Slovak), and Royal Canadian Legion Branch 113 (Ortona) in Thunder Bay.
January 21, 1988

These individuals who fought for our country argue that the Mulroney-Reagan deal threatens the very fabric of political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, develop energy resources in the best interest of Canadians and equalize opportunities between regions.
They end the petition by calling upon the House to dissolve and allow the people of Canada to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour and duty to present a petition from citizens of Canada. This petition is certified correct as to form and content pursuant to Standing Order 106.
These petitioners state that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States.
They also state that the trade agreement negotiated by the Conservative Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest of Canada or to equalize opportunities between regions.
They also state that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
The petitioners ask that Parliament dissolve and allow the people of Canada to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


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


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have on the Order Paper Question No. 219 which was submitted on November 16 last year. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, it should have been answered within 45 days, by December 31. It has now been some 66 days since that question was submitted. Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into the matter and hopefully come back with an answer in the near future? It is a very serious issue involving the Correctional Service of Canada.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I have already looked into that specific question, and all the questions that are a bit slow. The general reason is that the answers are made available at a time when the Minister is not, and that is the general difficulty
Order Paper Questions
for most of the questions which are a little slow in being answered. We have improved the system, as I said the other day, by at least 20 per cent in terms of the speed of this Government. Our record is substantially different from previous governments.
In terms of the Hon. Member's specific inquiry, I think he can anticipate that very early next week the answer will be forthcoming.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on the same point. I have risen a number of times over the last little while about the growing number of questions which are left unanswered. Since the Parliamentary Secretary has just indicated he has looked into a number of questions which have not been answered according to the requirements of the Standing Orders of the House, can he tell us how many questions have not been answered according to that requirement? When is the Government going to live up to the Standing Orders that this House passed with the agreement of all Hon. Members?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, at the beginning of this week I think there were probably 12 questions out of about 239 which were a little slow. By the end of this week I think that number will be considerably reduced.
As I said, we are attempting to get on it. It is a little difficult sometimes over the Christmas period as well. Not only do Members of Parliament go back to their ridings but those in the bureaucracy who serve us so well frequently use that time as holiday time. We may be a little slow with the remaining 12 questions, slower than I would like to see. However, the record is now much better than 95 per cent.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Parliamentary Secretary indicated in his answer that the delay was because of Christmas holidays. Presumably, Christmas being almost a month ago, certain answers were not delivered on time as required by the Standing Orders. I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary would recognize that it is now January 21. Presumably the bureaucrats and cabinet Ministers have had more than ample time to provide answers which are required by the Standing Orders.
We do not want to make this into a major issue, but we do have a question of privilege if the Government is not going to answer questions as required by the Standing Orders which, I repeat, were passed unanimously by all Members of this House, including the Cabinet.
It is a fundamental requirement of this House that those questions which are designated questions-and not all questions on the Order Paper are designated as such-be answered within that time. When questions are designated, Members have a right which is guaranteed by our Standing Orders to have those questions answered within the required time limit. I want an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government, whether it be during Christmas, Easter, the February break or the summer break, will live up to the requirements of the Standing Orders.

January 21, 1988
Business of the House


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I do not hesitate for a moment to give the assurance to the Hon. Member that the Government is trying. As we look into individual questions, we find that some, for instance, involve all Departments of Government, while others touch on client privilege and the information provisions in our law. Therefore, sometimes things are of sufficient complexity, involving sufficient numbers of people, that in perpetuity it may indeed be difficult on occasion to live within the 45 days. However, we are pushing. We are doing the best we can. 1 can certainly give the Hon. Member the assurance that that indeed is true. I think very few questions will be outstanding under the priority category by next week.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, there have been some informal inquiries made regarding the enabling legislation for the trade deal. I wonder if I might ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in a sense in a formal way-I do not suppose he is able to report today but perhaps at some early date-to give some indication to the House and to the people of Canada, who are very interested in this major issue, when we can expect to see the beginning of the enabling legislation tabled in this House?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, as the House Leader for the New Democratic Party knows, there have been discussions on this issue. The normal time to ask a House Business question in terms of the appearance of legislation and discussion of legislation is generally after the Question Period on Thursday. Today happens to be Thursday. I expect that the House Leaders will rise in their places and ask the question of the Government House Leader somewhere around three o'clock this afternoon.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I do not want to prolong this, but I want to make it clear to you, Madam Speaker, that I was not asking whether the enabling legislation was coming up this week or next week, because that is the normal Thursday question, to get an idea about the following few days. I am simply seeking some indication from the Parliamentary Secretary, or from perhaps the Government House Leader, at some early time, of when we might expect the enabling legislation to be tabled, and by that I mean this month or next month or the following month? It is an issue in which Canadians are interested, and at the moment there seems to be no indication when that legislation will be tabled.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I realize the Hon. Member is very much interested, as are all Canadians, in this question. However, I do not think that at this time in the agenda it is the proper time to ask that type of question.


PRIVILEGE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: I should like to give notice to the Chair that we may decide to raise a question of privilege concerning the remarks made by the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) as recorded on page 12097 of yesterday's Hansard. In answer to a question from the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) about the recycling of Government information pamphlets and the alleged careless expenditure of funds, the Minister is reported to have said:
Mr. Speaker, we would like to dispense with this tissue of lies-
Madam Speaker, there is no need for me to remind you that the words "tissue of lies" are unparliamentary. This kind of language is unacceptable. I do not see the Minister or my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell in the House today, but I should think that as Liberal Party whip I must raise the matter at this time and give notice to the Chair. As a Member, I object to this kind of language being recorded in Hansard, and I should like to have it deleted.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member is giving the Chair verbal notice of his intention to rise on a question of privilege at the appropriate time. If I may, I should remind him that, according to our procedure and Standing Orders, he should also put the matter in writing. Let us get back to routine proceedings.
Shall all remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, January 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-103, an Act to﻿January 21, 1988
[Stage Direction]
increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunties Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate, and as we said yesterday, the Elon. Member for Westmorland-Kent has two minutes left to complete his speech, after which there will be a ten-minute period for questions and comments. The Elon. Member for Westmorland-Kent.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Madam Speaker, yesterday, when the House interrupted its proceedings, I was talking about the need for improving the road system in the Maritimes or, I should say, the Atlantic provinces.

There is a need. It has been shown that the road system in the Atlantic area is deteriorating at a very alarming rate. That is because it was not made to support the kind of traffic which is being transported over that surface. Of course, it would be one of the objectives of the agency to look at the infrastructure of the transportation system.
The Savoie Report made the recommendation that the agency look at transportation policies and promote efficient modes of transportation. As you know, Madam Speaker, our transportation system is one of the prime components of a sound regional development program. The agency will not be able to undertake with its own moneys-the $1.05 billion over five years-the type of work that would have to be done. However, it could recommend to the Government that this work be done under IRDA agreements. I hope that the agency will look into this matter.

In concluding, Madam Speaker, I am confident that if the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is given a certain autonomy by the Government, the kind of autonomy recommended by the Savoie Report, the agency will undoubtedly have a positive impact on economic development in Atlantic Canada. However, if the agency were to become just another level of government bureaucracy, and the Savoie Report warns us of this danger, I believe it would lose much of its effectiveness and a great deal of its credibility.


Jack Harris: Madam. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member would care to comment on the attitude that seems to have been expressed by the Government toward the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and, indeed, toward the problems of Atlantic Canada. The Minister responsible for ACOA, who is a Senator, seems to have agreed with another Minister, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes), that this agency and the $200 million per year being poured into it is the last kick at the can for Atlantic Canada. It seems that in having this attitude toward Atlantic Canada the Government has taken it off the national priority list, which is where it should be.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
The Government fails to recognize that the Economic Council of Canada has said that the most serious economic problem for the country in the coming years will be that of uneven regional development. Will the Hon. Member comment on that aspect of this matter? The comments of the Minister responsible for the agency, who agreed with and, in fact, quoted the Minister of Public Works, do not seem to indicate a serious attitude-that we will put in money and wait for four or five years, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) said, and see if it will work. The amount of money committed to this agency seems to indicate an attitude on the part of the Government that it does not take this matter seriously at all.


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) for his question. I share his concerns, and I think it is too bad a Minister should have made these comments because the Atlantic region has been living with the problem of regional disparity for a long time. We have a long history of trying to reduce the disparity between the Atlantic region and the central, more developed part of Canada. We have tried a number of solutions. In some cases we have been successful, in others perhaps not as successful.
To say that the Agency is our last chance and to put this as a kind of ultimatum to the people of Atlantic Canada, meaning: We are going to give you the money, we are going to give you a number of resources, including this agency, and if you don't make it this time, that's it. I find it very difficult to accept this attitude on the part of the Government.
Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope the agency will find ways to help the people of Atlantic Canada, not as a last resort but as an agency that for a certain period of time will support efforts to enhance regional and economic development in the Atlantic region.


Mr. Merrithew:: Madam Speaker, I very much regret that I was not present in the Chamber to hear all of the speech made by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). However, I had a chance to listen to his comments this morning in which he mentioned something with respect to the responsibility of building roads. We all agree that roads in Atlantic Canada have not maintained the same standards that are available in other parts of the country. Will the Hon. Member acknowledge that, generally speaking, the construction of roads is the responsibility of the provincial Government?
Is the Hon. Member aware that the Government negotiated with the previous Government of New Brunswick the largest highways agreement in the history of that province? In fact, it is one of the largest highways agreements in the history of Canada. It is an agreement involving $145 million which will enable the building of all sorts of highway infrastructure in various parts of the province. Is the Hon. Member aware of that particular fact?

January 21, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987 [Translation]


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I realize that highways and road construction are a provincial responsibility, but it is also a fact that, from time to time, agreements are signed with the provinces for the purpose of improving the road system.
The Minister will also understand why New Brunswick has to improve its road system because the Trans-Canada Highway in New Brunswick is a corridor to the other Atlantic provinces. In this particular case, it would be unfair to ask the province of New Brunswick to finance the full cost of building a new Trans-Canada Highway. The Minister said he signed an agreement worth about $140 million. He must know that according to estimates for the construction of a new section of the Trans-Canada Highway, the cost would be between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion. I think it would be unfair to make the people of New Brunswick absorb the full cost of this project. The federal Government should use agreements to help New Brunswick develop a system that would benefit the other Atlantic Provinces as well.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to take part in the debate on second reading 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. I am delighted for several reasons. Number one, this is one of the first pieces of legislation in our new year, 1988. We think in Atlantic Canada, and we think as a Government of Canada, that this is an immensely important piece of legislation, and one which will undoubtedly have major benefits for the people of Atlantic Canada.
In introducing my comments, perhaps as many other people in the House, I have had some considerable experience politically in my 17 years in public life. I have had the pleasure, the opportunity, and the privilege to serve municipally for 12 years in the provincial Government of New Brunswick, with a good deal of that time as a Minister, and of course to serve in the Government of Canada. It is a rare privilege indeed.
Throughout that particular time I have followed with a great deal of interest developments in terms of the governments at all levels attempting to deal with the issue of regional disparities and the inequality of opportunities we have in Canada. I have lived with that. As a Minister, I was responsible for economic development in the province for some six years, so I have had to deal with a good number of different governments and different Ministers, and a good number of
different measures and initiatives by governments to try to redress those anomalies.
I have lived through and watched as successive governments have indicated and introduced all sorts of agencies, programs, initiatives, and Acts to redress regional disparities. I remember very well the Atlantic Development Board. It did certain things for our region. 1 remember the ARDAs, the Agriculture Rural Development Agreements in the 1960s. 1 remember very well in politics when DREE was established. That was supposed to be the panacea for addressing regional development. That was to be the one government Department that was solely responsible for addressing regional disparities.
I was the Minister of Commerce and Development in the province when in 1981 then Prime Minister Trudeau announced, with some fanfare, that we no longer had a need for DREE and that every government department was now going to be responsible for regional development. They were themselves going to monitor and assist in dealing with regional development issues in those provinces and regions of Canada where disparities existed.
At that time I did not make a political condemnation of that particular statement. I said that I would wait. Ironically, I would have to say in retrospect, and historically, that what we expected at the time, to have every government department interested in regional development, simply did not happen to the extent that it should.
I have signed many GDAs, general development agreements, in history. I have signed many of the sub-agreements under the ERDA process. I have had the pleasure of doing that both as a provincial Minister and as a federal Minister. I can remember very well the RDIA, the Regional Development Incentives Act when it was introduced, and subsequently a program under that Act, 1RDP. I have worked with it. I have worked with companies, institutions, and organizations that have applied for assistance under that particular Act.
Over the years I have seen many initiatives tried that to some extent have worked. I know that there are some people in Canada who say that nothing will work in Atlantic Canada. Having been close to it, I absolutely disagree with that. To a certain degree every one of those particular initiatives has worked. In some way or another they have all closed the gap in terms of opportunities and earned incomes in my region of Canada. To some extent we can take credit in governments for having achieved some measure of success, and I will deal with that later.
I was most delighted when on October 1, 1986 our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) put in the Throne Speech a statement which I understand he drafted himself. It shows the type of interest and commitment that our Prime Minister has taken in regional development when he put in the Throne Speech the following comment:
January 21, 1988

It is time to consider new approaches, to examine how our considerable and
growing support for Canada's regions can be used more efficiently, more
effectively and with greater sensitivity to local conditions and opportunities.
Out of that this piece of legislation grew. What we are dealing with today in the establishment of ACOA or the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is, in my view, most welcome. It is a new and daring change from previous initiatives, and I think it will work.
This legislation we are dealing with today gives certain powers over the 1RDP, which is still in effect; it gives powers over the Atlantic Enterprise Program. I happened to be there when one of the previous Ministers of DRIE made that announcement publicly in Moncton, New Brunswick. I supported it and helped draft and make changes to it, and 1 think it is an excellent program. It will undertake the Enterprise Cape Breton Program, and of course the ERDAs and successive agreements to the ERDAs. The program that has been passed over to this particular agency is challenging. It will be useful, and in the long run I think it will be very workable and useful for Atlantic Canada.
This legislation is based on six major principles, the first being the principle of consultation. We have done that more than any Government in the history of this country. We have done it through the efforts of Dr. Donald Savoie, of the University of Moncton. We have done it with municipalities, with the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, with the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce, with the Conseil Economique du Nouveau Brunswick, with the Economic Development Council of Newfoundland, with boards of trade, chambers of commerce, municipalities, provincial Governments, and the Council of Maritime Premiers. Nobody but nobody can deny that this legislation and this particular agency was born and is the fruit of considerable consultation.
The second principle is that, for a change, we wanted to make sure the decision-making would come from the region itself. I am delighted that 90 per cent of the decisions that will be made and have been made to date will be made in the region. Those decisions are considerable. There have been 451 approvals to date with tens of millions of dollars going to regional development.
The third principle is that we will direct our efforts to a field which I think is very apropos, and that is towards small and medium sized businesses. That is the basis and the ground work for development in our region. In my own home province 90 per cent of all of the enterprises are owned and developed by New Brunswickers. We think that is an important initiative and that there is a great deal of potential for future growth in the small and medium sized businesses of Atlantic Canada.
The fourth principle is that regional programs are adapted to regional needs. That is very important. We do not need Ottawa, we do not need the mandarinate, we don't need anyone to tell us what we need in Canada. We have had that for years and years and years. The business people of Atlantic Canada are the ones who know best how to deal with the issues
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
of Atlantic Canada and how to make things work in Atlantic Canada. It is not quite the same as other parts of Canada. We have our own unique situations that need to be dealt with on a regional basis. Therefore, the programs will be adapted to regional needs in our region.
Another basic principle is one of creating an environment for business to flourish on its own. Over and over again I have said to the Board of Trade in the City of Saint John, New Brunswick, my home city, a city which I have represented politically for some 17 years, that it cannot expect government to do everything for it. We cannot expect governments to redress all anomalies in terms of equality in Canada. We cannot expect governments to do everything for us. However, what we can do is create the environment for our private sector to do what is necessary to create jobs and to create prosperity in our region.
We have done that. We have put in place policies, all sorts of new programs, and the kind of climate which is conducive to Atlantic businesses to invest, to create jobs, to create new enterprises, to make money, and to create investment and profit in the region.
The sixth principle would be flexibility. We want this piece of legislation. I do not think there has been another one like it in the history of Canada dealing with regional development and allowing more flexibility. I am pleased to serve with Senator Lowell Murray, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), and my other five colleagues in the federal Cabinet from the region, on a board which discusses the initiatives, policies, and programs we think are needed for regional development.
I suppose the seventh principle is not spelled out specifically. We want the particular agency, as we want the board which serves the agency, to have a co-ordinating role and function in regional development. I do not believe that this agency is the sole agency responsible for regional development. 1 expect every department in the Government of Canada to be aware of and to be concerned with regional development. I am pleased to say that largely they are concerned. We have had exceptional co-operation from Ministers and departments in the Government of Canada.
Perhaps the seeds of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency might have sprung from a conference, a convention, a meeting, or an initiative which we undertook in September 1986 called "The Atlantic Focus". At that time the Atlantic government caucus, the Progressive Conservative caucus, met with the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. We also met with the Chambers of Commerce of the Atlantic Provinces, the Council of Maritime Premiers, the Governments of the four provinces, the Conseil Economique du Nouveau Brunswick, and the Economic Development Council of Newfoundland, and we listened. I take some pleasure in saying that as a result of "The Atlantic Focus" initiative which we undertook at that

January 21, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
time, the Prime Minister listened and agreed-and I agree- that we must have new directions and new initiatives in this region.
We have undertaken all sorts of new programs. The previous speaker mentioned the expenditure of some $200 million per year. That figure is not correct. The correct figure is about $400 million per year. We have said that the $1.05 billion was additional new dollars. That was repeated over and over again by the Prime Minister and by other government Ministers. It will be over and above the expenditures we have, which will be around $200 million per year under the IRDA process and others.
Our Government supports equality through all sorts of programs such as our equalization program, our Established Programs Financing, and other initiatives taken by line departments in the Government. The dollars allocated to regional development are significantly more than ever before. I am pleased to say that we think the dollars are reasonably adequate. It is a refreshing increase in what the previous Government provided for regional development. It will go a long way toward meeting the needs of Atlantic Canadians.
The board which has been set up by the Ministers responsible in governrrtent has 1$ members, all of whom are established, successful business people and public servants in the region. They are dealing very effectively with the policy, programs, and philosophy-what we are trying to do with ACOA. I can tell the House that we acted very swiftly in that regard. The Prime Minister announced the ACOA initiative in late June, 1987. By August 31, 1987 we had named the board, and three days later that board was meeting in Moncton, New Brunswick dealing with the problems faced in Atlantic Canada. It is still dealing with them. In fact, it has had four meetings, and I will be attending a meeting with them on Monday and Tuesday of next week in Halifax.
There are many things I could say, because I am truly very interested in regional development. However, I want to conclude my remarks by indicating why I am so supportive of this piece of legislation. I support Bill C-103 because it gives a formal, legal status to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It is needed. I support Bill C-103 because it outlines the very considerable, new, and flexible powers of the agency, far surpassing the power of any previous regional development mechanism or agency. I have worked with them and I have studied a good deal about them. It represents the very real and strong commitment of the Prime Minister and the Government to combating disparities in our region and to fostering economic prosperity in Atlantic Canada.
I support it because it was conceived, nourished, and developed in the Atlantic region to serve and assist our businessmen, our entrepreneurs, and indeed all Atlantic Canadians. It grew out of a wide consultative process with those who know our region, with those who live in our region, with those who invest in our region, with those who work in our region, and with those, above all, who understand our
region and the difficulties, problems, and challenges we face there.
The form in which the legislation is before the House is a direct consequence of the consensus we reached together after consultation. It was not foisted on Atlantic Canada by Ottawa. It was developed in the region by Atlantic Canadians and by our citizenry. Atlantic Canadians wanted the right to plan their own destiny, not to have it dictated to them. It reflects the commitment of the Prime Minister to a new approach in regional development and to economic growth in Atlantic Canada as he outlined in the Speech from the Throne. It is an affirmation of our Government's commitment to developing the most important resource in Atlantic Canada-our people.
Bill C-103 will challenge Atlantic Canadians to show all Canadians their initiative, their enterprise, and their willingness to work hard to improve their lot in this wonderful country in which we live and to share in the wealth and prosperity which we know is not being equally shared today.
In closing I want to quote from an editorial which appeared in a Saint John newspaper, one of my own newspapers. It reads: "The ball has been placed squarely in Atlantic Canada's court". I have no doubt whatsoever as an Atlantic Canadian that Atlantic Canada will rise to meet that challenge.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister. I listened with care to what he had to say about this new money being more than ever before and so on. Could he explain, using the Government's own figures, the cut-backs in terms of the regional development envelope which has been reduced by $2.89 billion since fiscal year 1984-85 to the present year; DRIE spending cuts of $200 million in 1984, $100 million in 1985-86, and $150 million in 1986-87; and all kinds of specific cuts to Atlantic Canada such as $60 million to the East Coast ferry service, $100 million per year in terms of the jobs lost at Cape Breton heavy water plants, and so on?
Using the Government's own figures, the Minister and his Government have cut federal spending in the Atlantic region by $1 billion per year since coming to office. The entire ACOA allocation is $1.05 billion over five years, or a little over $200 million a year. How does the Minister explain the shell game of cutting $1 billion a year from regional development funding for Atlantic Canada since the Government came into office and replacing it with $200 million a year? It seems to me that that adds up to a net short-fall of over $800 million a year for Atlantic Canada.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Madam Speaker, first, I know from reading the debate that those figures have been refuted. The Hon. Member mentioned the figure of $200 million a year. There will be $200 million a year spent on the IRDA process alone this year and more than that next year in Atlantic Canada. In fact, spending in every province will be up this year over last
January 21, 1988

year and it will be up again next year. We made a commitment to continue that level of spending with the additional spending of SI.05 billion in Atlantic Canada.
One of the programs 1 forgot to mention was one which 1 along with others announced in Atlantic Canada, one of which 1 am very proud, the Atlantic Opportunities Program. We studied what happened in New England as well as what happened in Atlantic Canada over the last 25 years. One thing we noticed was that prosperity increased markedly in New England but the disparities in Atlantic Canada actually increased. Analysis by many prestigious organizations in Atlantic Canada indicated one of the things that could be done was to use our government procurement programs more effectively in the regions. We made a commitment that we would markedly increase not just defence procurement but all government procurement in the region.
I,	more than any other Member of this House, am proof positive of the commitment of the Progressive Conservative Government of Canada to that principle and program. I announced, along with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty), the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt), and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Cote), the placing of a contract in Atlantic Canada for six additional frigates. The Hon. Member talked about how much is spent in Atlantic Canada. In constant dollars that contract is worth $2.5 billion. That is over and above the ongoing work in that particular yard.
That is not all. I had the privilege on behalf of the Government of Canada to sign the largest highways agreement in the history of our province, amounting to $145 million, I had the privilege and pleasure to sign on behalf of the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) a brand new industrial development agreement.
I would like to inform the Hon. Member that I was the provincial Minister of Commerce when the previous federal Government had an opportunity to renew the existing Industrial Development Agreement in 1980 and yet refused to do so. It took a Tory Government to renew that agreement and I had the privilege of signing on behalf of the Government of Canada. In addition, I had the privilege of signing the Industrial Innovations Agreement, another $28 million for the Province of New Brunswick. I had the privilege of being present when the tourism agreement was signed, and of course that has been extended.
We do not need the Hon. Member to tell us how much money is being spent by this Government in the Province of New Brunswick.


Mr. Dorin:: Madam Speaker, in their criticism of this Bill and the agency, the NDP talked about municipal infrastructure. Many Members of this House from urban constituencies such as mine will be aware that there has been a campaign by the larger cities for federal Government involvement in repair and replacement of municipal infrastructure. Members of the
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
NDP have talked about that with respect to this Bill and this agency. I wonder if the Minister could comment on that.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to address that issue. I had the privilege of sitting as a city councillor in the City of Saint John for a period of time and I guess I am perfectly aware of the need for assistance to our municipalities in supplying things like water and sewage systems and street improvement and so on. We are able to do that to a certain extent. Under the new highways agreement we are able to build roads in the City of Saint John. We have undertaken to assist the province in that respect but it is essentially a provincial responsibility.
I am also aware that the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities requested government at all levels to pump a good many billions of dollars into municipal infrastructure. I have some sympathy for that. I agree it might need to be done. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the municipalities are essentially the children of the provinces. It is the responsibility of the provinces to provide that kind of in-depth and costly infrastructure.
We may very well make the choice of assisting in things like industrial parks and in providing power and water to cities, things of that type. However, I am afraid that $1.05 billion would not go very far if we were to undertake to do water and sewage projects in every municipality in Atlantic Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the Minister referred to the pride he has in government procurement programs and the emphasis that will be placed on obtaining those necessary goods and services in Atlantic Canada. I want to remind the Minister that the trade deal signed with the U.S. opens up government procurement to American suppliers on an equal basis with Canadian suppliers. I could not agree with him more, that government procurement is a real advantage in assisting regional economies. However, the fact is that Americans will now be able to bid on all those contracts and that will lessen the impact on regional development.
In addition, in the 1976-77 fiscal year, some 56 per cent of all federal expenditures on regional development ended up in Atlantic Canada. In the first year of the Conservative Government, 1984-85, that was reduced to 36 per cent. Can the Minister explain what appears to be something of a discrepancy between the points he was making and the fact that his Government reduced the percentage of regional development spending in Atlantic Canada from 56 per cent to 36 per cent?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Madam Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that I was part of the Government of New Brunswick when those expenditures dropped markedly under the previous Liberal Government. I watched very carefully, at a time when we had inflation of 12 per cent, 14 per cent, 17 per cent or 18 per cent and interest rates of 20 per cent and more, and saw increases in regional development spending of 3 per cent. It was just a joke.

January 21, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
I want to address the Hon. Member's first point, which had to do with free trade. He is talking to the wrong part of Canada if he thinks Atlantic Canadians do not generally support free trade. Let it be understood that when New Brunswick joined our great nation, and it was one of the four founding provinces, we took more wealth into Canada than any other province. National policy has not always served Atlantic Canada very well. Things like east-west trade, the St. Lawrence Seaway and provincial procurement policies have very often not helped Atlantic Canada's entrepreneurs and suppliers to provide the rest of Canada, but has precluded them from trading.
Most Atlantic Canadians remember very well that prior to confederation the normal trade routes were north-south. We have always traded with Boston and New York. Within 500 miles of the Province of New Brunswick, there is a market of 50 million people. Just let our entrepreneurs at it. That is what we want.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, it is interesting that the recent speaker for the Government was the Hon. Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew). In that title is a part of the problem about which we are talking today.
During the election campaign of 1984 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised the people of Canada that when he formed the Government he would create a full ministry of forestry. He indicated that forestry was an important industry for the entire country and particularly for the regions of the country. Today, nearly four years later, there is no full ministry of forestry. There is no full minister of forestry. With all due respect to my colleague, who is a very nice person, the fact is that he is the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines.
We are talking about the two major enterprises found in the regions of Canada, mining and forestry. The Government does not even have a full ministry of mines, let alone a full ministry of forestry. Therein lies the real concern of this Government for regional economic development in Canada.
If the Government were serious, it would have lived up to the promise it made to the people of Canada, and particularly those of us from the regions of Canada, to form a full ministry of forestry. That has not occurred. Today, forestry is handled by a Ministry of State. This means that a handful of people work with the Minister on forestry and a handful of people work with the same Minister on mines. Of course, the Department is relegated far down in the hierarchy of cabinet power. Forestry and mining are at the bottom of the pile.


James Ross Fulton: Forestry, the largest industry in Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As my hon. friend from Skeena so aptly reminds Hon. Members, the largest export industry in Canada in terms of value is the forestry industry. It is one of the major employers in the country, employing hundreds of thousands of Canadians directly and hundreds of thousands of Canadians
indirectly in every single region. Yet the Prime Minister does not feel that this is an important enough industry to have a full Minister. Therein lies the problem that we are debating in the House of Commons today.
Bill C-103 is an Act to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. That is really the wrong heading for this agency. It should actually be something like "The Atlantic Canada Smoke and Mirrors Agency", or the "The Atlantic Canada Hoax Agency".
This Bill in no way advances the cause of removing economic and regional disparities in Canada. As a matter of fact, I will attempt to make the case, as my hon. colleagues have before me, that this initiative by the Government will actually widen the gap in economic activity between Atlantic Canada and central Canada. That is exactly what has happened over the last little while.
I just finished reading a report written by Elizabeth Beale, the chief economist of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. She has recently reported that there has been very little improvement in any of the major indicators of regional disparity between the Atlantic provinces and the country as a whole since the 1960s, She goes on to make the point that the gap in the unemployment rate is proportionately the same as it was 15 years ago.
In a very objective, honest, fair, factual presentation, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has said that the situation faced by residents of Atlantic Canada has not changed since the 1960s and that the regional and employment differences are no different than they were 15 years ago. That is a real condemnation, not only of the actions of this Government but of the actions of the previous federal Governments since the 1960s when these statistics were first collected.
At one time or other most Canadians have read Hugh MacLennan's book, Two Solitudes, which makes the case for the French and the English realities of Canada. It seems in so many ways that there is now a new kind of two solitudes, a new two-tier Canada composed of southern Ontario and the rest of Canada, southern Ontario and the hinterland, southern Ontario, which is the industrial heartland, and the resource-based regions of Canada. That is the reality.
Not long ago The Globe and Mail said that despite the federal Government's assurances that economic renewal is working for all Canadians, more than 95 per cent of the additional jobs created last year were located in one province, the Province of Ontario. It is incredible that 95 per cent of all new jobs created in Canada were created in the Province of Ontario, and to be more specific, in the greater Toronto area. We do recognize that the large Province of Ontario has incredible regional variations in economic development and growth as well, particularly between the metropolitan area of Toronto and the rest of the province, particularly northern Ontario.
January 21, 1988

In the same article it was indicated that last week the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) acknowledged that the benefits of Conservative economics have not been evenly shared across the country. The Minister of Finance has agreed that everything is okay in his constituency and in downtown Toronto where the unemployment rates today are virtually nil, but for the rest of the country things are not going terribly well. Therein lies the essence of the problem.
As the gap between unemployment levels in central Canada and unemployment levels in the rest of Canada increases, we see the emerging challenge that will face Canadians in the decade to come. The Economic Council of Canada in its recent report pointed out that the major economic problem facing Canada is the tremendous difference in economic prosperity between central Canada and the rest of the country. This is the challenge that we must face.
I suppose that this is the challenge the Government has attempted to take on by creating this Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Let us put this into context. As the Hon. Minister of State for Forestry and Mines indicated, the Government plans to provide $200 million per year to Atlantic Canada to assist it in its economic development, and $200 million per year might sound like a great deal of money to many people, and of course it would be a lot of money to many people. Let us put that into context because $200 million per year over five years comes to $1 billion. However, in every year of the last three years the federal Government has taken $1 billion of existing programs out of Atlantic Canada. Three years ago it took out $1 billion, last year it took out $1 billion and this year it took out $1 billion. Now it is saying it has some great news, it will give Atlantic Canadians $200 million and they are supposed to be thankful because this is supposed to be helpful. That is the reality. This is the hypocrisy with which we are dealing.
I think the Prime Minister should come clean and tell the people of Atlantic Canada that the Government has taken away many of the programs that existed in the past to assist economic development, but it will give back a pittance and is asking the people to be thankful for that.


Mr. Foster:: Shame.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is shameful. It is very dishonest in many respects. Of course, we must recognize that the senior cabinet Minister from Atlantic Canada, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), asked the people of Atlantic Canada why they are complaining so much, they are a lot better off than the people of Bangladesh. That was his benchmark. He said that if they are better off than residents of Bangladesh, if there are more jobs than you find in Bangladesh, Atlantic Canadians are supposed to be thankful. That is obviously absurd. It is an unkind statement as well, and certainly not a very thoughtful statement coming from a senior cabinet Minister. The people of Atlantic Canada do not want to have their economic futures compared to those in Bangladesh or other Third World countries.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


James Ross Fulton: Who said that?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The present Minister of Transport said that in Atlantic Canada. 1 have to give him credit for having the guts to say something like that in that part of the country. It is unbelievable. It is surprising that that would come from a Minister of his stature.
I do not want to dwell on what the Conservative Government has not done in Atlantic Canada. That becomes obvious. My concern is with this agency itself. Who is going to be in charge of this agency? Who is the Minister responsible for this new agency? The Minister in charge will not be in the House of Commons open to questions and inquiries from members of the Government from Atlantic Canada or members of the Opposition in the House of Commons. This is a democracy yet the Minister responsible for this agency does not sit in the House. He will likely never sit in this House.


James Ross Fulton: Is he in jail?


Maurice Brydon Foster: No, just on trial.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He is not in jail or anything like that, he is in the other place. I cannot use the name of the other place, but we know what that is, the other part of Parliament. That means that this critical Minister responsible for economic development in Atlantic Canada will not be subject to questions from members of the Government or the Opposition in the House of Commons. He will not have to stand here and explain why the funding going into this agency is so low. He is hidden away, closeted away, if you like, in the other place, far from any scrutiny, well apart from the people he is attempting to assist.
That is not right in a democracy. In a democracy people expect that Ministers responsible be in their places so that they can be held accountable for their actions. That is the way democracy works.
I suggest that when you are not sure that what you have done is correct, when you are trying to pull a smoke and mirrors trick on the people of a certain region, when you are perpetuating a hoax on the people of a region, you do not want to have a cabinet Minister in the House of Commons. You want that Minister to be in the other place where he can hide away from criticism, scrutiny, and evaluation. That is what Senator Lowell Murray said he was going to do. He said that he was going to be in charge of this operation and that the decisions would be made by him. That is, of course, a very undemocratic approach to this whole matter.
In his opening speech the Minister of Transport indicated that the majority of these funds would go to small and medium businesses in Atlantic Canada. Members on all sides of the House would endorse grants or special loans being given to small and medium businesses. I listened with interest to my friend, the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines, who laid out a long list of initiatives of which he had been a part in his

January 21, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
previous life as a provincial Minister and as a Minister in the Government today. He listed all the infrastructure which the Government was providing and how important that is.
That is one of the shortcomings in the terms of reference of this agency. There is no quarrel that a good deal of funding and support ought to go to assist small and medium businesses, to develop new products, and to conduct market research with regard to new market opportunities, but we must also develop critical infrastructure in this day and age.
1 read a report the other day of a survey of a number of young Canadians. When they were asked in Atlantic Canada what the most important natural resource of Atlantic Canada was the overwhelming response was cod fish or fishing. That same question was put to people on the Prairies who said that grain was the most important natural resource. In British Columbia some people said it was trees and forests.
The most important natural resource of Atlantic Canada and all of Canada are the people, particularly the young people. I believe that a lot of this support ought to be going to develop that natural resource, for the infrastructure for education, skill development and sophisticated training to develop research and development. That is the kind of infrastructure that the economy of the future will require as we move toward a knowledge-based economy and the year 2000. However, this agency does not have a major mandate to provide that necessary skill development and R and D infrastructure.
Another thing that is absent is a real commitment to lower the rates of unemployment in Atlantic Canada. We assume that in a few months from now we will be having a general election. A New Democratic Party government would set targets in Atlantic Canada. A New Democratic Party government with Ed Broadbent as Prime Minister would recognize that decade after decade programs have obviously not reduced the economic and regional differences between Atlantic Canada and regional Canada and that the levels of unemployment continue to be excessively high, decade after decade, because governments have not been serious in their efforts to reduce unemployment and produce economic prosperity for Atlantic Canada. A New Democratic government would set targets. It would commit itself to reducing the levels of unemployment in Atlantic Canada by a certain percentage point within the first year, the second year, and the third year until the unemployment levels in Atlantic Canada were zero. That would be our stated goal. We would set out a very specific annual strategy to achieve that goal. Each year we would ask whether we had been successful. We would be accountable as to whether we were successful in reducing the levels of unemployment. If we were not, we would increase our efforts toward those goals about which we would be serious.
However, the Government does not set any goal. If we were to evaluate this program five or ten years from now and found that the levels of unemployment had been reduced by half a percentage point or had perhaps even increased, there would
be no way of determining whether the initiatives were adequate and successful. If you have no goal, no objective, how do you know whether you have been successful?
This is like starting off on a vacation, just getting into a car and driving off without any idea of where you are going, just aimlessly driving down the road. That is what this Atlantic agency is really all about. It is a rudderless ship moving about the harbour. It is a person driving along without any particular destination in mind.
It is critical that targets be set in order that unemployment levels in Atlantic Canada be reduced annually by a specified amount. We should set such goals, not only for Atlantic Canada but for the nation as a whole, for all the regions that are having difficult times.
One of the critical points which the Minister of State failed to mention in his comments involves government procurement. One of the tools which a government has, to give encouragement and support, to show that it cares, is government procurement targeted at all levels, local businesses and industry. In that way markets can be provided which will really assist new businesses and industries in particular.
In the trade deal with the United States we signed away the right to target government procurement programs to Atlantic Canada as we should. In other words, everything that all levels of government need in Atlantic Canada should be procured from that area. Whether they are goods or services, as long as they are reasonably competitive, the businesses and industries of that area should be given an advantage. We signed away that right. We have said that any company in the United States will be able to bid on government procurement programs. We have now signed away in the trade deal the one obvious vehicle that governments have to assist local business.
In closing, much more can be done. Many more steps can be taken to assist the development of Atlantic Canada. Let me quote what John Crow, Governor of the Bank of Canada, said recently: "Many of these regional imbalances that presently exist could eventually drag down the whole economy of the country". In other words, if we do not seriously address these regional differences in terms of economic development and growth, it could drag down the entire Canadian economy. That is our primary challenge.
1 am afraid that this initiative by the Government in Bill C-103, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, falls far short of meeting that goal of reduced economic inequalities that exist in Canada.


Jack Harris: Madam Speaker, let me congratulate the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on his speech. He and all Members in this Party are concerned about regional development, as I am sure are all Members. However, the Government's measures do not seem to match the size of the problem.
January 21, 1988

Will he comment on another aspect of regional development that could assist the regions of Canada, particularly the Atlantic region in this case, and that is the allocation of the Public Service in this country? Thirty per cent of the federal Public Service in Canada is located in Ottawa, which is very highly centralized compared to other countries such as the United States where only 12 per cent of the public service is located in Washington.
There have been some decentralization experiments in Canada in the past, but these have been halted. The results of those studies have found that these units operating outside of Ottawa have been more efficient in terms of the complement of person-years required to do the job, the stability of the workers, and the lack of turnover compared to the experience in Ottawa. They seem to be successful not only in improving the efficiency of the Public Service of Canada but in spreading some of the funds and jobs of the federal Government throughout the country, particularly to areas where employment in the private sector and other sectors of the economy is difficult to obtain.
Would the Hon. Member comment on that method of contributing to reducing regional disparity in this country?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has posed a very interesting question. Let me reflect for a moment on part of the problem we face in this country in dealing with economic discrepancies in terms of growth. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) comes from Toronto and has surrounded himself with some very well intentioned, serious bureaucrats. But I do no believe the Minister actually understands what it is like in the regions of Canada. Considering the constituency of the Minister of State for Mines and Forestry, I suspect that he would have a better understanding.
But part of the problem is that many of the critical decisionmaking people involved in these matters do not live in the regions and have no idea what it is like to live in western Canada, eastern Canada or northern regions of the country. For instance, in my constituency, unemployment levels reach as high as 40 per cent in some areas.
My hon. friend's suggestion to decentralize government makes nothing but sense, for providing a more practical and reasoned approach to many government programs.
Another reality is that in today's age of telecommunications we do not need to be sitting in Ottawa, cheek to jowl. There is no reason why the federal Government could not be much more decentralized, which would not only provide employment in the regions of the country but would likely provide a much more improved and sensitive Government infrastructure.
A certain inertia sets in after we have been in Ottawa for some time. I think it is important that Members of Parliament realize that unless they make an effort to return to their constituencies on a regular basis that certain inertia begins to set in, even with Members of Parliament.
When one considers that we are the second largest country in the world, it is important to make a significant effort to
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
decentralize federal Government decision-making, which includes decentralizing some of the Public Service into the regions of the country.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, 1 am moved to make a comment in response to my hon. friend. I was reminded of sitting here in the House six years ago when Liberal cabinet Ministers laid out certain targets by saying they would achieve a 2 per cent reduction or 5 per cent reduction. However, those targets were never achieved because the programs were improper.
The mess which our Government inherited, with almost two million unemployed Canadians, was a direct consequence of the policy my hon. friend is proposing for the future. The same program that the Liberals had in place during those many years produced this hardship for people in this country.
In contrast, this Government does not simply throw money at problems but works with communities and puts in place things like the agency we are talking about today, where local people work together to produce long term jobs. They are not temporary jobs; while the problem facing individuals who do not have a job is severe, it is not alleviated with six months of useless work. The problem is alleviated by communities working together with the private sector, in the proper economic climate, to produce goods and services which will be useful not just today or tomorrow but six and ten years from now.
The approach of this Government in three and one-half years has produced 1,118,000 jobs. We did not have phoney targets for Atlantic Canada or any particular province, we simply went about putting in place a set of policies and a fiscal regime that is reducing unemployment in every region and increasing employment and the opportunities that the system implies.
The artificial notion of targets, which is being propagated by the Hon. Member, may look good on national television or in a headline, but the reality is that a set of policies that produce real jobs for the long term for real people is what will benefit them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend can talk all he wants about good intentions, and may cite all these figures, but I will quote for him from an article in The Globe and Mail recently which stated: "Conservative Member of Parliament James Hawkes of Calgary argued last week that there were
23,000	more people working in Alberta today than in September, 1984". The article goes on to say: "But he forgot to say that there are 20,000 more people out of work in Alberta last year than the year before".
While anyone can stand in the House and cite figures about the number of jobs created and so on, in his own province nearly 10 per cent of Albertans are out of work. In some parts of Alberta the unemployment rate is as high as 25 per cent, in areas like northern Alberta. They were not working last year or the year before. Nothing much has changed.

January 21, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
If we jump over the mountains into British Columbia, we find a situation which is significantly worse. It is small comfort for people in Alberta, Atlantic Canada and other places who are viewing this debate today to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say, "Look how wonderful things are". If one is in Toronto, yes, things are very, very good, thank you, and I am pleased for Toronto. However, the rest of the country has a long way to go.
The creation of this agency is another hoax, if you like, a smoke and mirrors effort, because taking out $3 billion and putting only $200 million a year back is not going to help regional disparities across this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate.


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-103. I view this legislation as marking a crossroads in the economic evolution of Atlantic Canada within our Confederation. There are many people in this House from Atlantic Canada who sit here because they have a mandate from their constituents to work for and to achieve improved economic opportunities for their constituents. I am no exception.
I became interested in politics because I took the view as a young Atlantic Canadian that things could be better, that there were new ways which could be tried and that success and progress was an attainable goal. I did not accept that we as Atlantic Canadians were destined always to be the have-not region within Confederation. I took that message to my constituents in 1984 and they agreed.
Today we are debating a piece of legislation that reflects a very carefully taken policy decision by our Government that this is a better way to go. Let us look at precisely what Bill C-103 prescribes and what principles it outlines by way of a regional development strategy. First, let us look at the goals. There are some speakers who have said this legislation does not prescribe a goal, but the goal is outlined in Clause 4 which states:
The purpose of this Part 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.
That is very clear. The purpose of this Bill, then, is to improve the economic lot of Atlantic Canadians.
What principles are embodied in the legislation? First, decisions are to be made in the region. Over 95 per cent of the decisions on direct assistance to business will be made in the region without reference to Ottawa. That process is now ongoing. The decentralization process is occurring and has occurred. Of a staff of about 300, only a small number, perhaps 20 or less, will be in Ottawa to participate in liaison and advocacy for the region.
What about consultation, another principle of this Bill? There is a 19 member board which will advise the Minister on policy. It will direct the staff, conduct studies and formulate new policy options. It will review program proposals and innovate unusual projects and will recommend policies or decisions to the Minister. That is flexibility. That is consultation.
By way of improving the business environment, under this legislation the agency will be able to provide more than direct assistance to business. It will be able to improve the opportunities in research, communication, co-operation and will provide scholarships related to business. The mechanism for federal-provincial co-operation are there. The co-financing mechanism is outlined. This will extend and enhance co-operation between government departments at the federal level and enhance cooperation with provincial departments.
Indeed, national programs will be directly impacted by regional needs to the advocacy program. The objective of the advocacy program is to promote an Atlantic perspective here in Ottawa to ensure that Atlantic Canada receives equitable consideration and benefits from national policies and programs. With respect to the specific goal of improving opportunities for medium and small business, the greatest number of ways and means, powers and authorities will be given to this agency so it will have the greatest flexibility to respond to the regions uniqueness.
I challenge the Opposition to tell us whether it is against these principles or does it support the idea of using a broad number of programs and a wide range of tools? Consultation has been lauded. In seeking more authority for the board, do Members opposite agree with decisions being taken in the region?
I have been disappointed as I sat through debate during the last few days not to hear the Opposition tell us whether it disagrees with the principles of this Bill. Instead it has complained about a wide range of things, many of them not based on fact. I challenge the Opposition to tell us whether it disagrees with the principles I have outlined.
In fact, just to comment on one of the suggestions of the Opposition about funding, it is clear that under our Government regional development spending has increased significantly. Under this program an additional $1 billion of new money will be made available to enhance economic development in our region. That is not money taken from other departments as has been suggested. It is new money. The programs that were in place in 1985 in my riding are still there. They are being funded. In addition to that, my constituents have the benefit of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and this new funding.
The suggestion that infrastructure funding is not possible is simply not based on any reading of the statute. The Minister of
January 21, 1988

Transport (Mr. Crosbie) was very clear in the House earlier this week when he said there are ERDA agreements, federal-provincial agreements, under which such arrangements can be concluded. None of that has changed. I believe we must move this Bill quickly into committee so that it can be made into law.
It is shameful that three days have been expended on a debate which does not concern the principles of this Bill. The debate has been about matters which can very well be addressed in committee. 1 have listened with interest to a lot of speculation from opposition Members about how this agency is going to work and where it is going to get its money and whether it can be successful. I have the distinct advantage of telling those Members that what we have in this legislation is not entirely new. The principles reflected in this legislation have been operating in Cape Breton for a couple of years through the Enterprise Cape Breton Agency. The principles of decentralization, the principles of autonomy and the principles of flexibility have been operating in Cape Breton. We have had a local board of directors with direct contact and accountability to a Minister. We have had a very successful two years.
In the last 12 months alone the unemployment rate in Cape Breton has dropped from 21 per cent to the area of 15 per cent or 16 per cent. That is real progress. That is proof that the economic regional development strategies of this Government can work and in fact are working. That I suggest is one of the reasons these principles are in the Bill. We know they can yield results which have alluded our regions for many decades.
That is not to say that all our problems will be solved quickly. However, it is to say that this is something better. This is progress. Maritimers and Atlantic Canadians are realistic. Anyone who stands before them and suggests that these problems will be solved overnight will not have credibility. Those who stand before Atlantic Canadians and say we believe this is in mechanism that will achieve progress, and then point to an example where progress has in fact happened, will have credibility. We have waited a long time for progress. We know that substantial and long term change takes time.
There has been the suggestion by some members of the Opposition that national economic progress is somehow irrelevant in Atlantic Canada. They have suggested that lower interest rates achieved as a result of better national management are irrelevant to Atlantic Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth. My constituents buy homes, cars and furniture. Many of them borrow money to do so. They pay interest on that money. When interest rates are at 20 per cent they do not buy these goods, or else they pay a great deal more for them. We now have lower interest rates as a result of improved economic management. My constituents are saving money now.
There are small business people and prospective entrepreneurs as well in my riding. These people benefit from lower
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
interest rates. They can expand or initiate new business enterprises. Thus the argument that lower interest rates are somehow irrelevant in Atlantic Canada is not true. It is an illogical argument. It shows a total lack of understanding of the economy of Atlantic Canada.
What about lower inflation? Many of the same points can be made. When prices are rising that means there is less money to spend in a region such as Atlantic Canada. Where people have a lower income level, as is the case in Atlantic Canada, it amounts to just that much more. As a result of the improved management of the economy our Government has brought this benefit to Atlantic Canadians.
What about the deficit? The suggestion has been made that somehow controlling the deficit is contrary to the interests of Atlantic Canada. We pay taxes in Atlantic Canada. A large percentage of our taxes is used to serve the growing national debt. This means that there cannot be more money for better programs, whether they be social programs or regional development programs. The political Parties which advocate reckless and uncontrolled spending do a great disservice to those who strongly believe in regional development and in our social programs.
What about the lower unemployment rate? It was suggested today that unemployment is down only in Toronto. That is simply not true. Unemployment is down in Nova Scotia. In fact, the unemployment rate in Nova Scotia today is less than what the national unemployment rate was in 1984 when we were elected. What the previous Government would have given for the unemployment rate that we have in Nova Scotia today, Madam Speaker.
There are now more jobs in Atlantic Canada. We have a stronger economy. National economic growth is providing opportunities in the regions as well. There are people in the regions who want to leave, to go to the bigger centres where there are different economic opportunities than in the smaller centres. However, if there are no opportunities in the bigger centres then, obviously, they will not go to them. If we want to support our social programs we need economic growth.
The NDP talks so much about the regions. It was the New Democratic Party which sponsored and supported the national economic program that devastated the western region of our country. Today, the same Party stands just as firmly against free trade as it stood for the National Energy Program. It stands against-


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A certain degree of honesty is required in debate. The New Democratic Party voted against the National Energy Program. It is about time that certain Conservatives read the voting record.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) has the floor.

January 21, 1988


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should do a better job of communicating his Party's record on the National Energy Program to western Canadians. There are millions of western Canadians-in fact most Canadians-who believe and were given the impression by the Hon. Member's Party that it was against economic growth in the oil and gas industry in western Canada. That is the truth of the matter.
Members of that Party joined forces with the governing Party in the early 1980s and just about closed down the oil and gas industry of Atlantic Canada. Today, those bedfellows want to block the free trade agreement with the United States, an agreement which will mean growth for our forestry industry, our fishing industry and for the regions. They are against these areas but they let the cars go back and forth. They let billions of dollars in foreign investment pour into Oshawa, but not into the regions. It is not okay for an Atlantic Canadian to work for a foreign company, but it is okay if one lives in Oshawa to work for big bad General Motors, a U.S. corporation.
I can tell Hon. Members that when the Leader of the New Democratic Party is in Oshawa he does not condemn General Motors. He does not tell the thousands of people who work at General Motors that they should shut down the plant, kick out the foreigners and that it is better to be unemployed and poor than working for a multinational corporation. That is the blind ideology of members of the New Democratic Party. That is their hypocrisy and their double standard. We reject that. We want to move ahead. We will move ahead economically to take our place in Canada. We will point out in an aggressive way the inconsistencies that form so great a part of the economic policies of the New Democratic Party.
In my region that Party is against tax credits for business. Our Government has provided tax credits to allow businesses to come into the Cape Breton region. As a result we are seeing new and better employment opportunities. The New Democratic Party, the Party which holds itself out as the guardian of the low-income Canadian, is against that. It does not want these tax credits. The people I represent want jobs. They will worry about who owns the corporation later. Right now they want jobs. They want to be able to put bread and butter on the table.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, a couple of things said by the Hon. Member who just spoke were wildly erroneous, according to Statistics Canada. Of course, he will say that that is some sort of a communist front or something.
According to Statistics Canada in 1987 the rate of unemployment in Nova Scotia was 12.5 per cent. He says that that is lower than it was three years ago. Three years ago it was 13.3 per cent, according to Statistics Canada. The Hon. Member has just made an absolutely and totally unfounded and false statement, as is often the case in the House.
He also happened to say that the amount of regional funding going into Atlantic Canada is going up under the Conservatives. According to documents tabled by the Government in
the House of Commons that is not true. I wonder whether or not the Hon. Member might want to tell the truth to his constituents rather than a finely woven web of fabrications, which is often the case with him.
The regional development envelope under the Hon. Member and his friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has gone down $2.89 billion since they were elected to office. DRIE spending cuts amounted to $200 million in 1984; $100 million in 1985; and $150 million in 1986. In terms of cuts in spending to Atlantic Canada, $100 million was cut from the budget of the Cape Breton heavy water plant and $16 million was cut from the East Coast ferry service budget.
Why does the Hon. Member not get up to tell the truth and let his constituents know that under the Conservatives regional development funding is going down? The Hon. Member should at least be honest with Canadians. According to his own Government statistics, when we look at the 10-year period 1976-77 to the present time, the amount of federal expenditures on regional development going to the Atlantic region was 56 per cent. It is now 36 per cent. That amounts to a decline of over 50 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure that the Hon. Member may want to continue later on today.
It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, the number of pregnancies among Quebec teenagers between the ages of 10 and 14 has doubled in ten years. In 1985, the number of pregnancies among girls aged between 15 and 19 reached 27 per 1,000. One Montreal region accounts for 5 per cent of all births to single mothers under 20 years old.
This is an unacceptable situation not only in Quebec, but in all Canadian provinces. However, it is hardly surprising as the Conservative Government closed down the Family Planning Department in 1985, cancelled subsidies to Planned Parenthood and is very slow to take action as concerns child care, not to mention the fact that budgets for educational purposes have been drastically cut back!
January 21, 1988

To correct this situation, we need federal leadership to promote sex education and birth control and to help these teenagers complete high school.
Mr. Speaker, these children are at risk. The federal and provincial Governments must show some courage and accept their responsibilities as regards this issue. Let us forget our prudishness and take action quickly to provide sexual education or post-secondary assistance to put an end to the scourge of pregnancies among Canadian teenagers.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was correct in recognizing the violation of human rights of the civilian population of Palestine by the Israeli military occupation forces.
Canada has always shown leadership in the area of human rights. Therefore, it is appropriate for Canada to issue a formal protest to the Israeli Government and call for an international peace conference on the question of Palestine, at which the Palestinian people's legitimate representative, the PLO, would be included.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday once again Canada participated in the testing of the U.S. air-launched Cruise missile despite the fact that in December the United States and the Soviet Union signed an agreement to eliminate all land-based nuclear missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,000 kilometres.
Although we are speaking of two different missiles, it should be noted that a major barrier to further agreement on strategic nuclear weapons is the verification of the Cruise, because it is small, transportable, and can fly under radar detection. The Government had stated that it would continue to test the Cruise until progress was made in the disarmament talks. Surely the Government must consider the recent Reagan-Gorbachev agreement as major progress in the arms reduction area.
Consequently, Canada should immediately halt all Cruise missile testing to advance the disarmament discussions and to rid the world of nuclear weapons, one of the greatest threats to human existence.


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks the international community has been appalled at the treatment of Palestinian demonstrations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank at the hands of Israeli troops. Their heavy-handed tactics have resulted in the deaths of an estimated 36 Palestinians, including women and children.
The use of live ammunition to quell demonstrators is unconscionable. At issue are fundamental human rights, the right to life and freedom of expression. Whatever arguments may be made for either side in this dispute, the fact remains that young Palestinians are dying for daring to protest, and no argument can justify their deaths.
While touring Gaza, United Nations Under Secretary General Goulding stated: "In the judgment of the whole international community Israeli policy has been unduly harsh and-disproportionate to the threat posed by the demonstrators".
I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to condemn Israel's brutal violence and use of food as a weapon, and to demand a guarantee of fundamental human rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, rage has given rise to the recent cycle of violence in the West Bank and Gaza, the rage of young Palestinians born and raised in refugee camps and deprived of hope for a better future by an indifferent international community, and by the mutual intransigence of their own leadership over the years in refusing to recognize Israel and negotiate accordingly, and that of a Likud and Likud dominated Governments which have acted towards the occupied territories in ways which suggest that no real Palestinian homeland will ever be tolerated.
This rage has been a rage visited upon the Israeli Government and its troops, and they have responded to it in a clumsy, heavy-handed, lethal, and now we are told apparently only brutal way. But it is a rage that should be heard beyond the Knesset, in all capitals of the world and by all parties to the continuing tragedy.
All parties know what cards have to be played in order for a peace conference and the subsequent peace process to have a chance. Let them all swallow their pride and begin to play those cards before there is no hope for the Palestinian people

January 21, 1988
or for the peace of the world in so far as it hinges on the Middle East.



AMENDMENT OF DAIRY PRODUCTS IMPORT CONTROL LIST

Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for having completed a trade agreement with the United States that preserves Canada's agricultural supply management system.
In addition, I welcome the government response to representations by me and by other Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament who have advocated changes to the import control list.
This week's announcement by the Government that the import control list is being amended to prevent a rapid increase in the importation of certain U.S. dairy products is welcomed by the farming community and by me. It was just what we were waiting to hear.
This Government's record of support for the agricultural industry is unmatched by any other. It is a record that I have no trouble talking about. The Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement contains clear evidence of our commitment to protecting the agricultural industry while ensuring new and better economic opportunities for other Canadians.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are deeply concerned about the situation in the Middle East as Khomeini's forces disrupt shipping in the Persian Gulf and attempt to subvert moderate Arab states in the region. [Translation]
The war waged by the Ayatollah Khomeini against Iraq hides a disastrous social and economic environment. Children are being recruited to fight and become martyrs. Those who survive frequently become drug users.
Three million Iranians are homeless and six million are unemployed. Amnesty International reports that Iranian laws deny women not only their social and political rights, but also any human dignity.

Every effort must be made internationally to stop the sale of arms to Iran and to use all peaceful means to bring an end to this tragic situation.
[ Translation]



POLITICAL PARTIES


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) questioned the legality of Canadian taxpayers being entitled to claim tax credits for contributions to political parties. He was referring to socialists who use contributions to their federal wing to finance municipal elections.
The House leader of the socialists was miffed and reacted. This is not the first time the socialists prefer their own interpretation when it comes to spending somebody else's money. For instance, notwithstanding an Ontario Supreme Court ruling they use the workers' union dues for their own political purposes. It is not legal but that is what they do, Mr. Speaker. I have raised the issue in the House on a number of occasions, but their parliamentary leader never did object. When will his Party get around to repaying Canadian workers for illegally collected union dues? I challenge the socialist leader to raise a question of privilege about this matter. For sure, Mr. Speaker, that Party will just have to come clean.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, environmentalists will be puzzled by at least two actions or non-actions this week on the part of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan).
First there is the question of the P.E.I. fixed link and environmental assessment. The Minister has said that there will be an environmental assessment, but how vigorous and by whose rules? Will it be the present rules or the proposed new system which would mean broader public access and an expansion of terms to include culture, the economy, and social life as well?

Second, there is the question of acid rain in Quebec where the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles stated that the federal Government lobby about this issue with the American Congress and the American President is weak and half-hearted. The federal Government will not even be represented at the Quebec meeting on acid rain. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) will have to assume his responsibilities in this field and actively support Quebec's environmentalists and farmer producers who are seeking to come to grips with the serious problems caused by acid rain.
January 21, 1988



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, an objective look at strikes and lock-outs indicates that the real losers are third parties, the innocent people. For example, during the postal strike a small business went bankrupt because it could not deliver its products. Such losses could be multiplied hundreds of times.
During the Prince Rupert strike, demurrage charges alone amounted to some $50 million. Who pays this? The farmers, the innocent third party who had no part in causing the strike.
Is it not time that the people who cause the work stoppage pay the costs resulting from their action? If the 69 strikers at Prince Rupert knew they would have to pay the demurrage charges they would rush into binding arbitration while they continued to work. The company responsible for a work stoppage would do the same thing.
Farmers and other people have been picking up the tab for these strikes and lock-outs for far too long and they are sick and tired of it. Let us change the rules so that he who causes the expense pays for it. Then I guarantee there will be few if any strikes or lock-outs.
V *	*



CUSTOMS AND EXCISE


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my dissatisfaction with the Government's lack of action in dealing with the cigarette and drug smuggling occurring at the St. Regis Reserve in Cornwall, Ontario. This smuggling has brought the proud traditions and reputation of the Mohawk Indian Band on the Reserve into disrepute. It is also endangering the legitimate tax-free status the Reserve has for other needed goods such as food and clothing. Besides that, Revenue Canada has estimated it has lost $60 million of tax revenue due to this illegal smuggling.
Of serious concern to me is the safety of Canada Customs officers on the Reserve. Those officers have witnessed shooting incidents and received bomb threats. They are afraid for themselves and their families. Recently they requested bulletproof vests.
This situation is deplorable and action must be taken immediately to protect the Canada Customs officers, the integrity of the tax system, and to preserve the reputation of a
very proud Mohawk nation whose credibility is being brought into disrepute.



WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, on January 14 the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) announced a $5.3 million contribution through the Western Diversification Fund to help expand and diversify markets for Saskatchewan potash. The Potash and Phosphate Institute of Canada will spearhead the effort to open new markets in northern China, south Asia and southeast Asia.
Those funds will support education and demonstration projects which have been largely responsible for the successful entry by western Canadian potash producers into the Asian market. Exports to China have gone from less than one tonne in 1985 to over one million tonnes in 1987.
This initiative is an important step in supporting the revitalization of the potash industry which has been badly damaged by reduced demand, decreased prices and international protectionism. In 1980, $1 billion worth of Saskatchewan potash was sold. In 1986 it was only $550 million. The spin-offs and the service industries generated will provide countless jobs in all sectors of the Saskatchewan economy. I look forward to similar announcements in the near future to diversify our economy.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann).


Mr. Holtmann:: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the Hon. Member but I recognized him out of the usual order. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to Parliament's attention a situation which occurred in Kitchener recently. Loretta Villeneuve was kept alive until her baby was delivered. Her husband, John Mclnnis, now has custody of the newborn infant.
John Mclnnis, like any parent concerned about his child, took a leave of absence from work to provide the care and attention that a newborn needs. In taking leave of absence he

January 21, 1988
Oral Questions
is not paid by his employer. So he went down to the unemployment insurance office and applied for maternity benefits. Of course, under the Unemployment Insurance Act he cannot collect maternity benefits. John Mclnnis inquired about parental benefits and was told that there are no such things as parental benefits and that, in fact, he does not qualify for maternity benefits. In fact, John Mclnnis is now being told that he should collect welfare.
We in the New Democratic Party have long advocated parental benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Program. The Government has refused to move on that very positive suggestion, and that puts people like John Mclnnis on the welfare rolls of Canada. It is a shame and a disgrace for the Tory Government to say it is concerned about people.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Selkirk-lnterlake.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the second attempt at the same message. It seems to me that members of the NDP have found a very influential ally in their desire to withdraw Canadian forces from NATO.
When Prime Minister Jacques Chirac correctly criticized the NDP policy of withdrawing Canadian forces from Europe and outlined how that action would weaken the alliance and the security of Europe, guess who jumped to the NDP's defence? A little-known Soviet news agency, TASS, which distributes to newspapers all over the Soviet Union and abroad. This Russian news agency, for some strange reason, strongly supports the NDP position and vigorously attacked Mr. Chirac for even questioning it.
Let there be no mistake made by Canadians on this subject. Our PC Government supports NATO. Our PC Government will continue its assistance in the defence and stability of Europe. Our PC Government recognizes that Canadian efforts have helped to maintain peace in Europe for over 40 years. How could any rational, conscious, intelligent, thinking Canadian suggest that this policy should be changed?



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post Corporation was created, among other things, to improve labour relations. Canada Post made it its policy, in April 1987, to suspend any employee for three days the first time he or she forgets to punch his or her time card and for five days with possible dismissal the second time.
Mr. Speaker, the private sector does not go that far. Such an action, such a policy is an act of confrontation. Canada Post Corporation, with the agreement of the Conservative Government, is pursuing a policy of confrontation and, ultimately, Canadians will have to pay for a poorer service that deteriorates every day.
I ask the Conservative Government to forbid Canada Post Corporation from harassing its employees and to institute a labour relations system that will bring peace in post offices and give us a good postal service.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question would be better directed to the Prime Minister, but I think I can ask the Deputy Prime Minister to answer it. On September 25, 1985, the Minister of Energy, who at the time was Minister of Communications, left the Cabinet because he was under investigation for possible infractions of the Canada Elections Act. The Minister rose in the House of Commons at that time and said:
I am convinced that on completion of the investigation, my innocence will be established.
On November 28, Canada's Election Commissioner wrote to the Minister saying:
Proof in the dossier demonstrates that you participated in an infraction again Paragraph 62.6-
-of the Elections Act. Three days after the Minister received that letter telling him that he had violated the Canada Elections Act, the Prime Minister put him back into the Cabinet.
Why is it that neither the Prime Minister nor his Minister told Canadians of the existence of the letter saying that the Minister had violated the law? While the Deputy Prime Minister is at it, maybe he can tell us why the Minister was put back into the Cabinet.
January 21, 1988


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right in pointing out that when this issue arose the Minister resigned and an investigation was launched by the appropriate authorities, the appropriate authorities being an officer of Parliament. The investigation was conducted and, after the investigation was complete, the Commissioner rendered a decision and concluded that no charges were to be laid.
The commission has the responsibility to ascertain and determine what charges, if any, should be laid. The commission had the authority and the obligation to oversee the investigation, and that was done in its proper form. A decision was rendered.
If the Member wants to second-guess or question the verdict of the Commissioner, he may very well do so. I might remind the House, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Member, that this is not the only investigation that took place. There are other investigations. Maybe the Hon. Member wants to question the verdict of the Commissioner in the other cases as well.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House take at face value the judgment of Elections Canada when they say that the Minister has been involved in an infraction of the Elections Act. It is the Government that does not believe it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONTENT OF COMMISSIONER S LETTER
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister tell the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister the whole truth about receiving the letter and its contents? If not, will the Minister be fired?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the letter having been sent and so obviously cannot answer the second part of the question. However, I do want to remind the Hon. Member again that the results of any investigation conducted under the auspices of this Act are reviewed by independent counsel retained by the Commissioner, as well as a counsel on the staff of the Chief Electoral Officer. It is the Commissioner who makes the decision as to whether any prosecution should be carried out. In this particular case he decided that one should not be.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister does not seem very curious. When one realizes that a person has been determined to have violated the law and that no charges were laid, someone should have asked questions.
Oral Questions


QUERY WHY MINISTER REAPPOINTED TO CABINET
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, ordinary citizens were prosecuted under the Canada Elections Act in this case, and some were even convicted. Meanwhile, the big cheese got off without a single scratch and was even rewarded with a Cabinet appointment. My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Why did the Minister go back to Cabinet when the Government knew Elections Canada had found he violated the Canada Elections Act?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggests that I have not shown an interest in this particular issue. Perhaps if he had shown the same interest as I and determined the facts, he would not be asking such silly questions.
The fact of the matter is that a backgrounder has been issued by Elections Canada. I would like to quote from it for the benefit of this Hon. Member, other Hon. Members, and the Canadian public. It reads: "The Commissioner consents to prosecution only when he is satisfied that he has all the necessary facts and only in those cases where he believes that it would be in the interest of justice to do so and where there is every likelihood that a prosecution will succeed."
That is a judgment call he has made. If the Hon. Member is questioning the judgment of the Commissioner, let him go ahead and do it outright. However, I can only assume that that is the basis upon which the judgment was rendered. 1 wish the Hon. Member would accept it as such.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and calls into question yet again the Government's handling of airport security.
The Deputy Prime Minister knows that a bomb threat was directed at the Ottawa airport this morning. He knows as well that the handling of this threat was as confusing as the Tower of Babel.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why the Government's security arrangements failed utterly at the Ottawa airport this morning? Why, in particular, were airline ticket agents evacuated from their posts as a result of this threat while hundreds of members of the travelling public were left standing at the ticket counters, oblivious to the bomb

January 21, 1988
Oral Questions
threat and totally abandoned in what was being treated as a serious bomb threat by a terrorist organization?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House and Canadians that when we received the information about the possibility of there being a bomb at the airport, a search had already been started, and the subsequent conclusion was that it was a false alarm.
Again, I wish to say that security is priority number one for this Government and that all mechanisms are in place to ensure that Canadians and, in fact, all travellers can travel safely, and this morning we were told it was a false alarm. It is up to the individual airline to decide whether it should or should not delay its flights. In any case, everything is now under control.


REPORTED LACK OF PUBLIC WARNING
Brian Vincent Tobin: In
light of the Air-India disaster and countless other less lethal but nevertheless embarrassing and revealing security lapses we have seen over the last year, that answer is not good enough.
Bomb detection teams were brought into the airport. Extra RCMP security personnel were brought into the airport. Company employees were directed to leave their posts. If the threat was serious enough for all of that action, why were members of the travelling public left standing, confused and abandoned, in what could have been a serious incident? The Minister knows full well that if this had been a serious incident there would have been many injuries, or worse, this morning. When will the Government get its act together so that members of the Canadian traveling public can travel in confidence in our country?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the ICAO Council said again last August that Canada ranked first on safety and security. Programs are in place involving staff and the airlines to ensure maximum security, and these programs will be upgraded regularly.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
I have a copy of a letter from the Commissioner of Canada Elections sent to the Hon. Member for Frontenac on November 28, 1985. In his letter, the Commissioner said the Member had violated the Act but that no charges would be laid.
On the other hand, three other citizens in the riding were prosecuted during the same period. Why the double standard: one for ordinary citizens and one for a Member of Parliament? [English]


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the Hon. Member, who has been a Member of this House for close to 20 years, would challenge the authority of an officer of Parliament. The Commissioner rendered a decision. I am surprised he would now stand up in the House and try to question the decision that was brought down by the Commissioner.
The fact of the matter is, as I have outlined earlier, that when allegations arose the Minister did the honourable thing and resigned until the investigation was completed and until a decision was rendered. As I pointed out-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Then you covered up the decision.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member suggests that I covered up the decision.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Your Government covered up the decision.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is a most unfortunate charge because, as the Hon. Member knows, the Government has no influence whatsoever over the Chief Electoral Officer-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Why did you not make it public?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -or the Commissioner of Election Expenses. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member, who I know would want to support the rules of this place, to withdraw the remark, if that remark was in fact said, that the Deputy Prime Minister has covered up in this affair.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to withdraw in view of the concerns of the House in this matter. However, I would like to see the exact timing of that legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. I hope Hon. Members and the public watching will recognize that, as I have said before, on matters of this sort the Opposition not only has a right but a duty to ask questions. But we are bound by rules and I thank the Hon. Member for recognizing that.


CHARGES LAID AGAINST INDIVIDUALS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He knows very well that in making this judgment the Commissioner said that it was not in the public interest to lay charges or have charges laid in the case of the Minister. Considering that comparable sums of money, of the same magnitude, were involved and three ordinary citizens were charged, is it not of some concern to the Deputy Prime Minister that it was deemed to be in the interest of justice and in the public interest to charge three ordinary Canadians with a serious offence but a Minister of the Crown is excluded?
January 21, 1988

While he is answering that question, does he not think there is a dangerous precedent which could undermine the whole principle of the Election Expenses Act if a significant corporate donation is no longer deemed to be a serious infraction? Are we not undermining the application of all of this law in subsequent elections if this is not dealt with in a totally adequate way now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member is asking me to interfere with a decision which was rendered by the Commissioner under the Elections Expenses Act. If he is, I really wonder if he might want to reconsider that.
Today the Chief Electoral Officer issued a statement on the role of the Commissioner of Canada Elections and perhaps for the benefit of all Members I might just quote a passage from it because I think it does clarify the issue. Mr. Hamel said, and I quote:
- the Canada Elections Act makes it quite clear that it is the function of the Commissioner to decide whether or not to proceed to prosecute a case. The Commissioner consents to prosecution only when he is satisfied that he has all the necessary facts and only in those cases where he believes that it would be in the interest of justice to do so and where there is every likelihood that the prosecution will succeed.
I can only presume that it was on that basis he rendered his judgment.


COMMISSIONER'S LETTER TO MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that he is probably quite correct, that the decision was rendered on that basis. However, I am indeed asking questions about that judgment about which I think all Members of Parliament ought to be concerned. If, on the one hand, in the letter it is clearly stated, based clearly-as it says in the letter, a copy of which I have-on an RCMP investigation, that there had been a violation of the Act by the Minister-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: An infraction.


John Edward Broadbent: -an infraction of the Act by the Minister, the same kind of infraction by other citizens that took place-


An Hon. Member:: You are out of order.


John Edward Broadbent: -it is of legitimate concern, surely, for us to ask why was it not in the interest of justice for the Minister to have action proceeded with against him, but it was in the interest of justice to take action against three ordinary citizens.
Oral Questions
In this context, is the Deputy Prime Minister aware if the contents of this letter, and its import, the contents of this personal, confidential letter to the Minister, have been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister of Canada? And could he tell us when the Prime Minister learned of the contents?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party again that we are dealing with a decision that was rendered by an officer of Parliament, an officer of this House. I suppose if the Hon. Member wants to take issue, there are certain ways in which he can take issue with that individual, 1 suspect through a parliamentary committee or, the fact is that we are presently undertaking a review of the Canada Elections Act, and if he has a concern about the way in which this is written, he can certainly provide some suggestions.
But if the Hon. Member wants to draw into question a decision that was rendered by the Commissioner in this case, perhaps then he is drawing into question an investigation that was conducted with respect to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East-


John Edward Broadbent: There was no infraction by them and you know it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: A cabinet Minister broke the law.


John Edward Broadbent: There was no infraction.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is he now throwing into question or doubt the rendering of a decision by an officer of this House? Is that the issue?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Cabinets can break the law in this country-is that what you are saying? Forget justice.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the Member is taking issue with this decision, then it can only be presumed that he is taking issue with the others as well.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, no, it was an infraction over there, not over here.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

January 21, 1988
Oral Questions
Yesterday, the Minister referred in the House to a situation in the Middle East as quickly becoming extremely explosive, because the Israeli Government was resorting to increasingly unacceptable measures.
Could the Minister inform the House whether he expressed this Canadian position personally to his counterpart, the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, and if not, whom did he advise of this position? What concrete measures did he suggest? And more important, what was the Israeli response?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not speak to the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, the Israeli ambassador to this country will be in my office this afternoon, at my invitation.


REQUEST THAT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE BE HELD
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Minister will agree that durable peace in the Middle East will never be achieved unless the parties concerned decide to meet and settle their differences.
Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs willing to propose that an international conference be held as soon as possible, in the light of the fact that the situation appears to be deteriorating from day to day?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we do not really need proposals for an international conference. What we need is the support of the parties involved for such a conference. I do not think another proposal will be useful at this time. However, I do believe that Canada and other countries should continue to urge the parties in the Middle East to consider ways of making an international conference effective and acceptable to the parties concerned.


THE CABINET
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. In connection with the situation of the Hon. Members for Hamilton East and Broadview-Greenwood, can he confirm that the Minister and Member for Frontenac violated the Elections Act? Can he now confirm that, during the investigation, the RCMP came to the conclusion that the Minister had personally been involved in a breach of the Elections Act? If it were so, can the Minister now explain why the RCMP recommendations were ignored by the Minister responsible?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can only confirm what the Commissioner of Canada
Elections, Mr. John Gorman, said on November 28, and I quote:
I have reviewed the results of the investigation which I received at 1300 hours on Thursday, November 21, 1985 as well as the recommendations of independent counsel which I received at 2030 hours on November 26, 1985 and I have decided that no charges will be laid against the Honourable Marcel Masse or his official agent, Jean Morissettc.
I could continue to quote the rest of it but I think that is the pertinent section.


RCMP FINDINGS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister responsible, the Solicitor General of Canada, whether he can now confirm that the RCMP did find that the Minister and Member for Frontenac violated the Elections Act, that he did breach the Elections Act? Can he confirm that, Mr. Speaker? He is the one who answers for the RCMP.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is repetition of the question and the responses have been given under the aegis of the report of Mr. John Gorman, who is the Elections Commissioner. 1 think that should be sufficient for the Hon. Member. The investigation was carried out-


Nelson Andrew Riis: And he was found guilty-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member
suggests-


Nelson Andrew Riis: -of an infraction.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -he was found guilty. That is not correct. That is simply not correct.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I didn't say that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: An officer of Parliament took the decision that no charges would be laid. I have quoted from his statements. Surely, if the Hon. Members do not want to accept the word of an officer of Parliament, whose word will they accept?


Mr. Shields:: Shirley Carr's word, that's whose word you opposite will accept.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The RCMP.
[ Translation]


CODE OF ETHICS- REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF MEMBER FOR FRONTENAC'S FILE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it also relates to the case of the Hon. Member for Frontenac. When he presented his Government's new code of ethics
January 21, 1988

on September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister told Members of this House that the conduct of his Ministers had to be beyond reproach. Referring to the contents of Mr. Gorman's letter, I quote:
-evidence on file indicates that you were party to a violation of section 62
of the Elections Act.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify the action of his leader, the Prime Minister, who after receiving this letter-or at least after he ought to have been made aware of the contents-chose to bring this Minister back into his Cabinet? Why did he not ask him to sit on the back benches?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner undertook to render a decision on this basis and on the basis of the evidence that he had gathered. He reviewed it, with the assistance of his own legal counsel and outside legal counsel. He arrived at a decision that no prosecution would take place.
1 repeat, this individual is an officer of Parliament, an officer of this institution. We have accepted his verdict. 1 think that the Hon. Member as a Member of this place should do likewise.


REAPPOINTMENT OF MINISTER TO CABINET
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is not the Chief Electoral Officer who appoints Ministers. It is the Prime Minister who has to be held to account, and no one else.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House when the Prime Minister first found out about the contents of this letter? Is it not true, as the Minister of Energy said himself, that he phoned the Prime Minister's office and told him about the contents of the letter? If that is the case, if the Prime Minister knew of the contents of this letter, then why did he renege on his word that he gave solemnly in this House that he would not reappoint the Minister to Cabinet until he was proven innocent?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can attempt to hurl insults across the way as long as he wants. The facts remain the same. The Hon. Minister resigned when the allegation appeared. The investigation took place. Due process was followed and a decision was rendered. The results are for everyone to see.
Again, 1 repeat, I wonder why the Hon. Member will not accept the verdict, or the version, or the conclusion of an
Oral Questions
officer of this institution. If anything, the Hon. Member is undermining the integrity of this institution. He is undermining the integrity of an individual who is not able to be here to defend himself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. When the Minister of Energy resigned he said that even the possibility of a complaint could leave in doubt the integrity which would reflect on the Government. He also said that once the investigation had been completed his innocence would be completely established. We now know as a result of the release of the secret letter that his innocence was not completely established. By the Minister's own words he is still a threat to the integrity of the Government.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister act to have the resignation of the Minister reinstated until there is a complete investigation and until, as the Minister of Energy has said himself, he is completely cleared? He is certainly not completely cleared now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member with all his experience may find it expedient to find the individual guilty. However, the Commissioner quite frankly says that he has the right to prosecute only when he is satisfied that he has all the necessary facts, and only in those cases in which he believes that it would be in the interests of justice to do so and where there is every likelihood that prosecution will succeed. Obviously, he did not believe that he had sufficient evidence to proceed with a guilty charge.
Again, I submit that the Hon. Member should accept the word, the verdict of a Commissioner of this institution. Not to do so is simply undermining the integrity of that office and the integrity of this institution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONTENT OF COMMISSIONER'S LETTER
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. If he reads the full letter, the letter of which we finally have a copy, he will see that it says that the Minister had participated in an infraction against paragraph 62.6 of the Elections Act.


Mr. Thacker:: It is an allegation.


Rodney Edward Murphy: You do not have the letter, do not pretend you do.
That is what Mr. Gorman said. Obviously, the innocence of the Minister of Energy has yet to be proven. Since that is now

January 21, 1988
Oral Questions
known, why not have the Minister resign until the issue is clarified?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is a very fundamental axiom in Canadian life, that is, one is innocent until proven guilty.
Notwithstanding that, I thought that I would never have the opportunity to use the following article. It is an article that appeared in The Ottawa Herald on Wednesday, December 16, 1987. I thought it was somewhat harsh, but it does state this: "Turner and Broadbent: opposition muckrakers .. . 'murdering' parliamentary decorum".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Guilbault: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It concerns the convicted terrorist who was granted landed immigrant status by the Government.
Throughout the entire week the Minister has maintained that the positive identification of this individual was only confirmed and established after he came into the country and that CSIS officials in Spain approved of the application on the grounds that they received misleading information from the applicant.
Will the Minister confirm or deny reports in The Toronto Star of today which suggest that the Canadian officials were informed and alerted to the man's true identity and record by either the CIA or the Israeli Secret Service even before the man set foot upon the aircraft that eventually brought him into the country?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware or familiar with the article to which the Hon. Member refers. I can only repeat what I have said in the House earlier. I am advised by my officials in CSIS that a positive identification was not established on the man in question until the month of May, 1987.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is not familiar with the suggestion, then, with all due respect, he should read the article. It poses some very interesting concerns and possibilities regarding what really happened in Spain.


SERVICE OF DEPORTATION PAPERS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of State for Immigration. Given that yesterday the Solicitor General
informed the House that the whereabouts of Mr. Mohammad were only confirmed at 1.55 p.m., and that following Question Period the Minister and his staff informed reporters that the deportation papers had been already served, will the Minister explain to the House why he wanted to mislead the public into believing that the deportation papers were already served when in fact the individual's Brantford lawyer today confirmed that Mr. Mohammad was served with the papers only this morning?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that all Hon. Members would have learned the danger of citing newspaper articles without confirming the sources. We have a family, a father, a husband, whose job and life have been jeopardized because of some inaccurate quoting, for which one Hon. Member may now be apologizing or not apologizing.
I will confirm for the House that there is a convicted terrorist who is here illegally. Our intent is to use the full force of the law to get him out of the country. The deportation proceedings are under way. The papers have been served and the hearing will be next Monday.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of State for Transport, or the Parliamentary Secretary, since it is the procedure that when a bomb threat is deemed to be serious and has to be dealt with, one or two individuals at any given airport have to make the decision. Once that decision is made, all appropriate actions are taken to evacuate employees and the public.
Is it not true that employees of one airline were notified, they vacated their positions and left the line-ups at their position counters: and employees of other airlines were not notified until they heard from employees of the first airline?
Can the Minister tell us why all of the airline employees were not notified, and why the public were left standing in the building while the employees of the airlines vacated their positions?
[ Translation]


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I was not at the airport this morning, so I did not experience the situation first hand. Security should be a shared responsibility. Transport Canada has a concern for security which we share with the airlines. We share that concern with the people who are responsible for our airports and we trust these people to act intelligently.
January 21, 1988

There was an investigation. A general search was conducted. It was a false alarm, and I am relieved to hear the case is closed.
We at Transport Canada maintain our concern for security and we are of course open to any advice or recommendations that might improve the situation.


QUERY WHY PUBLIC NOT WARNED
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When an airplane is on the ground, or anything occurs in an airport, the responsibility is with the management of the airport, which is the Department of Transport, not the airlines, and it is not a shared responsibility. It never has been. I wish the Minister would inform herself of that.
Since it was deemed to be a serious threat and all the appropriate search measures were taken, can the Minister explain why provisions were not immediately laid on for the movement of the general public out of the airport terminal, either to another building or somewhere else in Ottawa? Why were the public left in jeopardy while airline employees vacated their positions? That is not the responsibility of the airlines, that is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. When will the Department really do something about airport security?


Monique Vézina: am afraid I will have to repeat what I said earlier, namely that our country has the best security system in the world. Our system measures up to any in the world, because it is well organized, because we can control the situation and we are, indeed, in control.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and it concerns the whole question of the Lubicon Lake Indian Band land claim.
In October the federal Government appointed a negotiator. The Province of Alberta has appointed a negotiator. The report of the Hon. Davie Fulton has been released.
Can the Minister bring Canadians up to date on where these negotiations are going, and what we can expect for results?


Hon. Bill Mcknight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
Oral Questions
concern of the Hon. Member on behalf of his constituents. The commitment of the Government of Canada to settle this land claim is a commitment that will be fulfilled.


An Hon. Member:: When?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: An Hon. Member says "when".
I have had discussions with the Lubicon Band. There are negotiators in place. There is a request by the Government of Alberta to have the genealogy of the Band in order that they may review the genealogy to assure themselves that the volume of land requested to fulfil this commitment could be ascertained.
We really believe that if the genealogy is transferred to Alberta, Alberta will then be in a position as a Government, and the people of Alberta will know the volume of land that should be transferred under the Constitution Act of 1930, and we will be able to proceed with the volume of land and other matters which are important to the Lubicon people in settling this outstanding claim.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
As he knows, both the child care report of 1986 and the Equality for All report of 1985 recommended changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act to convert maternity benefits to parental benefits and to rid the Unemployment Insurance Act of inequality. Similar recommendations were made by the Forget Commission and by the standing committee on employment. The Government did absolutely nothing about them.
Now we have the case of John Mclnnis of Kitchener who, as a father, claimed unemployment insurance benefits because he had to leave his job as a truck driver to take care of his child because the mother died in childbirth. He was refused benefits because he was a father.
1 ask the Minister, what is he ready to do to help this father and child and provide for justice and equality under the Unemployment Insurance Act?
Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The
Minister of Employment and Immigration is away on government business at the moment. 1 would like to assure the Hon. Member that I will bring this question to his attention.

January 21, 1988
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): The Government has been absent for a couple of years on this issue.
The fact is that four commissions have recommended the change that is required to bring about justice in this case.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister, be willing to bring in a Bill to change this matter immediately? 1 guarantee that on this side we will pass it immediately. Will he do that?
Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, it was the Government of which that Member was a part that brought in that legislation and-


Mr. Allmand:: In 1945.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: It was never changed.
As I indicated, I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Employment and Immigration upon his return to Ottawa.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior on a supplementary to an earlier question.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding the Lubicon Lake Indian Band land claim problem.
The Minister knows the Constitution, or at least he ought to know it. The Constitution makes it clear that it is the trust responsibility of the Government of Canada to seek and obtain a just settlement with the Lubicon Lake Indian Band. If thereafter there is a problem with Alberta, then it is this Government that must meet that problem with Alberta.
Why will the Minister not carry out his constitutional obligations and enter into bilateral negotiations with the Lubicon Indian Band and reach a just and equitable settlement?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 view the Hon. Member's question as an appropriate question, and I know of his concern.
It is the responsibility of the Government of Canada to provide and assist the Lubicon people in this settlement. The Government of Canada does not control the Crown land in the Province of Alberta.
I have offered to the Chief of the Lubicon Band that we, Canada, will proceed with negotiations, and at a time period
that would be appropriate to enter into tripartite discussions, I would ask the Band to reconsider its denial of that process.
If the Band does not wish to transfer the genealogy to the Province of Alberta in order that Alberta can fulfil its obligations under the Constitution Act, Canada is prepared to take further action that will put that genealogy in the public realm. The Government of Canada, the Government of Alberta, and the people of Canada will be able to see the genealogy, and at that time Alberta will be able to make the appropriate judgment as to the volume of land that should be provided.
9 (1500)
I would much prefer to have that genealogy placed with Alberta voluntarily. However, Canada is committed to fulfilling its obligation, and the options available to the Government are that of either public court or an inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member on a supplemental.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is also in relation to the Lubicon Band-


An Hon. Member:: Sit down. Jim.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior has asked a supplemental. The Hon. Member for Skeena rises on the same issue with a supplemental, and I recognize the Hon. Member for Skeena.


REQUEST THAT FORMER BRITISH COLUMBIA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE REPORT TO COMMITTEE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the same issue of the Lubicon Lake Band. I know my colleague has other important questions to ask, but I should like to ask the Minister a very serious question. In relation to the request by the Lubicon Band to have former Conservative Justice Minister E. Davie Fulton involved fully in a reporting capacity to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, would the Minister explain to the House, to the people of Alberta, and to the Lubicon Band, why he has refused to allow this former Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to be involved?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. E. Davie Fulton provided a very important report. Mr. Fulton's view and Mr. Fulton's opinions are contained in that report. They are public. Mr. Fulton has a view.
In order to mediate one must be neutral. One must not have a point of view which has already been put forward to the public of Canada, to the Lubicon people. The one thing I would suggest is that if the Lubicon people wish to have Davie Fulton assist them, that is up to the Lubicon people.
January 21, 1988

However, in reporting to a House of Commons standing committee, one would hardly expect, looking at the confedera-tional make-up of Canada, that the Government of Alberta would wish to have a mediator involved in something which is very important to the Government of Alberta, reporting solely to the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be a single question from the Hon. Member for Outremont, followed by a single question from the Hon. Member for York East, and that will close off Question Period.



THE COURTS


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Last week, a judge in Ontario, at the federal level, handed down a totally unacceptable judgment in a case of sexual assault, namely a sentence of 90 days to be served on weekends only. The judge based his decision on the fact that the assailant was from a good family and that the victim did not suffer any serious physical or psychological effects. Mr. Speaker, it would appear that a number of judges across the country are applying legislation on sexual assault according to their own mood and milieu, and that there is a striking lack of uniformity in sentencing in such cases, depending on who the judge is.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister could inform the House when the Government intends to implement the Archambault Report which it has since February 1987 and which recommends sentence harmonization. When will the women of Canada be able to depend on our judicial system to see that justice is done?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is a serious and appropriate one. I share the concern of the Hon. Member with respect to the whole question of appropriateness of sentencing. Indeed 1 have addressed this matter on a number of occasions.
I should bring to the attention of the Hon. Member two things. First, the matter of sentencing is now a subject of consideration by the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. I am awaiting the results of the deliberation of that committee.
In addition, I have taken my own initiative to discuss this matter with the provincial Attorneys General with whom the administration of justice under the Constitution basically lies.
Questions of Privilege
I hope to have a full discussion with respect to the Archambault Report with my provincial counterparts at an early date. I hope we will synthesize all these considerations on a very complex but important topic at an early date, so that we in Parliament can in fact address this matter.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. He has indicated that he believes all federal Departments and agencies should be subject to environmental law, but recently the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice have defended federal polluters on the grounds of federal immunity from provincial legislation.
Will the Minister agree to amend immediately Bill C-74, which is presently in committee, to make absolutely certain that federal polluters are subject to all environmental laws? Will he ask his colleague, the Minister of Justice, to ensure that in future the defence of federal immunity will not be used in cases of this sort?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I believe strongly-and I know that my view is shared widely in the House-that the federal Government is not above the law. That principle applies as much to the environmental field as it does to any other.
When a federal Department or agency breaks the law and violates pollution controls, then the book should be thrown at it. That texture is woven into the very fabric of the Canadian Environmental Act now before committee.


Mr. C'accia:: It is not.


Thomas Michael McMillan: If the Hon. Member, and the Hon. Member for Davenport who is heckling me now, both of whom are members of that committee, believe that the law as it is proposed falls short of the principle that the Hon. Member for York East has now articulated in his question, I invite them to propose an amendment, and it will be viewed with great sympathy by me and by the Government.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise today on a question of privilege. On reading Hansard of yesterday, I notice that in Question Period I inadvertently used a word that you normally would

January 21, 1988
Questions of Privilege
consider unparliamentary when 1 talked about a "tissue of lies" in discussing the Opposition's suggestion that millions of dollars were spent on trade documents.
1 just want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in no way was I implying that any Member of the House was lying; that would be unparliamentary. I was merely pointing out that the information was inaccurate. Therefore, I would like to take the first opportunity which is made possible today to set the record straight and withdraw the unparliamentary word.


Mr. Speaker:: On what point is the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) rising?


Don Boudria: On the same point, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course I do not want to cut off the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on a point of order, but 1 would ask the Hon. Member to consider very carefully whether, in view of the complete withdrawal of what may well have been deemed to be an offensive word by the Minister, there is any need to pursue it further.


Don Boudria: Fine.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member.



ALLEGED INSINUATION OF WRONGDOING

Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege as a result of remarks made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) who mentioned me as being in a similar situation to the Hon. Member for Frontenac (Mr. Masse). I think that he should withdraw those remarks which are quite unfortunate and unfair to me.
I spent 13 months under investigation for an alleged offence. My name was entirely cleared and those of all my co-workers. I think it is most unfortunate that one's name is never entirely cleared.
It took Elections Canada a very long time; it sat doing nothing for a very long time, and finally when my name was cleared it was a total and complete clearance. It was stated unequivocally-and there were no secret letters-that there was no semblance of anything wrong done either by me or anyone in my campaign. I resent insinuations that there was anything suspect about that, and 1 regret the fact that months later I am still having to rise to clear my name. Certainly the Deputy Prime Minister ought to know better.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I gladly rise to indicate to the Hon. Member that I in no way impugned motives or actions of wrongdoing on her part. I merely mentioned, because I read it in the newspaper, that she was undergoing a similar investigation by Elections Canada. She was obviously cleared. In a similar manner the Hon. Member for Frontenac was cleared,
yet Hon. Members across the way choose to bring the issue up. There were other Members under investigation. I was simply trying to make the point that an officer of this House rendered a decision and those individuals across the way are questioning that decision on a selective basis. I take issue with that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Deputy Prime Minister's interjection, but this is worthy of clarification. It may be a modest clarification but nonetheless an important one.
The Minister referred to the fact that a number of Members of Parliament were being investigated. Indeed, there were three, one from each Party. The Liberal Party Member was totally exonerated. There were no infractions whatsoever by the NDP Member. The point they are making today is that there were infractions by the Hon. Member for Frontenac (Mr. Masse). I will just leave it at that. It was simply that distinction which was being made and I do not think the Minister, when he was making his case earlier, was suggesting there were any infractions by the other two Members. Perhaps some clarification of that would be appropriate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear again by quoting from the November 28 news release from Elections Canada:
The Commissioner of Elections Canada, Joseph Gorman, today issued the following statement:
"I have reviewed the results of the investigation which I received at 1300 hours on Thursday, November 21, 1985, as well as the recommendations of independent counsel which I received at 2030 hours on November 26, 1985. I have decided that no charges will be laid against the Hon. Marcel Masse or his official agent, Jean Morissette".
If that does not translate into a clearance of the Hon. Member for Frontenac, then I do not know what does. To do otherwise is to simply question the integrity of the Commissioner, and that is what the Hon. Member is suggesting.


Mr. Speaker:: I think Hon. Members would want the Chair to exercise some judgment in this matter.
The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) rose at the first opportunity following what she took to be a remark by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) which might be taken by some to indicate that she had been guilty of some infraction of the Elections Act. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister rose and made it abundantly clear that that was not his intention. I think that ends the matter.
A further issue was raised in Question Period which we are now getting back into and I have to tell Hon. Members, with respect to questions asked regarding the resignation and investigation of an Hon. Minister, a question of privilege or
January 21, 1988

point of order is not the place to pursue it. I am going to be quite firm in closing off any further comment in that respect under the guise of the question of privilege of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).
I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) on what I hope is a somewhat different matter.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood has not been clarified and there is-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest respect to the Hon. Member for Churchill, who has been of great assistance to me as Speaker on many occasions, I do not take lightly what he may wish to say. However, I am in some difficulty here. I think I heard clearly what the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister said and 1 have certainly taken that as a complete clarification and withdrawal of any suggestion that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood was in any way guilty of anything wrong. Having said that, that ends the issue. Hon. Members will have to respect the position of the Chair in that regard.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 accept the ruling that you have just given but there is a new issue here. A similar remark was made concerning the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) today. While he may have withdrawn remarks made about the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), 1 hope he will take a brief moment and make a similar and unequivocal withdrawal of any remarks which may have harmed the reputation of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course I would be glad to do so in the same spirit that I did with respect to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood. I was only using those as examples of issues which were investigated by the same officer of Parliament. Quite frankly, all I am suggesting to Hon. Members is that when we get into this sort of thing we should remember that when we are questioning the integrity or judgment of individuals, we do it right across the board. We cannot do it in a selective manner.


Mr. Speaker:: I notice the Hon. Member for Lethbridge- Foothills (Mr. Thacker) wishes to rise.



POINT OF ORDER


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, as a long-time Member of this House I must say that I am absolutely astounded by the
Point of Order-Mr. Thacker
line of questioning followed by both opposition Parties. I want to say why as a Member of this House-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been given the floor. He should advise the Chair if he is rising on a question of privilege or point of order before getting into a long argument.


Blaine Allen Thacker: It is a point of order as to whether or not perhaps yourself, as president of this assembly, should permit that type of question. As we all know, all sorts of charges can be laid and allegations made and those are handled, sometimes in a court of law; in this case, by the law of Parliament, the commissioner has that power. The RCMP are not judges.
If we are to get into the case of the Hon. Member for Frontenac (Mr. Masse) because of a leaked letter, then we have to get into all the supporting documents which might have been put before the commissioner with respect to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). We should not get into that at all, and I submit that perhaps as Speaker you should stop all of those types of questions.
The commissioner authorized by Parliament made the decision whether to prosecute or not. When he decides not to prosecute the slate is clean. There are no allegations that can be made against anyone.
As I said, I was quite shocked and astounded that Hon. Members would make that allegation against the Hon. Member for Frontenac because we will have to make the same ones against their people.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has risen and I thank him for not getting into extensive further debate on the issue raised in Question Period. However, I will take the Hon. Member's comments as a suggestion. I know it is suggested in the best spirit of this place, and it is perfectly proper to bring to the attention of the Chair the possibility that the Chair may have allowed some questions which under the circumstances ought not to be allowed. I will say this to the Hon. Member. Having allowed those questions, they cannot of course be undone. However, I will examine them carefully.
I am indebted to senior Members of this place who may from time to time wish to draw to the Chair's attention the possibility of error. 1 felt under the circumstances that the questions were appropriate, but I certainly will take into account the fact that the Hon. Member for Lethbridge- Foothills (Mr. Thacker) and perhaps some other Hon. Members may have felt that I extended too much latitude. I will examine that tonight.
I certainly want Hon. Members to know that the Chair does not take offence if Hon. Members bring to the Chair a question which perhaps the Chair should review, and I accept the suggestions of the Hon. Member in that regard.

January 21, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Thacker


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour is to take into account the proposal made by my hon. colleague and start examining how much latitude you had given an Hon. Member, I would hope that you would listen to other points of view as well. We operate under the British parliamentary system and Your Honour and all my colleagues know that I am a great defender of the British parliamentary system. That British parliamentary system gives a lot of latitude to Members as to their way of questioning.
As much as we may resent the way some Members may ask questions, to me it is irrelevant under the British parliamentary system. If an Hon. Member chooses to go along a certain line, that may be resented by some other Hon. Members. I believe the Speaker is the supreme authority and will exercise his authority, having in mind the British parliamentary system which has worked very well for Canada. In the past, there were many things that I did not like, but I accepted them because they originated from the British parliamentary system, a good system.
The Hon. Member is saying that in certain cases the Speaker should exercise his final authority, though 1 know the Speaker is too wise a man to jump too quickly to the conclusion that what was done today should not be repeated because then he will create a precedent with which we would not like to live in the future.
I do not question the sagacity or wisdom of my hon. colleague's intervention. However, even he may not like his own intervention tomorrow if we were to enter into a very difficult debate for which there was already a precedent. What 1 like about the British parliamentary system, but what may sometimes not be to our tastes, is the strength of precedents. Because Mr. Speaker so and so, on a certain occasion many years ago, said the following, we shall today say the same. I do accept that, but we should not ask the Speaker to set a precedent with which the Hon. Member himself may not be ready to live in the days, months or years to come.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I will speak strictly to the point of order. I do believe that it is important for Members of the House, even for government Members, to be able to ask questions when they believe there is a need to do so. In this case the government Member said that the Commissioner of Elections made a decision on November 28, 1985, and therefore we in Opposition should not be able to ask questions on this matter. That is completely out of place.
The Commissioner made his decision and released a press release at that time which left a certain impression in the minds of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and others. We did not raise questions after the issuance of that press release because we were also left with a certain impression at that time. However, we now have a letter before us which gives us a different impression, an impression which demands that certain questions be asked in the House.
After examination, we have found that the letter sent to at least one other Hon. Member of the House by the Commissioner of Elections, the letter sent to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), was a different letter from the secret letter that was sent to the Hon. Member for Frontenac (Mr. Masse). The fact that these two letters are different and that one letter, the letter to the Hon. Member for Frontenac, ended by saying that the letter would be kept secret indicates that there is a reason for the issue to be raised in Parliament. I think-


Mr. Speaker:: I always welcome the assistance of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). Perhaps it is appropriate for me to say that while the Chair has listened, as I think the Chair is bound to listen, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) took a position with respect to the sometimes difficult line between what is an acceptable question and what is not an acceptable question.
I have listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) who has served in this House for longer than most of us and whose judgment on these matters is of very considerable importance, especially to the Chair, and who has reminded the Chair that there is an obligation and a duty to ask questions, and that in order to pursue the truth some latitude must be exercised. I have said to Hon. Members in the past, and 1 will say it again, that even in a difficult matter my view is that not only does the Opposition have a right to inquire, despite the fact that it may be a difficult matter, it indeed has a duty. I hope Hon. Members will agree that I as Chair have tried, as 1 intend to continue to do, to diligently apply the rules in such a way that there is in every real sense the free and proper right to ask questions, as there must also be the full opportunity of reply, subject of course only to this. We must not ask questions in such a way that inappropriately and wrongly traduce or destroy the reputations of other people.
1 know that the Hon. Member for Churchill is making the point that despite the fact that sometimes questions are difficult and awkward, and sometimes on difficult issues even worse, the Chair ought not to be too restrictive. As I said earlier, questions were asked today and I allowed them. I allowed them because I thought they were appropriate, despite the fact that it was a difficult issue. As I have said, of course I will read carefully those questions and answers because, as I have said to the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills, the Chair has an obligation to consider a concern if it is raised by an Hon. Member.
I think we have probably gone just about as far as we need to go. However, I indicated that I would hear the Hon. Minister and I would welcome his intervention.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Just by way of background, Your Honour and I were elected at the same time, and you will recall that in the early days of our time in this House it was common practice during all periods of
January 21, 1988

parliamentary debate, including Question Period, for Hon, Members to rise on points of order and questions of privilege if they felt that a question, comment or statement was in fact contrary to the rules as set out in the Standing Orders or in Beauchesne's. That practice carries on during debate now and the Chair does not always respond to every obvious violation of Standing Orders or practices of Beauchesne's, but the Chair certainly listens if someone rises on a point of order or a question of privilege in relation to a statement made, and the Chair reacts to that.
Because of the time that was taken up during Question Period with points of order and questions of privilege, the House decided, with agreement on both sides, that we would no longer permit points of order and questions of privilege during Question Period. That created a dilemma, 1 believe, and has over time caused the practices of the House in Question Period to change, not so much by deliberate choice or by decision of the House that this is the way we should go, but rather by the fact that there was then missing an opportunity to identify on a timely basis changes in procedures, questions and responses that may not have been in keeping with the practices as set out in the Standing Orders or in Beauchesne's.
I do not want to go into the details of the matter. I was of the opinion that parts of the questions raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party were out of order simply because they asked a question of the Government that was beyond the Government's competence. I would have to read the "blues", but they were something to the effect of why the Commissioner of Elections took such and such an action. That is clearly beyond our competence. Had that been asked in normal debate or prior to the change in rules I would have been on my feet to say, on a point of order, that that question was out of order. The Chair could have agreed or disagreed with me at that point. My point is that through practice there have been no opportunities for Members on either side to raise those kinds of things.
I welcomed in your response to the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), Mr. Speaker, the indication that the Chair welcomes these kinds of observations and that, should Members believe that certain questions are out of order at any time, the House need not assume that each and every question has been carefully considered by the Chair and should be assumed to be in order unless the Chair ruled them out of order. In fact, the Chair welcomes observations about their appropriateness, propriety, and so on, and would take them into account.
1 welcome that. I hope we would re-establish that practice. I believe it is Citation 359 of Beauchesne's which describes the kind of questions that are allowed, which bears no relationship to what happens here now. I am not sure that it is the result of a carefully thought out decision on anyone's part what we want this place to become and how we want to project to the public that sent us here. Rather, 1 think it has arisen in part because of the inability, through the changes we made, to have
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
an opportunity for discussion on both sides to determine what is appropriate demeanour, response, and so on.
I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. I think we would do greater service to the public if we were a little more careful sometimes, if we had the opportunity to examine what we were doing, and if we exercised better judgment. I hope f am not being unfair, but too often it seems that it is the demands of the ten o'clock and eleven o'clock news which dictate behaviour in this Chamber rather than what we as parliamentarians in our heart of hearts would like to see this Chamber do.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the comments of Hon. Members. Those of us who were here some years ago will remember that a point of order or question of privilege was a very effective way of sidetracking Question Period. While they cannot now be raised at that time, I want to assure the House that when Members have concerns, as they do from time to time, as your Speaker I want to hear about them. In most cases the suggestions and counsel that are received from Members here are indeed of help to the Chair.
The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has a question of privilege of which I have received notice. It is somewhat complicated and I will hear him now.



PRIVILEGE


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the issue is a little bit complicated. 1 will try to give you some idea as quickly as possible of from where the question of privilege flows.
A Bill known as Bill C-31 was passed by the House on June 12, 1985. Clause 22 of that Bill has two requirements, the first one being that the Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, not later than two years after the Act is assented to, a series of items of information in relation to Bill C-31, including the number of people involved, the names and number of bands, and the impact of amendments on the lands and resources of the bands.
My question of privilege does not flow directly from that clause but from subclause (2) which says:
Such committee of Parliament as may be designated or established for the purposes of this subsection shall-
-not "may", but "shall"-"forthwith"-and its "forthwith", not "sometime in the distant future"-
-further on after the report of the Minister is tabled under subsection (1), review that report and may, in the course of that review, undertake a review of any provision of the Indian Act enacted by this Act.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) did table a report in June, 1987, as was required. There was a rather lengthy debate, as you might recall, in this House as a result of the fact that there was almost no information in the report. However, that is a debatable point.

January 21, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
The point I want to get to is that the committee of Parliament, which has been designated by this House as the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, shall report forthwith. That report has been before the Standing Commmittee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development since June, 1987. In various areas and bodies of law in the country there are definitions of what "forthwith" means. In some areas of law it can mean a few days. In other areas it means other things. To Parliament, obviously, it means the requirement to move with some kind of speed.
The difficulty is that last year there was a Chair appointed by the Government for the committee on aboriginal affairs but the committee was not called for nine calendar months last year. No witnesses were heard and no business was undertaken. I am not certain what could possibly have gone on to cause the committee not to sit.
However, last fall I was appointed to the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and am the permanent member of it. A steering committee meeting was held and a new Chair was chosen. As my colleague, the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), and I have said on the record to the Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil), we were prepared to call it a new day in the committee and try to get the committee going. We began to invite witnesses in relation to Bill C-31 as we have a statutory responsibility to do. We invited the Assembly of First Nations, the Prairie Treaty Nations Alliance, and the Native Council of Canada, and we started moving on with other groups of witnesses.
Just before the break a committee meeting was held and a decision was taken there by motion and vote to call Mr. Justice E. Davey Fulton before the committee in February in relation to the Lubicon Indian band. The clerk of the committee was in touch with Mr. Fulton and he agreed to come on February 9. A very cordial and businesslike meeting of the committee was held with regard to the calling of other witnesses.
It was decided by all three Parties which were represented there that, because of the large number of witnesses-the Native Women's Association, and various bands, tribal councils and groups from across the country-who wanted to come, the job should be left to the staff and the clerk of the committee to request the presence of those witnesses on certain days beginning on Tuesday of this week for a full day of hearings and today for a full day of hearings.
The concern that I have, Mr. Speaker, is that without any notice or any attempt to give you notice by phone or mail, through the clerk or by any other means, the Chair of the committee cancelled all of those witnesses and all of those committee meetings. In some situations this might be seen only as an unfortunate situation, but this appears to be a conscious design in that once the committee stopped sitting last year it never sat again. It did not sit week after week until it had gone
for nine months without sitting. The only committee of Parliament that did not sit during those months was the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
The concern that I have is that members of that committee at the very least, if not all Members of the House, are in some way, albeit in a grey area, in breach of the law. I direct you, Mr. Speaker, to look at Clause 16 which comes just before Clause 22, which says that should an aboriginal Canadian, Indian, Inuit, or Metis, violate any clause of Bill C-31 they are liable to extensive fines and up to six months' imprisonment. There are jail terms and fines for any aboriginal person who contravenes any clause of this Act, but neither the Minister nor the committee has done what is required by the law.
It seems to me that there is an intentional blockage of the committee. I came here with my schedule prepared for a full day of hearings on Tuesday. I learned only yesterday, and confirmed it this morning, that all of the witnesses and all of the hearings were cancelled for today as well. This leads me to believe that members of the committee are in some way already in breach of Section 22(2). There must at some point be a definition of "forthwith". It surely cannot mean never. If saying that a parliamentary committee must report forthwith means that it never has to report, that is an interesting new definition of forthwith, albeit something which many aboriginal people have come to expect.
I have had calls from aboriginal groups who have been denied their right to appear as witnesses. It is starting to cast a shadow, and not only upon the Government. There are many aboriginal people who are extremely angry with the Government because of its policies. However, this is now casting a pall upon all Members.
My final point is that I have things to do in terms of serving my constituency. I arranged my time to be here for committees that were scheduled six weeks ago. On Monday of this week the Chair of the committee cancelled those for Tuesday. I am not sure when he cancelled the hearings for today.
I cannot arrange my calendar to the whim of a chairman who has never called me. He has been in the House every day but has never spoken to me or given me a note. At some point 1 think the Chair will have to rule on the meaning of "forthwith", whether we are in breach of the law, and at what point the cancelling or lack of holding of committee meetings reaches the privileges and reforms of the House. I am prepared to move a motion to move this entire matter before the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, where I think it should best be resolved.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has certainly put his case succinctly and has given the Chair a clear and concise statement of the facts and points in issue, which is helpful.
January 21, 1988

I will hear other Members, certainly the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).
Of course, the Hon Member for Skeena has every right to put his case fully, as he has done. However, I now want any other Member who may address the Chair on this issue to keep in mind my gentle but nonetheless what I believe appropriate comments before Christmas on several judgments, that it has to indeed be a very serious matter before the Chair could be entitled to interfere into proceedings that are held by a committee.
If something is going on or not going on in a committee that takes it out of the ordinary and in fact works against the capacity of the Member to do his or her duty as a Member of Parliament, then there may be cases where the Chair can intervene. However, I need assistance from Members now as to whether these facts take us into what 1 would call that exceptional category.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, your instructions regarding how we should approach this question of privilege are most helpful. Indeed, I will argue that there are such circumstances that do call for intervention from another authority.
All Hon. Members in the House will know that ordinarily, as Your Honour has suggested, committees are masters of their own arrangements. They control the manner and the rate in which they do their business. We could call that a precedent of the House of Commons. The committees are only subject to Standing Orders.
For example, if a committee refuses to meet, then it can invoke Standing Order 92(2), which states that four members may require a meeting. I will not go over that Standing Order and take up your time, but would just add that when there are only two opposition Members on a committee, Standing Order 92(2) very quickly becomes inoperative.
If we were to argue just that, we would be bringing to your attention something that could be called a grievance rather than a privilege and you would be quite correct in dismissing it forthwith.
However, the current situation with the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Committee is really quite different.
I want to argue that at the present time the aboriginal affairs committee of the House is under the obligation of law to fulfil certain duties. Namely, it is to look at the impact of Bill C-31 and is required to report to Parliament as to what changes are necessary. It is a statutory obligation, laid upon the aboriginal affairs committee.
According to Beauchesne 4th Edition, Citation 13, page 12, whenever there is an expressed order of the House, whenever there is a statute or statute regulation, that supersedes every mere usage or precedent. Therefore, the concerns that you raised about whether we were just calling upon you to interfere with the operation of a committee, you can see immediately that we go well beyond that because we are under the obligation of the law.
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
The Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and myself, as members of this committee, want very much to fulfil our statutory obligations. However, we believe that we are being prevented from doing so. When an Hon. Member is in any way prevented from carrying out his or her duties, then I would argue that this becomes a prima facie case of privilege.
Let me illustrate. Before the Christmas recess, it was agreed by all Members that we would allow the staff to do the scheduling, to call the witnesses and immediately upon resumption of Parliament, beginning this week of January 18, we would get down to work. Those witnesses were properly notified. They made their travel plans and were prepared to be here. Then, unilaterally, on his own volition, the Chairman cancelled all the meetings. All of those witnesses had to be notified not to come to Ottawa and they were inconvenienced and extremely angry and upset.
I think it could be argued that the Chairman is breaking the law. There is in the Criminal Code of Canada a very generalized penalty for breaking any statute. However, I will not argue that point at all because I would not want to tempt the Speaker to tell me to refer this matter to the Attorney General of Canada and have the matter delayed.
What we need is immediate action from Your Honour. If the chairman of the committee will not follow the law on his own volition, he must be directed to do so by someone who has authority over him. You, Sir, as the first among equals in this House, have that authority to order Members of Parliament to obey the law as that law impinges directly on them. Therefore, I am asking you to rule in favour of a question of privilege so that the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure can fully review this matter and be empowered to issue very strict orders that the committee must meet and must report because the law requires it to do so.
Let me add another illustration. If the Auditor General of Canada did not carry out his important duties and report to Parliament, there would be an outcry. If the Public Accounts Committee did not meet to consider a report from the Auditor General, that would be a serious matter. It would be a grievance, but no law would be broken.
The Auditor General, however, must audit and the Auditor General must report. The law requires him to do so. He is under a statutory obligation.
Similarly in this case, 1 am arguing that the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Committee does not just operate on its own will. It is under the obligation of Section 22(2) of an Act of Parliament under Bill C-31. It is operating under the law and must, therefore, meet forthwith.
The Hon. Member for Skeena indicated that the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) reported on June 26, 1987. The aboriginal affairs commmittee did not have a single meeting on Bill C-31 until December 10 and the Statute says that it is to meet forthwith. How liberally can one interpret the term "forthwith"?

January 21, 1988
Business of the House
1 call upon you, Sir, to intervene in the name of the law and to get this committee working and operative so that its statutory obligations can be fulfilled.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I proceed to the next Member, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) referred to Beauchesne. He gave a page and citation. Would he assist the Chair?


B. Keith Penner: 1 was referring to Beauchesne 4th Edition, page 12, Citation 13.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the point under discussion, as Chairman of the committee in question.
With respect to the initial point of meeting forthwith, the Speaker and the House should know that the committee in fact had several meetings prior to Christmas. Several of those meetings were unusually long in an effort to respond to the need to examine the implications of Bill C-31.
With respect to the second point about cancellation of meetings, there has been no cancellation. No meetings were ever called. It is true that some witnesses were contacted.
A rescheduling process has taken place with some of those witnesses. If the Members who preceded me had been thorough in their comments they should also have commented that I have instructed the clerk to formally call meetings for next Tuesday and next Thursday. The clerk had this knowledge this morning and, indeed, yesterday. I am surprised that the Hon. Members did not bring forward this information.
I repeat, no meetings have been cancelled. Some witnesses were called. Tentative schedules were discussed. A rescheduling process is under way. A tentative re-scheduling process has been drafted. It will be presented to the committee on Tuesday. It is an ambitious program to examine the implications of Bill C-31 and I am sure all committee members will be pleased with the plan which the Chairman will bring forward to the committee on Tuesday.
Although the statute in question requires that an examination be undertaken forthwith, it does not require that conclusions be made in an immediate way. Therefore 1 do not share the concerns of the previous speakers. I believe the committee is moving along in a very aggressive way.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist Hon. Members. 1 have listened very carefully to the Hon. Member who is the Chairperson of the committee. What 1 would prefer to do at the moment is to adjourn this application of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). It may well be that the matters complained of are about to be corrected. However, I do not sit in judgment on that.
I do want to repeat again, in the interests of all Hon. Members and in the interests of members of the public who watch this place, it has to be an exceptional matter, indeed, for the Chair to interfere with committee proceedings. I am not saying, and I have never said, that something might not go wrong in a committee that would require the Chair's intervention. If I think something is happening in committee where, under exceptional circumstances, Members are not allowed to get on with the business they were sent here to do then that, of course, gets awfully close to privilege and the Chair would have to consider it.
I think I can save everyone some time, perhaps, by adjourning this matter, leaving, of course, all rights open, and I want to thank Hon. Members and the Chairperson, who obviously returned from some other obligations to come into the House and assist the Chair. The matter is adjourned and I will return to the House with this matter if it is necessary to do so.


Mr. Lewis:: With respect to this matter, we did discuss this at length and the Chair brought down an excellent ruling prior to Christmas vis-a-vis what matters of privilege that happen in committee should be dealt with by the House. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that point ought to be the first point established in a question of privilege dealing with committee matters.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my calendar says today is Thursday. That being the case I do want to ask the Deputy Government House Leader to give us a statement of Government business for the next seven days.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, with respect to today, despite what I consider to be an unnecessary delay, we had hoped we would be able to complete the important legislation on the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Unfortunately, the protracted debate has delayed that. However, we would hope the Opposition would see fit to let that important Bill go to committee and not stall it any longer.
Tomorrow we will deal with a variety of Bills, depending on the availability of critics. We appreciate that people have other things they may perhaps be doing. I am referring to Bill C-104 which deals with the Statutes of Canada, Bill C-99, the Currency Act, Bill C-96, amendments affecting agricultural matters, and Bill C-91, which is under Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
January 21, 1988

We will be designating Monday as an allotted day. With respect to Tuesday, we have been continuing discussions with respect to the amendments which have been sent back from the Senate with respect to Bill C-84 and we may or may not be able to proceed with those. We are also looking at Bill C-60, the report and third reading of the Copyright Act.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I want to thank the Government House Leader for his statement. However, I do want to take exception to his use of the word "stall" with reference to the exercising by Hon. Members of their right, in fact obligation, to take part in debates in this House on important matters. 1 do not think that speeches by Hon. Members, including Hon. Members on the Minister's own side of the House, should be subtly criticized by being referred to as "stalling". That certainly is not the case and I am sure the Minister knows better.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, I too want to say that we appreciate receiving this tentative agenda for work planned for the House of Commons. But like my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), has indicated, I want to register my concern at the Deputy Government House Leader's remark that we are holding up legislation. If my recollection serves me, we have had probably four or five speakers from the New Democratic Party on a Bill that the Economic Council has recognized as one of the most important issues economically facing our country in this decade.
I,	for one, certainly do not apologize for spending two or three days talking about this Bill. It is a very important Bill. It has major flaws attached to it. I just do not want to give any impression that we will accept the notion that we are somehow prolonging unnecessarily the debate on this Bill. I think if one looks at our track record, one can see the tremendous amount of co-operation the opposition Parties have shown. It has resulted in a tremendous amount of legislation actually having moved through the House of Commons in the last number of months. There has been a tremendous amount of co-operation. And we plan to continue to do that. However, when it comes to very important pieces of legislation, such as is Bill C-103, we want to ensure that Members have an adequate opportunity to provide their views, particularly to point out in this case the shortcomings of this legislation.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that it has been a difficult week for my colleagues and I want to withdraw any implication that in debating this Bill they were stalling. I said it in an off-hand manner and in no way did I intend to impute any ulterior motives.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I realize that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is rising, wishing to continue on the question or comments following the intervention of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil). Unfortunately, as the Hon. Member has had to leave the House, that period for questions or comments is, therefore, eliminated. We are now resuming debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the 10 minute interval is for comments or questions. I do not see that the fact that the member is not here makes any difference. He knew this was going to be the comment and question time. It is obviously impossible to ask him a question but it is still possible to make a comment, if Members so wish.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: This is a question that has arisen in the House on quite a few occasions previously. At other times as well the occupant of the Chair has always seen fit to resume debate. The comments or questions following an Hon. Member's intervention should normally be followed by the Member's own answer on to the comments or questions. As other occupants of the Chair before me have done whenever the Member has had to leave the House, the period for questions or comments has been eliminated. Resuming debate.


Mr. Althouse:: Madam Speaker, I am very aware of the previous rulings on this particular matter, but I would submit to Your Honour that there is a slight difference in this particular case because the Hon. Member for Skeena, I believe, had the floor at one o'clock and was in mid comment-


James Ross Fulton: No, no. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) was, then he left.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Hon. Member had the floor when one o'clock was called and I think that this is a slight variation from anything the Chair has ruled on before, if my recollection is correct.

January 21, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


Jack Harris: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) was in midspeech when the clock reached one o'clock, at which time Your Honour interrupted to say that perhaps the Hon. Member would like to continue his remarks when debate resumed. I now see that this is perhaps a different point of order.
Is the Chair suggesting that the ruling is that a Member by walking out of the House can prevent another Member from continuing a speech that is being made? If that is the rule then this is quite a different point of order from the one that was previously made. It would seem to me to indicate that if I do not like what someone is saying, especially in terms of a comment being made by a Member opposite, then I can get up and leave my chair and, all of a sudden, the question and comment period ceases. If 1 do not like a question or the tone of voice of an Hon. Member, then I can walk out and that would stop a speech from being made, or a comment. I do not think that that is the intention of the Chair in making the previous rulings that Members of the House by removing themselves can stop someone from speaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair's feeling is that, contrary to what the Hon. Member is saying, if a Member is not in agreement with what he or she hears then he or she would want to stay to have the opportunity to answer.
I would like to go back to a ruling made by the Speaker in 1985 in which he stated:
Therefore, it is to me not sensible when a debate has been adjourned for a
normal period of time, overnight or a lunch period or a week or whatever, to
allow the questions and the comments to continue in the unavoidable absence
of the Member who made the speech.
That ruling shall stand. We can now either resume debate, or is the House ready for the question? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on debate.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill that is before us today. It has two principal sections in it, one being the establishment of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and the other being the establishment of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
This is an interesting piece of legislation. We have seen this type of thing laid out before the House before. What is really behind it is what residents of Atlantic Canada would like to know more about. 1 say that because they certainly have been given a great deal of bluster and shell game by government Members, including a Minister who spoke this morning, as to what is really happening in terms of the Bill. We know roughly what kind of new or old money will be allocated. It is just over $1 billion over five years, that is, just over $200 million per year.
The Bill purports to be a new kind of decentralization. A special board will be created and so on. As I intend to point out, there is far less money than there used to be, either under
the present Government or under any other previous Government in terms of real dollars per capita for regional development in Atlantic Canada. There really is not the kind of decentralization that government Members herald this measure to be.
I think a great many Atlantic Canadians would like to know what is really happening in terms of job creation in Canada, what free trade will mean and what these two new agencies will mean in terms of economic development, and whether or not small and medium-sized businesses, to which they are supposedly targeted, are the ones which will really benefit. We have to do a bit of looking to see whether or not what the Government is telling the people of Atlantic Canada is in fact what will happen. That is the proper role of MPs, whether they be government Members or opposition Members. It is certainly the role of opposition Members.
Statistics were released last year with respect to where jobs were being created in Canada. Such was reported on February 28, 1987, in The Globe and Mail. It was stated in an article in that newspaper that day that between January, 1986, and January, 1987, the total number of jobs in the country rose by 137,000, according to unadjusted figures, but only 5,000 of those jobs were created outside of Ontario. That certainly was and is well known in western Canada, which is where I come from. 1 come from an area not terribly different from some parts of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or certainly some areas of the Province of Quebec, if we include some of its areas as having the type of employment difficulties that are found in much of rural, northern and maritime Canada.
The games that can be played with figures are many. We heard the Minister and various Members from the government side claiming that this is new money and that it is more money. They said that it would really be the initiative that would finally get Atlantic Canada's economy going. Then, on March 7, 1987, not too long after this article pointing out where jobs were really being created was printed, it was pointed out that it is those regions of the country where we are starting to find real sluggishness in the economy. We see that in the areas of the country where the economy is really at work there is no unemployment. 1 refer to Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe, or the Golden Triangle, or whatever one calls it depending on what part of the country one lives in.
Many Atlantic Canadians were interested when the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) said that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency may be the last kick at the can as far as development programs for the region from the federal Government are concerned. He went on to say, "I think it will work but it may be the last kick at the can from what the federal Government may do in the region". What does the Minister of Public Works mean? I think we have to look at some figures to find out just exactly what this means.
We can look at some federal Government figures to give us some idea of why this is really a shell game, that these are not
January 21, 1988

new dollars or that this is not some kind of a great new initiative. In the regional development envelope, between the time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) took office and now, there has been a reduction of $2.89 billion between fiscal 1984-85 and fiscal 1987-88. That figure will certainly rise to well beyond $3 billion by the time we end this fiscal year. There were cuts in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion to the tune of $200 million in the first year the Conservative Government was in office. Some $100 million more was cut from the Department in 1985-86, while $150 million was cut from the Department last year. There have been all kinds of other cuts to the regional economy of Atlantic Canada. Some $16 million was cut from the East Coast ferry services. There was $100 million cut in Cape Breton alone in relation to the 700 jobs that were lost at the heavy water plants. The estimate, which is clearly accurate and perhaps even on the conservative side, is that on an annual basis since the election of the present Government there has been a cut in federal spending in the Atlantic region of $1 billion.
If we take a look at the figures we will see that there is around $200 million per year being proposed under these agencies being set up in Atlantic Canada with these boards having anywhere from up to 20 members. While $1 billion is being cut, $200 million is being replaced. This, of course, is something that Governments are embarrassed to admit, rather than announcing their plans year by year and saying, "We are taking $800 million away and we are giving you $200 million". A great many Governments forget that those dollars come from the people of Atlantic Canada. They come from Canadians. They are not printed solely here in Ottawa by Governments as they come and go from power.
What is happening is that the Government, rather than announcing the initiative province by province, a few million here and a few million there per year, adds all the provinces together and then multiplies by five. Why does it not multiply by 10? My colleagues have touched on this before. Why does it not multiply by 20, 30, or 40 to make it sound like some substantial amount of money? Certainly Atlantic Canadians and Canadians I represent in the most western constituency of Canada do not forget very quickly that this is the Government that, on a quick, late evening phone call signed a cheque and gave a $500 million gift to the Reichmann brothers in Toronto to help them along with their Gulf deal. They like to call it a tax break-the Little Egypt Bump-they do not like to admit that it is gift wrapped. Those are real dollars. They are not 50 cent or 80 cent dollars. The $500 million that was given to the Reichmanns was real Canadian taxpayers' dollars. Of course, there was the billion for the bank bail-out, and the billion for the bail-out of bad loans that banks had offshore. There is lots of money to be spent out of Ottawa, but the priorities of the Conservative Government are what have to be looked at. Those two agencies are being sold very much as a pig in a poke to Atlantic Canadians.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
We have to take a look at what the Government has been saying this really is. They claim that it is decentralized control over regional development. Many Atlantic Canadians found there was too much bureaucracy, it was too difficult to get through to Ottawa, it was too difficult to find out what the programs were, and it tended to be seen very much more as a straight patronage oriented operation whenever money was spent.
Senator Lowell Murray, the Minister responsible for the new agency, ACOA, was reported in the Globe and Mail on June 27, 1987 as saying that final decisions will be made by him in Ottawa. "The ultimate responsibility rests with me," and a Cabinet committee made up of the six federal Ministers from the Atlantic region.
The Bill claims that the decisions are being put into the hands of some Atlantic Canadians from various areas of Atlantic Canada and that they are going to make the decisions. But we find that just as the Government does not want to give as much money as it is taking away, it also does not want to give the type of decentralized decision-making that it claims this Bill is all about.
The power of the Minister and the lack of autonomy of the agency is clearly articulated. Anyone who wishes to read it will find it in Clauses 5, 6, 7, and 20, that is regarding the role and powers of the Minister. Clause 11 reveals the ties that the President of the agency has with the Minister in that the President is the deputy of the Minister and is "under the direction of the Minister".
It is worth taking a moment to take a look at what has generally happened over the years with the commitments from Ottawa regardless of Government, and we find that there has been a decline. Over the last 25 years less than 3 per cent of total federal economic expenditures have been applied to regional development. That is a statement that 1 feel very much involved in, in terms of what types of money is actually returned to the north coast.
We have a salmon industry that is worth $750 million a year. Huge amounts of taxes are paid on that. We have Prince Rupert Grain operating once again. As a matter of fact, it started moving grain only a couple of hours ago. A very substantia! amount of revenue is created and generated for farmers across the country as a result of the operation of that grain elevator, or Ridley Terminals, for the movement of northeast coal from northeastern British Columbia, Tumbler Ridge, and so on down and out through Prince Rupert.
I know how rarely it is that federal economic development moneys make it out to the distant regions of the country, whether it is in the forest sector, in relation to new technology, research and development for sawmills and so on; whether it is in the fishery sector, in the mining sector, or in generalized small and medium sized businesses. That is why all Canadians, not only Atlantic Canadians, should take a close look at what type of legislation this Government is bringing forward.

January 21, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
It is clearly a pre-election period. We see the Prime Minister trying to live up to his promises that his Government would double the amount spent on research and development. He is never going to make it, but at least he is attempting to live up to some promises. There is the western development initiative, the Atlantic initiative, the northern Ontario initiative. There will be more initiatives between now and the election. They will always be for large areas and for many years or multiples of years, for five or ten years, to make the amount budgeted sound very large, whereas in fact the early years of expenditure are almost always very small. It is a political expediency and trickery that Canadians who live in the regions have come to expect not only of the Conservative Government but very much of the Trudeau years.
Explicit regional development expenditures in 1984-85 for all of Atlantic Canada were in the order of $230 million. We also have to weigh that. Many Atlantic Canadians or members of their families spend part of the year collecting unemployment insurance because of their seasonal employment, whether it is in the lobster fishery, the cod fishery, as shore workers, in the forest sector, or in small business or tourism. But the $230 million that this Government felt was appropriate for regional development in Atlantic Canada is only 15 per cent of what is paid in unemployment insurance. We have to take a look at that. There was $1.6 billion coming out through unemployment insurance payments. The total amount that is going in for regional development is one-seventh of that amount. We have to start thinking about that in terms of how Government makes expenditures and what are its priorities.
Let us look at expenditures under DRIE's industrial incentive programs. They have decreased in real terms from $9 per person almost 20 years ago in the 1969-70 fiscal period to $4 under the Government. These are not inflation related dollars, they are 1981 dollars. There was $9 per person 20 years ago and it is $4 per person now. If that is a commitment to the small and medium-sized enterprises in Atlantic Canada, it is not much of a commitment to be as nice as one possibly can.
Comparing Newfoundland to the area I come from in the Queen Charlotte Islands where there is a lot of fishing, forestry, and similar types of occupations and similar types of unemployment found in the areas, for Newfoundland the reduction in the same period was from $9 per person to $3 per person, while expenditures under the general development agreements and economic and regional development agreements, known as GDAs and ERDAs, have declined from $16 per person 13 years ago to $14 under this Government in the 1984-88 period. We are seeing a decline in all of those areas whether one looks at it in terms of fixed dollars or in any other way.
For Newfoundland the reduction was from $126 per person to $80 per person, while Ontario experienced an increase from $2 to $3 per person. When comparing what is happening in the regions, we are seeing a real decline, whether it is measured
over 20 years, 10 years, 5 years, or however it is measured. There is a reduction in the amount of real dollars going out for economic development into the regions, whether we are talking about the Atlantic region, northern British Columbia, or other regions of the country, whereas in the area of the country where there is no real measurable unemployment, because most of those people are moving between jobs which are found when there is 5 per cent unemployment, as is found in the constituency of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)-that is how low the unemployment is there-there is an increase.
My colleague from St. John's East (Mr. Harris) has kindly provided me with the most recent Statistics Canada unemployment rates in percentage. Last year in Newfoundland it was 18.6 per cent; in Prince Edward Island, 13.3; Nova Scotia, 12.5; New Brunswick, 13.2; Quebec, 10.3; Ontario, 6.1; Manitoba, 7.4; Saskatchewan, 7.3; Alberta, 9.6; and British Columbia, 12.0. We start getting some idea of what is happening in the country.
We heard from the Minister of State for Forestry another example of a promise made by the Prime Minister. There was going to be a full Ministry and Minister of Forestry as soon as the Government was elected. What did we get? We got a Minister of State for Forestry, who is very good at his job. I am not running him down for one moment. I think that he is very good at his job, and that is certainly what I hear from the sector. But we find that he has been buried. He has almost no staff, almost no Department, and to give him more work to do, mining was added on.
The regional occupations of a very substantial number of Canadians are in the forest sector. There are more than 1 million Canadians, if one takes those who are indirectly and directly employed in the forest sector. So we have a Minister of State with half a dozen senior staff, attempting to assist in terms of all the programs and everything that is going on. We know that the forest sector is running into some very difficult times as a result of bad management of the resource. There are too many companies cutting an ever diminishing number of mature and harvestable trees. In the mining sector again we see the Minister overloaded.
We have to ask why the Government would decide to try to confuse the voters of Atlantic Canada as to what is really being done. It cut the funds, then it announced a partial return, then that is multiplied by five and called a major new program, a major new initiative. Then the Minister of Pubic Works states that it is the "last kick at the can". If that is the way the Conservatives think they will catch the interest of Atlantic Canadians, I think they will find out soon enough that it is not acceptable.
The Bill will give ACOA control over federal regional development programs specifically related to the Atlantic
January 21, 1988

region-the Industrial and Regional Development Program, known as IRDP; the Atlantic Enterprise Program, known as AEP; the Small Businesses Loans Act as it relates to the region; IRDA subagreements in relation to forestry, tourism, and so on; and the Atlantic Development Program.
I think I have dealt with the key points that I wanted to cover in some detail. The Government has announced that it is the major and last initiative and that it is decentralization. 1 think 1 have demonstrated that it is the furthest thing from decentralization. In fact, as Senator Lowell Murray said, the control over this is remaining in his hands, and he is not even available for questioning in the House or from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), or any member of the Opposition. No one gets to question him because he is not a Member of Parliament. He is not responsible to anyone. He can make whatever kinds of decisions he wants. There has been no decentralization. In fact there has been a major chopping of money rather than the kind of topping up there should have been.
There is nothing in the legislation which specifically requires that jobs created are in any way to be considered fundamental to the awarding of ACOA funding. There is no targeting. In general terms it says that it is for small and medium-sized enterprises, but it does not include the rigid and precise kinds of definitions which provide results. Does a corporation have to create new jobs, or does it just have to create more profits? Can those profits be diverted elsewhere? There is a fundamental kind of language or targeting which can be included in Bills to allow Parliament and Atlantic Canadians to decide whether or not their money is being well spent.
I am sorry I do not have more time to speak today. There are all kinds of comments I would like to make about proposals which I think should be made for Atlantic Canada. Perhaps, if someone questioned me about that, I might take the opportunity to expound a little on what I think would be a better way of dealing with economic development initiatives in Atlantic Canada.


Jack Harris: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member what he has to say to the notion we heard in the House twice today, once from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil)-and the Hon. Member was commenting on it when the lunch break came- and once from the Deputy Government House Leader, that for some reason we were wasting the time of the House talking about this very important issue.
It is an issue which affects four provinces of the country. It is a most important issue. In the context of the business of the House, speakers from our Party wish to raise their concerns about the issue and to point out how government has failed, not only this Government but the previous Government as well.
Is it any wonder that the following conclusion can be reached by economists? I draw the attention of the House to
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
the comments of Elizabeth Beale, a consulting economist for the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. In the 1987 report she went back through 15 years of regional development programs of the Government of Canada, that is, this Government and the previous one. She says that there has been very little improvement in any of the major indicators of regional disparities between the Atlantic provinces and the country as a whole, and that the gap in unemployment rates is proportionately the same now as it was 15 years ago. She also indicates that although personal incomes have been raised slightly, the increase is attributable to the increase in personal transfer payments. She also says that funding for regional development efforts in recent years has been well below the peak reached in the late 1970s.
Is it any wonder-and I would like the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) to comment on this-that this is the case when the attention of the House cannot be directed to this issue for a period of four days or five days because the Deputy Government House Leader and a member of the government Party from Nova Scotia complain about the fact that we are talking about this issue on a national basis in the forum to which we were elected to debate issues of national importance? This is an issue of national importance. It is not only an issue of importance to Atlantic Canada.
I was pleased to see the Hon. Member for Skeena, whose riding is one of the farthest from my own, take the time to come to the House to speak on an issue of national importance. I would like to ask for his comments on that and for some suggestions he may have to improve regional development programs.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take the opportunity to do that. I share the concern of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) about the comments of the Government House Leader and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) concerning three days of debate on Atlantic Canada. I must say that when there are debates about British Columbia or Skeena, I love it and the people from Skeena love it. They know that some national attention is being given to their problems and to the issues affecting them.
I know why the Deputy Government House Leader, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso do not want it raised. It is because there is so little money and because it is a badly drafted piece of legislation. It is an embarrassment. If I were from Cape Breton I would not want it debated too long.
What if the real figures started being quoted in the papers? What if someone took out a chalkboard and a piece of chalk and said: "Just a minute now. It is $1 billion for five years for all the provinces, so it is $200 million for a year"? What if he went on to say: "But that is not just for Nova Scotia. It is for the four provinces"? Even if it is evenly divided-and it will

January 21, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
not be-it will amount to $50 million each. Then if we break that down into 12 months, it comes to about $4 million. If we break it down further, it comes to a couple of bucks a day. There is not very much.
I know why the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands- Canso is embarrassed. It is because there is not much money going to Cape Breton, to Nova Scotia, or to New Brunswick. This is why the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) was talking about things he used to do when he was in the provincial Cabinet. He had to talk about what they used to do 20 years ago. He did not want to talk about the money that is in there. He did not want to talk about the legislation. He was nervous. He was worried. He was paranoid. Those Tories have crowed the falsification for too long. I know why the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso did not come back for questions this afternoon. It was because I caught him being mischievous at the very best. He was saying that the NDP had supported the National Energy Program in western Canada. Tories from Alberta have loved to crow about that in every election. They have said that members of the NDP were supporters of the National Energy Program and that they destroyed the economy of western Canada. There are many western Canadians who know that that is a lot of bumf. Tories can go around and talk about it, but all they need to do is to look at the public record to see that we did not vote with the Liberals. We voted with the Tories. Is that not amazing? We opposed the National Energy Program. However, it makes good grist in rural ridings which have small newspapers. They can manage to get these stories out and move them around.
This is why government Members do not want this stuff debated. The media in Atlantic Canada are starting to pick up on it. They are starting to say: "Just a minute". They gave glowing coverage to this $1.05 billion. The Prime Minister got his shoulder to it and just managed to squeeze it over the $1 billion mark. He might as well have said that it was over six years rather than $1.05 billion over five years.
Why not tell the truth to each province? Why not tell Nova Scotia that it is only $20 million? We do not know how it will break down. What we do know is that it is controlled by Senator Lowell Murray who cannot be questioned by anybody in this place or by anyone in Atlantic Canada. He certainly is not responsible to this board. It is a remarkable state of affairs.
The Hon. Member for St. John's East says that it is good that I am involved in the debate. I feel good about being involved in the debate because I have been to Newfoundland and I know what problems are faced by Newfoundlanders. I have been to Nova Scotia. 1 have been to New Brunswick. 1 have been to P.E.I. I have been in the Province of Quebec. I have been in all Maritime and Atlantic areas, and the problems which are faced there are very similar to those in northwestern British Columbia. I represent an area which is almost the size of France, and it will be bigger in the next election. The Government thought: "give him something bigger to represent and maybe that will keep him quiet". Of course it will not. It will really get my blood pumping.
The Hon. Member for St. John's East referred to an important point which has been raised by a number of economists in Atlantic Canada. As I am sure he would know- and in fact he used it in his own speech-the Economic Council of Canada, in its report released on September 30, 1987, indicated that the issue of economic disparity, particularly regional economic disparity, will be the largest problem facing the country over the next five years. It said the national economy is likely to expand steadily in coming years but uneven regional growth will be the country's major economic problem. Does the Government respond? No. It sends $500 million in Loomis trucks down to the Reichmann Brothers in Toronto. It is sending $1 billion to the banks to pay off bad loans they made outside of Canada. It is sending $1 billion to bail out some of its pals in the banking industry out west. Yet what does it give for the whole of Atlantic Canada? Is it even as much as the Reichmann Brothers got in one present in 1987? No. It gives $200 million per year to the whole of Atlantic Canada.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want my friend to clarify his remark about trucks of money going out to western banks. I am not aware of any bank in western Canada, its management or shareholders, which has been bailed out. Would he just clarify that for me?


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, as I am sure anyone who is watching the debate will know, I used a metaphor. The money probably went out in the form of a cheque. If it was $2 bills or $10 bills it would probably amount to $400 or $500 Loomis trucks packed to the ceiling with bags of cash, bulging at the edges, on their way down to Toronto. The Reichmann brothers barely need to ask for it. Of course, Mickey Cohen, who worked here in Ottawa, knew how to get the cash for them.


Blaine Allen Thacker: My friend has not answered the question. He has not given me the name of the bank whose management or shareholders were bailed out. I am aware of a couple of banks where the depositors were paid, depositors such as credit unions who had deposited money in banks that got in trouble because of the National Energy Program. There were teacher's unions, hospitals, universities and municipal councils who were depositors as well. That seems to me to be quite different from bailing out banks and I just wanted him to know that the record should be clear.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member put that on the record. It was very useful. I am glad he has a good memory and remembers exactly who got part of the bail-out. What I am referring to is the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Cabinet decided it was more important to give $500 million cash, loaded in those Loomis trucks and sent down to Toronto, to the Reichmann brothers, the wealthiest family in Canada. This was the Gulf deal and the "Little Egypt Bump". It was better to give them $500

million than to give more money to Atlantic Canada for all those families who need the money.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)- External affairs-Situation in Haiti-Government position / Convening of meeting of most important countries involved in aid to Haitian people-Holding of inquiry-Government position; the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Fisheries-Issuance of offshore lobster fishing licences in Nova Scotia / Request for cancellation of licences; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-National defence-Awarding of CF-18 maintenance contract. Science and technology-Establishment of centres of excellence-Position of Manitoba Universities.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to speak this afternoon on Bill C-103. I know of the serious financial and economic difficulties which have been facing Atlantic Canada for many years. Even though when they joined Confederation they were one of the richest areas in the country, they have now suffered greatly. This Bill is designed to do something in that regard.
However, we are worried that it will be very similar to the northern Ontario recovery program which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) talked about in the fall of 1986. He told us then that because of the slow economic growth in northern Ontario, which is very similar to Atlantic Canada, he was considering a number of options. They included a federal
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
economic development committee, and a transfer of some federal agencies and services to northern Ontario. Project moneys were going to be dedicated to northern Ontario. A stabilization program was going to be established for the forest and mining industries. Special tax treatment was going to be given to equity investors in the region.
It is interesting to note that even though the Deputy Prime Minister said that on November 19, 1986, none of that has come to pass. Nothing has really happened. Something seemed to have happened last July. There was a grand announcement that the Government was establishing the Fednor program. It was going to establish a committee. Yet seven months later the program is not operational. You cannot find out by phoning any government office in Sudbury or Sault Ste. Marie or Thunder Bay what the criteria is for that program. Supposedly it will eventually provide some $8 million a year in loans or grants. Yet you cannot find out what that program will cover. Does it cover small business or large business? Does it cover manufacturing and processing or the service industry or transportation or whatever? We do not know. From what I have heard during this debate, ACOA does not know exactly what is going to be covered or how it will work.
I have a suspicion that even though the Fednor program for northern Ontario was announced by the Solicitor General and the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion last July 13, there was absolutely no money allocated for the fiscal year 1987-88. If not, then of course the whole thing is really a charade.
What other reason can there be for indicating that the Government wants to start a program like this in the fall of 1986 and 16 months have gone by and the application forms do not exist? The criteria for the program does not exist. There is only one very small aspect of the whole program even available. There is talk in the Deputy Prime Minister's statement about a stabilization program for forestry and mining. What a joke. Two months after the Minister made that statement in the House, the Government imposed an export tax of 15 per cent on the forest industry. Do you think that will stabilize the industry? In fact, it cost northern Ontario some $26 million in 1987 to stay in the softwood lumber exporting industry. Fortunately, because of a very strong market in the U.S., the industry has survived. However, as the market turns down in 1988, as many economic forecasters indicate it will, that export tax will be devastating to the industry.
There is another little hook here. The Ontario Government chose not to transfer that export tax to a stumpage charge. If it did, the amount could be twice the $25 million. I am surprised that any company in the softwood industry in northern Ontario could pay a tax of that magnitude and still survive. Clearly, if it is transferred to a stumpage charge, it will be that much more devastating.

January 21, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
The Deputy Prime Minister talked about a stabilization program for the mining industry. Six months after he said that, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) came into the House with a tax reform Bill which does away with flowthrough shares and the earned depletion allowance. That mechanism generated this year some $500 million or $600 million for mining exploration and development along the Lake Superior shore and the area North of Sudbury and across the north channel area. Exploration and development is now taking place, but it will not be when that program is phased out next year.
There is a whole series of assaults on northern Ontario at a time when the Government is talking glibly about a northern Ontario recovery program. 1 am sure the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will face the same kind of assaults. So many of the areas of Canada which have not been doing very well since the economic recession of 1981 have suffered difficulties from slow growth.
The other aspect mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister in November of 1986 was the transferring of whole government Departments to regions like northern Ontario. Yet looking at the facts, we see that some 1,300 jobs have actually been moved out of northern Ontario. Practically every government Department, whether it be the Post Office, Indian Affairs, Employment and Immigration or the Armed Forces, has been moved out. As well, another 500 people have been laid off as a result of the export tax which caused many of the softwood lumber and stud mills to be shut down.
There is almost a conspiracy against slow growth areas like northern Ontario at a time when the Government is talking about recovery programs. I am sure that Atlantic Canadians are facing the same difficulties. My concern is that we do not simply pick out of the air nice, glib names like northern Ontario recovery program or Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency without actually putting money into these areas where so many other economic factors apply.
This afternoon, 1 heard the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) say how wonderful free trade would be for the Province of New Brunswick. However, it was only two weeks ago that Harrison McCain of McCain Foods, one of the largest food processing companies in Canada, said on a Sunday morning news magazine that the whole free trade arrangement which would remove tariffs on processed foods but maintain marketing boards will simply not work. He said that there will be only two choices for the grocery manufacturing industry to make: to destroy the marketing boards for poultry, turkeys, eggs and dairy products, marketing boards which the Government is trying to maintain, or to move processing plants to the United States.
Mr. McCain said that he could live with it either way. He said that he had plants operating in the United States as well as plants operating in Canada. He would prefer to continue to supply the Canadian market from his plants in Canada, but if
the Government chooses to go ahead with the free trade agreement, he will simply operate the plants in the United States and ship the food into Canada.
1 believe that that is one of the least understood aspects of the free trade deal. The grocery manufacturing sector is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada. Gross volumes of sales amount to some $40 billion per year. The sector employs
225,000	people, more than the total number of farmers in Canada who are making above the economic minimum of $20,000 in gross revenues.
The free trade agreement will increase quotas for poultry, meat, eggs and turkeys and will remove tariffs on processed food coming into Canada. Eventually, there will be a confrontation. It might not happen for two or three years, but eventually the grocery manufacturers of Canada who employ a great many people and have a massive volume of business will put it to the Government that it will have to either get rid of the farm marketing boards or they will move their plants and operations to the United States. I predict that at that stage, the marketing boards will be destroyed.
I listened to the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines and I have a great deal of respect for his remarks on most issues. However, I do not think he has looked into the problems of the grocery manufacturers in his own Province of New Brunswick or in the rest of Atlantic Canada.
We have to talk not only about pro-active programs like the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency but we have to look at all those underlying government programs which have been cut back. Services to farm groups like the inspection of potatoes have been cut back. More and more costs are being loaded on the input side. We must look at the cost of assistance provided in transportation agencies and the fishery as well as high profile programs. After all, a few million dollars in incentives often go a long way.
I have been very impressed with the small business economic development corporations which have been set up in my own constituency under the Department of Employment and Immigration. They have been extremely effective in creating jobs, often much more effective than the programs run by DRIE. One aspect of that program has been the involvement of local committees, and I think that is a very worth-while part of any economic development program including the one before us here today.
Those are some of my concerns. I am concerned that we do not take away jobs and that we do not impose new taxation as was the case with softwood lumber and the removal of the earned depletion allowance and flow-through shares. All government programs should be co-ordinated.
I want to see the Government not only announce and talk about these things but put the money up to see that these programs actually work and are not just a charade that will have no effect on balancing economic opportunities for the

slow-growth areas of Canada, the North and the eastern provinces.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to pose a question to the Elon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). In the closing part of his remarks, he made reference to the business development corporations under Canada Employment and Immigration. There is a parallel organization with which I think he is familiar, the community futures committees. The City of Sault Ste. Marie was one of the first communities to be designated under community futures. Perhaps he could elaborate on how those kinds of things can be used first for local control and second for the improvement of employment and economic opportunities in those areas outside the Golden Horseshoe, areas like Sault Ste. Marie, Atlantic Canada and the northern parts of the country.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, the question is a good one because the small business development corporations which have been developed are a part of the community futures program. In most communities they are called the business development centre. The one in Sault Ste. Marie has been extremely effective, as they all have. There are three of them in my constituency. There is one in the adjoining riding in Sault Ste. Marie which serves part of my constituency.
The figures which stick in my mind are that for an investment of $225,000 or $250,000 a year they have been able to generate 40 or 50 jobs. That is all money which was lent at 11 or 12 per cent, which is not any great gift. Therefore, they seem to have been very effective.
The Community Futures Program in our area is just becoming operative. The advantage seems to be that there is a local committee involved in it. The self-employment option is being used in some areas, which I think is an excellent program. Instead of putting certain strictures on the unemployment insurance or on welfare for people, they are actually given a wage to start their own business. That, of course, has to be vetted by the business development centre. That is a good feature. The community opportunities fund has a potential to be useful, although it has not been used to any great extent in my constituency.
I do not think the portion for retraining and manpower mobility really rests with the Community Futures Program. It seems to me that those should be run out of the Manpower office. I am very concerned that the Manpower office is being destroyed. It seems that so many things are being moved over to Community Futures. That is useful from the point of view that you get community development in things like the business development centres, self-employment grants, and the community opportunities fund. I think that all those rest naturally with it. However, to put manpower training programs and manpower mobility programs with it causes one to wonder what the Manpower office is left to do itself.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Therefore, I am not sure that I fully agree with that. In any event, the Community Futures Program lasts for one or two years and is then left mainly with the business development centres which are designed to operate for a long period of time.
I think the whole Canadian Jobs Strategy is in question. Many of the Manpower centres in my riding are completely denuded of funds for the fiscal year by June or July. You are left with a multi-faceted program and a local advisory council on how these Canadian jobs strategies should work with no funds left after the first two or three months of the fiscal year.
I have great concern with that.
The other aspect on the employment and training side is the question of funding for seats for manpower retraining. We have four or five major community colleges in northern Ontario. Every one of those has been cut back by 40 per cent. If they had 100,000 training days, as the Cambrian College in Sudbury had in 1984, they were reduced to 60,000 training days. That is a real backward step because I do not see them being replaced, and this during a period when we have been in a severe economic recession in northern Ontario. Those are some of my concerns in response to the Hon. Member's question.


Jack Harris: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) on this issue. I was particularly interested in his comments about local control over economic planning.
I would like to inform the Member that the expert whom the Government asked to advise it on how to design and set up this agency expressed a concern in his report to the Government that the agency ought to be set up very carefully because otherwise it may become one big slush fund. He expressed great concern that this might happen and cautioned against too much political development. He said it should be kept away from politicians.
In this particular agency the approach of the Government has been to establish a board and to appoint to that board a group composed almost entirely of Conservative Party supporters who are involved in business. On the national level the Government has said that the final decisions will be made here in Ottawa by Senator Murray and the five or six Atlantic Ministers who are involved.


James Ross Fulton: Who is Senator Murray?


Jack Harris: He is the Senator from the other place who is not answerable here. Therefore, we have political control at the top level, and at the advisory and board level we have a group of other individuals involved.
Does the Hon. Member have a concern about the approach that the Government has taken in setting up this agency? I have a very serious concern with it and I wonder whether he and others in his Party share it.

January 21, 1988
Alternatives to Refrigerants


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, that has certainly been of very great concern to our caucus. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) pointed out that on the eight-person board on the program every member had extremely close contacts with or held a senior position in the Conservative Party. If there is any scandal in the appointment of that board, which I think has done the program a serious disadvantage, it has been appointment of a board comprised entirely of Conservative people. On that board are two former provincial members who have impeccable credentials with the Conservative Party, but that taints the board and makes people think that if they are not Conservative they will not get any help from the program. That is an important aspect of the point which the Hon. Member has made.
Politics has not been an important aspect of the local community futures boards and they therefore function strictly on the basis of their abilities, interests, and activities at the local level. The factor which the Hon. Member has raised is very debilitating and it should certainly be taken into account if this legislation is ever passed and implemented in order that the Government will not discredit and debilitate the board before it even gets started.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time allotted for the period of questions and comments has now expired.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed with the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE ENVIRONMENT ADVISABILITY OF INTENSIFYING RESEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVES TO REFRIGERANTS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of intensifying research for alternatives to refrigerants such as freon, which contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that erode the earth's ozone layer.
He said: Madam Speaker, I will proceed quickly to explain the reason for this motion. The use of chlorofluorocarbons, which are commonly described as CFCs is based on the fact that they are propellants in aerosols such as hairsprays, deodorants and anti-perspirants. This use was banned in 1980, yet clorofluorocarbons are still used as propellants for cooking and paint sprays.
The most common use for chlorofluorocarbons is as a coolant in refrigerators, freezers and air conditioning units. These clorofluorocarbons to which I will refer as CFCs are also used extensively in foams, including rigid insulation foam, flexible foam for cushions and foam for packaging food.
The high-tech and communications industries use certain forms of CFCs as a solvent for cleaning electrical circuits and
the like. It should be pointed out that Canada is a small player in the clorofluorocarbon game, using only 22,000 of the estimated 940,000 tonnes per year consumed the world over. In the United States, for instance, 90 per cent of cars sold have air conditioning, as do 80 per cent of light trucks. This market alone consumes 54,000 tonnes of CFC 12 as a coolant, which is more than twice Canadian consumption of all chlorofluorocarbons.
One may wonder why refrigerants are named in this motion. It is because this is the largest of all the chlorofluorocarbons uses in Canada. Some 9,000 of the 22,000 tonnes of chlorofluorocarbons consumed annually in Canada are for refrigeration purposes.
What threat do chlorofluorocarbons pose? The five commonly used CFCs, namely, 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115, erode the ozone layer in the stratosphere, some 20 to 40 kilometres above the earth. Chlorofluorocabons are gaseous and travel easily in the atmosphere. They do not break down easily in the lower atmosphere and can last from 60 to 300 years in the stratosphere.
The ozone acts as the earth's sunscreen. It blocks some of the sun's ultraviolet radiation from reaching the earth's surface. What would happen if the amount of ultraviolet radiation increased? Health would be affected. Scientists in Environment Canada and elsewhere predict that the number of cases of skin cancer and eye cataracts would increase.
Our immune system would also be affected and even suppressed, making people even more susceptible to certain diseases, viruses and infections. The environment would be affected. Scientists predict that agricultural crops would not grow as well or yield as much, and that phytoplankton, the basis of the food chain in the oceans, would be adversely affected. The air quality would also be in question because ultraviolet radiation is a contributor to smog in urban areas. Therefore, an increase in ultraviolet radiation would create more smog and more associated health problems such as eye and nose irritation and, more important, asthma and heart problems.
This brings me to the global warming question, which is an issue that has been more recently raised in scientific circles and through the media for public consideration, chlorofluorocarbons also contribute to the greenhouse effect of global warming.
We mostly hear about carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, oil, wood and gas as being the main culprit of global warming. However, C02 pales in comparison to CFCs. Scientists estimate that a molecule of CFC is 10,000 times more effective than a molecule of C02 in absorbing and radiating infra-red radiation, the process which warms up the atmosphere. Today it is estimated that CFCs account for about 10 per cent to 15 per cent of the warming trend. If CFCs continue to travel into the atmosphere at the present rate, that could grow to 50 per cent in 50 years.
January 21, 1988

There has been a global response to this question of ozone depletion and damage. In September, 1987, the United Nations Environment Program sponsored a protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. It was signed in Montreal by 24 nations and the European Economic Community. If it were ratified and implemented, it would reduce the global consumption of the five ozone-depleting CFCs to 50 per cent of the production level of 1986 by the year 1998. This is a tremendous step forward.
Elowever, we should not rest on our laurels. Due to the long life of CFCs in the stratosphere-60 to 300 years-Environment Canada suggested that a reduction of 85 per cent is required in order just to stabilize the levels of ozone in the atmosphere. This view is endorsed by many environmental groups and organizations, such as the Nordic Environmental Ministers, who advocate complete elimination as soon as possible.
Therefore, it would make sense to urge our Government to ratify the protocol immediately, to formulate and publish a strategy for reducing to zero our consumption of chlorofluorocarbon in the shortest possible time, and to launch a global initiative with like-minded Governments with the aim of eliminating rather than reducing by 50 per cent the production of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons.
This is also a terrific opportunity for parliamentarians. The effort to sustain ourselves on this planet can also be moved on the international agenda. For example, those Members who are members of the Inter-Parlimentary Union which is scheduled to meet in Guatemala next April, can talk about sustainable development because it is on the agenda and will be debated there.
The Government of Canada also has a role to play. It could intensify its research effort in areas such as monitoring the progress and effort of the industry in research endeavours. It could ensure the transfer of new technology and information to Canadian users, consumers and importers of CFCs and products containing chlorofluorocarbons.
It should intensify its research in non CFC solutions, including the use of helium or other refrigerants, new designs for refrigerator systems, or other replacement technologies such as the solar powered refrigerator invented by a Guelph engineer. The fridge has no moving parts, no compressor and, most important, no CFC refrigerant.
It should study methods and technologies for the conversion of CFC-based processes to non-CFC systems. This is an important area in which to intensify research and promoting efforts.
It is also important to develop intensive co-operation with Canadian industry on demonstration projects and to develop methods and technologies for the conversion of chlorofluorocarbons based processes to non-CFC systems.
Finally, we must search for ways to reduce our consumption of CFCs by way of prohibition where alternatives already
Alternatives to Refrigerants
exist, for example, paper products instead of CFC foams for consumer packaging of food and otherwise, or, for instance, by following the lead of the Ontario Government and putting a national tax on motor vehicle air-conditioning to reduce its attractiveness to the consumer, something we did in the mid-1970s.
Of course, the role of industry here is very important. The major producers of CFCs are Dupont, Imperial Chemical Industries and Allied Signal. They must make major commitments to the development of alternative products, and I believe they accept that ozone depleting CFCs must be eliminated from use as soon as possible. There is also a role for the consumer, that is the reduction in our consumption of CFCs by way of prohibition where alternatives already exist, and 1 have already mentioned substituting paper products instead of CFC foams for consumer packaging and putting a national tax on motor vehicle air-conditioning.
The Government could also introduce labelling requirements that identify products containing CFCs so that consumers can make an informed choice.
Inevitably, when we explore an issue of this kind, we have to conclude that there is a necessity to elaborate on the question of climate protection policy. It seems to me that as a first priority, the Government of Canada should launch a global climate protection initiative. This requires long-term thinking, the ability to start in motion programs that will last far beyond the normal political term and which may, indeed, offer little in the way of short-term political gain. But it must be done. We must, as elected representatives, accept this responsibility and challenge if Canada and the world, for that matter, is to be a productive and hospitable place for future generations.
I would like to bring to your attention, Madam Speaker, the fact that West German parliamentarians are already considering how to tackle this very problem. I will list some of the principles they have proposed; first, the examination and understanding of the role of nitrogen dioxide and halogenated hydrocarbons; second, the necessity of assessing the contribution of methane to the greenhouse effect, identifying emission sources and developing international measures to set limits to emissions; third, assessing the disintegration products of halogenated hydrocarbons and their impact on humans and the environment; and fourth, to develop hydrogen fusion energy as a strategy to reverse the global warming trend. In these few words there is a complex and long-term problem. The fifth principle is to urge international co-operation in the maintenance of tropical forests described by scientists as the "lungs of the planet". Finally, the necessity of considering debt-waiving for Third World countries and other measures as a necessary premise for the switch to an environmentally supportable economy. These are items which are being discussed in the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany which struck me as being far-reaching and worthwhile to put on record here.

January 21, 1988
Alternatives to Refrigerants
On September 19 the Citizen published an article by Gwynne Dyer. He put the problem this way, and I quote:
There is a serious defect in the human system. We can respond with fear, a sense of urgency and a high degree of co-operation and self sacrifice to present, highly visible emergencies. But we have no built-in sense of alarm when confronted only with a rate of change that augurs disaster for the future.
By the time most people begin to feel the effects personally and develop the sense of urgency that would provide broad political support for drastic corrective action, it will be very late in the process. Perhaps too late, for all these processes will be moving very fast by then, and probably interacting to produce synergistic effects that may be beyond our ability to control.
The article is entitled "Ozone treaty no triumph, but its a first step". Mr. Dyer continues:
That is why the Montreal Protocol is hardly an unqualified triumph. The action it promises is slow and inadequate, and it took 10 years to get even this degree of agreement, although the Global CFC industry only has a gross annual value of about $1 billion. We are still a long way from even such limited international agreements to protect the environment where really rich and powerful interests are involved.
But there is cause for at least a minor celebration. As Mostafa Tolba, executive director the United Nations Environment Programme, said at the signing ceremony: "This is the first truly global treaty that offers protection to every single human being on the planet". True, it doesn't offer much protection, but the precedent is vitally important.
For the first time, sovereign states have formally recognized that their domestic activities affect the environment globally, and that they are accountable for the consequences. Now what we need is about a dozen more treaties of the same kind on various other environmental issues, each having far bigger teeth than this timid firstborn.
That is the end of the article which, I think, expresses very well, in a balanced form, the achievements so far and the challenge still ahead.
To conclude, I would like to read from the book entitled Our Common Future which is the report by the World Commission on Environment and Development, and specifically from the Foreward by Madam Brundtland, the Prime Minister of Norway and the chairperson of that commission, which sat for three years and produced this significant report in April, 1987. Madam Brundtland writes, and I quote:
Scientists bring to our attention urgent but complex problems bearing on our very survival: a warming globe, threats to the Earth's ozone layer, deserts consuming agricultural land. We respond by demanding more details, and by assigning the problems to institutions ill equipped to cope with them. Environmental degradation, first seen as mainly a problem of the rich nations and the side effect of industrial wealth, has become a survival issue for developing nations.
I commend these lines to you, Madam Speaker, which contain a lot of wisdom and the political capacity of putting together in that statement the developed nations of the northern hemisphere with the developing nations of the southern hemisphere and thus creating a common global denominator which is so important in moving ahead with this particular issue.
I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, and my colleagues, who in their wisdom decided to move ahead on this motion we are debating today, urging the Government of Canada to intensify the research for alternatives to refrigerants. It is a small motion but behind its wording is a warning of some significance. In the end, when we examine this issue, we will inevitably have to deal with the question of climate as well as
the welfare and the well-being of future generations of human beings on this planet of ours.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Government and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).
When we look at this motion from the outside we see that it speaks to intensifying research, but on the inside it explores the political will that our Government has to protect the atmospheric global commons and the common atmospheric heritage of mankind. There should be no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind in this House or across Canada with regard to the high priority that the Government places on protecting the ozone layer.
In Montreal on September 16, 1987, an unprecedented international protocol to protect the earth's ozone layer was adopted by over 40 countries. The protocol, developed under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Program, will slash emission of ozone-depleting emissions of chloro-fluorocarbons, CFCs, by 50 percent. It is the first ever global atmospheric treaty, now known as the Montreal Protocol.
We should be proud of the key role that Canada played in the work which led up to this historic signing. Canada's participation in this issue, both on the national front and on the international plane, merits mention.
Canada is one of the small number of nations which has taken substantial individual action to reduce the use of CFCs, a group of industrial chemicals threatening the ozone layer. In 1980, Canada banned the use of CFCs as a propellant in deodorants, anti-perspirants and hair sprays. Notwithstanding, the threat to the ozone layer remains a global problem requiring a global solution.
Consequently, Canada has played a key role in international negotiations to protect the ozone layer and to develop worldwide controls on ozone-modifying substances. In 1981, Canada strongly supported a proposal that an international treaty be developed to protect the ozone layer. Under the United Nations Environmental Program representatives of some 30 nations have been meeting regularly since 1982 to hammer out the world's first global agreement on the atmospheric environment.
Regionally, opinion was sharply divided among many nations on just how CFCs and other ozone-modifying chemicals were to be restricted. Several times when the talks had broken down completely it was Canadian initiatives that reopened the serious negotiations. The Canadian delegation rapidly gained the reputation not only for the source of its motivation, environmental protection rather than economic self-interest, but also for developing compromise positions and helpful and innovative new ideas to bring together.
January 21, 1988

When it became apparent that an environmentally significant agreement on the control of ozone-modifying chemicals would be difficult to reach, Canada was one among the first nations which supported signing an agreement in principle first and then negotiating the controls later. Thus, in 1985, 28 nations, including Canada, met in Austria to sign the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.
The Vienna Convention establishes a framework to protect the earth's atmosphere through co-operative international efforts. It also provides for international co-operation in scientific research and information exchange. Canada signed the agreement in 1985 and was the first nation formally to ratify it in June of 1986. To date, 28 countries have signed the convention. About 10 have ratified it. Canada is hopeful that the required number of ratifications, which is 20, will be attained shortly and that the convention will come into effect this year.
As noted, Canada worked with other nations to develop international pollution control standards to limit the release of ozone-modifying substances. Canada was advocating both a short-term and a long-term strategy, one that would see both the phase-down in production and release of CFCs, and one that would control other ozone-modifying substances as well. These standards were enshrined in the protocol to the Vienna Convention at the diplomatic conference in Montreal on September 14 to 16, 1987.
Throughout the lengthy negotiations to develop both the Vienna Convention and the subsequent pollution control standards, Canada has played a key role. It was a Canadian proposal presented in 1986 which broke a serious deadlock in the negotiations and paved the way for the development of the final pollution control agreement in which Canadian contributions played an important part. In recognition of Canada's efforts, the United Nations Environmental Program accepted Canada's offer to host the diplomatic conference for the signing of this international agreement.
The controls set out in the Montreal Protocol, when implemented, will truly represent a major landmark in history. They will not only represent the first real international action to protect the global atmospheric environment, but also mark the first concerted international effort to prevent an atmospheric environmental problem before it reaches the crisis stage. The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer will become a global turning point, a model for continued world-wide co-operation between Government, industry and public interest groups to safeguard our planet.
I am very proud of the major role which the Government and the Minister of the Environment played in making this happen. Consider for a moment the following. The Montreal Protocol will initiate a dynamic process for responding to all
Alternatives to Refrigerants
ozone layer depleting substances, not just those currently earmarked for control measures. It will provide a mandated phase-down for the most harmful chemicals. This has already stimulated the search for environmentally appropriate substitutes and will ultimately dramatically affect the marketplace. It will provide an incentive for less developed countries to avoid recreating the problem or repeating our mistakes. It will provide stringent trade sanctions against countries which do not join the protocol and refuse to accept their environmental obligations to future generations.
It is the first global treaty to protect the atmosphere from the possible effects of human activity. It is also the first global treaty to mandate controls before significant destruction and economic loss occurs. It demonstrates that Government, industry and other interested parties can set aside parochial interests and work together to preserve the common heritage of mankind.
It demonstrates that global agreements on environmental risk management are possible. It offers a global precedent for controls on toxic chemicals and perhaps even acid rain. For the protocol to come into force it will need to be ratified by a minimum number of countries. Canada will be among the first to do so under the authority of the new Environmental Protection Act currently before the legislative committee. Canadians should be proud of the important role Canada played in the development and signing of this historic agreement.
The Government is committed to achieving the 50 per cent reduction in emissions of controlled CFCs in Canada as set out in the protocol and more. The federal Government is not currently conducting research on alternatives to CFCs. However, we are meeting with the various industrial associations to review their respective programs.
There is a tremendous amount of research going on in the private sector. When all of these consultations are complete, and the ongoing research programs reviewed, then the Government will be in a position to decide whether there is any compelling need to intensify sponsored government research in this area.
I hope that this short intervention demonstrates clearly the responsible actions that our Government is taking and will continue to take to respond to the ozone layer depleting problem.
IMs. Lynn IVlcDonald (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon on a very wise and far-reaching proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) which states:

January 21, 1988
Alternatives to Refrigerants
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of intensifying research for alternatives to refrigerants, such as freon, which contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that erode the earth's ozone layer.
It is a very simple proposition, and I am sorry that the response of the Government has not been more forthright.
Yes, Canada has played an important role in the Vienna Convention and the signing of the Montreal Protocol, certainly a global first for a strategy to reduce the emission of substances which deplete the ozone layer. We were very pleased to see that, although I am certainly going to suggest that we ought to be a little cautious as to how fortunate those results might be because it is a very modest first step on a problem on which we still have a great deal more to do.
Canada can be congratulated for its role there. But 1 am sorry that we see so much complacency that that seems to be adequate. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the consultations with industry and that they will consult and see how much research they are doing. Industry may need a little more of a prod. Perhaps consumers need both a prod and a carrot. We need to see government action in terms of its own purchasing. We as consumers large and small can also play a role in safeguarding our environment. Indeed, on the question of ozone depletion, consumers have been prominent in the struggle. It was consumers who first of all took aerosol cans off the market and required that a substitute product be used. Consumer action can be extremely important in this regard. As a major consumer, Government can also be extremely important. Taxation policies have to be addressed as well as regulations. I am afraid that we have a very long way to go, and complacency that we are getting there is not very helpful.
Let us be clear about what the Montreal Protocol is going to achieve. As the Parliamentary Secretary stated, it was a compromise solution. Canada helped to work out the compromise. Certainly, a compromise to get something signed and something done in order to take that first step was worth taking. It was very important, but let us not think that it is enough. We do not know if it is enough. There is a lot of scientific doubt about it.
Approximately 10 years ago when the scientists themselves began to see the ozone depletion, they did not even publish the results because they were so amazed at the findings. They thought that their instruments were wrong. The problem was so mind-boggling that there could be this major depletion of ozone. Of course, the ozone hole has expanded enormously since then. We do not know if the measures that are being contemplated now will be remotely enough. They are only directed at a reduction, not an elimination. In some countries it is expected that there will be an increase in the use of substances that deplete the ozone layer. Then perhaps there will be a stabilizing and a falling off.
We know that because of the nature of these substances already the massive quantity of those ozone depleting substances are in the air and moving upwards. They have a long lifespan of 75 or 125 years. These chemical reactions of substances thought to be quite inert and harmless, substances that were welcomed by industry and consumers and that
seemed to be an advance, that were non-toxic and not harmful to the health, over time, it turned out, that with chemical reactions in the stratosphere proved to have an extremely harmful effect on human health. They are harmful in terms of skin cancer, they have an effect on food production, and they contribute to the greenhouse effect, with consequences that are so enormous we can scarcely imagine them, climatic warming, raising of ocean levels, and perhaps a complete change in the geography of our country. These are the types of effects that we are talking about.
Yet what does the protocol direct itself to? First a stabilization of the production and emission of these products; then a reduction, not an elimination. We do not know if that reduction will be enough. Perhaps the scientists themselves do not know if it will be enough. Perhaps it was just a situation that that was all that could be achieved politically. Some countries, countries influenced by their own industries that are looking at short-term cost savings and not long-term costs to the environment and human health, stated that that was as far as they were prepared to go.
We have a very major problem yet to solve. We don't know, perhaps the measures are already too late. These processes will continue. Even if we completely stop the emission of these substances into the atmosphere it might be too late, given the quantity that is there already and in the process of these complex chemical reactions.
Practically speaking, what are we looking at? We are looking at substances such as solvents, coolants, substances that go into motor vehicles, air-conditioners, refrigeration, solvents used for electrical equipment, and fast-food packaging. There has been a substitute for aerosol cans. For some of those products there is obviously an alternative immediately available, cardboard for this foamy kind of substance. For other areas, there will have to be more imaginative solutions. It is encouraging to see things like solar run refrigerators, for example. For other substances such as air-conditioners, it is not clear what the substitutes will be, or if the substitutes that are being considered will be quite good enough. More research will be required.
Government policy in terms of taxation can also be very helpful to prod people not to use substances that will have economic, health, and environmental consequences and to use them more sparingly. Of course, one way is to make those unsafe substances more costly to encourage the use of environmentally health conscious benign substances. That is the type of direction in which we have to go.
It is for that reason that I very much welcome the proposal of the Hon. Member for Davenport. It is one that encourages the Government into stimulating research in this area. I would hope that the Government would see fit to support it and not to sit back on its laurels and talk about the good things that have happened. Yes, some good things have happened. Yes, we have made a step. Yes, we have a framework. But let us address this very serious problem with the appropriate kind of response. Let us look at the Brundtland report of the World Commission on the Environment and Development, and the commitment to sustainable development.
January 21, 1988

What could be more fundamental for sustainable development than the survival of this protective layer, the ozone layer around the planet? If we do not have that, then we are talking about very small matters indeed once that is destroyed.
The protection of our planet itself and of human, plant, and animal life on that planet is at risk. It is absolutely fundamental that we give this priority. I share the frustration with the Hon. Member who introduced this motion. It is difficult to talk about matters so important when the impact is such a slow incremental one. Perhaps it is not even that slow. It is fast enough, I guess. It is not like a chemical spill where we see the consequences immediately-one day something is fine and the next day it is contaminated. It has a gradual effect, and it is very much harder to raise the alarm as to the consequences to human health and the environment when the effects are ones which will take place years later.
People are using ordinary consumer products now and years later these elements, having gone through a very complex chemical reaction, will have the effect of depleting the ozone and depriving us of that protective layer, with dire consequences for all life on our planet.
It is a complex matter in which we must involve all people. We must involve consumers and Governments. There must be a research role. I very strongly support the motion and urge the Government to give it the appropriate, very favourable, very enthusiastic, and very serious response it deserves.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate on this very important matter. Many people in the country have yet to grasp the importance of the protection of the ozone layer.
I should like to refer to the December issue of Bridges which contained an article referring to the danger or the threat to the ozone layer. The article concluded by indicating on the positive side that a global UNEP treaty had been designed to protect the ozone layer and that the level of knowledge had advanced. It went on to indicate that it has never been more true that the need for scientific research is imperative and exceeded only by the need for international recognition that short-sightedness and narrow self-interest put us all in peril.
I commend the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for highlighting this subject matter. I say to him and to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) that while the motion suggests that we consider the advisability of intensifying research, the Government of Canada has already actively entered into a program to work toward the coordination of testing, research, and product development of less hazardous product use. As a clear demonstration of this, the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes) already pointed to the Montreal Protocol. In September, 1987 Canada hosted a gathering of 40 countries in Montreal to negotiate a protective control protocol on the use of CFCs.
Just recently, from January 13 to January 15, 1988, Canada, along with the Conservation Foundation and the
Alternatives to Refrigerants
United States Environmental Protection Agency, co-sponsored in Washington a conference to explore the current scientific status of research and product development of substitutes.
For those who are not familiar with the Conservation Foundation, let me point out that it is a non-profit environmental agency in the United States organized to conduct research on emerging environmental issues, and obviously this matter is one of them. It brings together people with varied backgrounds-academic and scientific-to clarify issues and to reach agreement on what might be done. It communicates the findings of its work to policy makers, parliamentarians like ourselves, and opinion leaders in business, academic circles, the conservation community, and the press. Since its founding in the United States in 1948, the Conservation Foundation has been dedicated to improving the quality of the environment in all respects and to promoting wise use of the earth's resources.
I am happy to report that the conference in Washington was a tremendous success. They had planned for some 250 participants, and over 700 showed up representing industry, environmental groups, and Governments from over 20 countries. Happily there was a clear consensus on the need for action now, and industry described ways and means to introduce new programs designed to reduce emissions and to find environmentally acceptable substitutes for CFCs and halons.
For example, the major producers of these chemicals announced a joint toxicity testing program costing some $8 million to facilitate information transfer and thereby speed up the process of bringing environmentally acceptable substitutes to the market as hastily as possible.
In general terms the conference facilitated the collection and sharing of information on current technologies to reduce emissions of CFCs and halons, including substitute chemicals, recycling, recovery, and destruction. It facilitated the provision of a forum in which users, producers, researchers, regulators, environmental groups, and the media could discuss the development of product substitutes and alternative processes. It facilitated the making of pronouncements by industry that it is or intends to move away from those chemicals and products which are hazardous to the ozone layer. In addition, it facilitated the exchange of information on declining markets for controlled substances and on emerging markets for substitutes and alternatives to CFCs and halons. This is of great advantage to all.
The conference identified ways, means, and opportunities for reducing dependence on CFCs and halons through four separate plenary sessions and a series of workshop sessions. The workshops ran simultaneously with the plenary sessions, and each concentrated on a key application of CFCs and halons. The workshops offered sessions on alternative technologies and substitute products. Each focused on particular chemical substitutes, giving conference participants an opportunity to discuss one or many hazardous products.

January 21, 1988
Alternatives to Refrigerants
In addition, during the two informal "poster paper" sessions, participants had the opportunity to discuss papers and ideas with scientists and engineers working on new developments in the field. The conference featured as well the very practical side effect of a trade fair where commerce could display products and services to all who were interested in the problem. Participants had the opportunity to learn first-hand about the substitutes and alternatives to CFCs and halons which are now being offered.
I have intentionally provided much detail on the successful event just completed in Washington in an effort to underscore the importance which is being placed on the issue not only by the Government but by the private sector, environmental groups, and the public at large. The collective commitment to finding solutions to the ozone layer depletion problem rang clear in Washington with the level of participation and the quality and quantity of information willingly exchanged.
Having looked at the clock, Madam Speaker, let me move on to my concluding paragraph. 1 hope that the comments which have already been made indicate the Government's high priority for this very severe problem. Major efforts are already under way devoted to putting in place substitute chemicals, substitute technologies, and suitable substitute products. Canadians in both the private and public sectors are involved in many of these projects either as participants or in a managerial capacity. Should any priority research area be identified by anyone as requiring additional information or attention, the Government, as is its custom, will give the matter the importance it deserves.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on a very important matter. Before I begin I want to commend the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for bringing this motion before the House. The Hon. Member has brought many environmental concerns before this House and I commend him for doing so and I want to support this motion.
Research on substitutes to ensure and secure an orderly transition to chemicals and products which will not adversely affect our ozone layer remains a critical element in the timely resolution of this problem. I am happy to be able to report that an unprecedented level of research is now moving forward on several fronts.
Growing concern within the international scientific community, as well as the expectation by industry of regulatory measures to control ozone modifying substances, have revived the quest for alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs. Alternatives are being sought in three areas: alternative chemicals; products and services; and technologies.
First, producers of CFCs have concentrated their efforts on alternative chemicals with lower ozone depleting potential. Although many hurdles such as acute toxicity and technical
feasibility have been successfully passed, some technical aspects such as catalyst selection surrounding the development of economically viable commercial processes remain unsolved.
Second, alternative products and services currently exist. For example, fibreglass insulation, though not as efficient per unit volume as polyurethane foam, can be used as a suitable substitute. Another example is egg containers, which do not require foam plastics. As well, aerosol products in many instances are now propelled by hydrocarbons. However, these alternative products and services will require that a price be paid, be it in either efficiency, increased safety or simply consumer preference.
The third alternative is new technology. Alternative technologies currently exist for some products and are under development for others. For example, the deodorant stick has partially replaced the aerosol propellant package. A new helium-based refrigeration system has been developed by Cryodynamics under the sponsorship of NASA in the United States. An aqueous cleaning technology for the electronics manufacturing industry is being substituted for CFC-based cleaning technologies. Last, but by no means least, procedures and work practices could also be re-designed to accommodate recycling of CFCs and minimize emissions to the atmosphere.
I would like to focus attention briefly on a special category of chemicals adversely affecting our ozone layer. They are called halons, chemicals which are very similar to CFCs. However, they contain bromine in addition to or in place of chlorine. These are the chemicals used in fire extinguishers. Current production of these chemicals is relatively small, but because they contain bromine they are three to 11 times more destructive of the ozone layer than CFCs. What is also very worrisome is the rapid rate of growth in the use of halons.
Canada does not currently produce any halons. However, we currently import about 0.5 kilotons of the chemical in bulk, and an undetermined amount in small products. Given the enhanced destructive efficiency of the halons, it is estimated that they contribute about 15 per cent of the Canadian chemical contribution to the destruction of the ozone layer.
Environment Canada officials have been consulting with the Canadian fire protection community on ways and means of dealing with the halon problem. That community agrees with the need for controls to protect our environment and prevent the depletion and/or modification of the ozone layer. However, the halons have a very high economic and security value and there are no known substitutes with the same important fire protection characteristics. The fire protection community has been challenged to meet the fire protection needs of Canadian society, whether it be government, financial, transportation, industrial or defence facilities. In many cases use of halons has been the only acceptable means to achieve required fire protection of critical facilities in a safe and effective manner.
January 21, 1988

Halon fire extinguishants are used to protect life and property from the destructive effects of fire. As such, they have some very desirable qualities. The halons do not cause secondary damage. They are highly effective. They are chemically stable and human tolerance to their exposure has proven to be very high. They are the only known fire extinguishants with these combined benefits and properties. However, their cost is very high compared to other extinguishants such as water, carbon dioxide, or dry chemicals. This fact has limited their use to those applications where cost-benefit concerns have been satisfied.
The fire protection community became aware of the importance of the environmental factors and possible destruction of the ozone layer by halons in the fall of 1986. Immediately a study was conducted by the industry to determine use and emission patterns and how emissions could be reduced or, in some cases, eliminated. Data for the study were provided by fire equipment manufacturers, fire equipment distributors and installers. Limited use levels for Canada were agreed to by consensus.
Let me just list a few of the actions these various groups studying the problem have come up with through consensus prior to any regulatory control. I think it is quite significant. First, they conducted a study to determine use and emission levels. Second, they published major articles in the Fire Journal, their most widely-read publication with a circulation of over 30,000 copies, explaining the problem. Third, they conducted major seminars to advise their community of the concerns and to seek solutions. Fourth, they established and financed the program to be administered by the National Fire Protection Association to co-ordinate and fund research, develop new requirements, and monitor program results. They recently proposed a scheme to charge 3 cents to 5 cents per pound of halon produced to create a research fund to find substitutes. Fifth, they are sponsoring an international meeting to raise the awareness of how halons destroy the ozone layer and to solicit even broader co-operation in the search for solutions. Six, they are looking into the possibility of warning labels for their products. Seven, they are exploring new and additional techniques for halon recapture and recycling.
I submit that this list is a good beginning of voluntary action currently undertaken by the fire protection community. It illustrates the kind of concerted and co-operative action which can be cost-effectively undertaken when government, industry and other interested parties are able to work together.
I look forward to the continuing debate on this subject and the vote to come on this motion because it has been designated as a votable motion. I would like to support the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is
Adjournment Debate
dropped to the bottom of the list in order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-SITUATION IN HAITI-GOVERNMENT POSITION/CONVENING OF MEETING OF MOST IMPORTANT COUNTRIES INVOLVED IN AID TO HAITIAN PEOPLE-HOLDING OF INQUIRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION.
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).']
André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to inform the House that yesterday in Montreal, I met with members of the co-ordinating committee for Canadian solidarity with the Haitian people. The people 1 met asked me to inform the Government, and especially the Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), of their views in the House of Commons.
Basically, one of the demands Haitians living in Canada were making on behalf of the Haitian people who are going through a very difficult time, one of their demands when they were still optimistic about the future, was to have a democratic election, for the first time in many years, and perhaps for the first time in their lives, so they could have a democratically elected government. However, we now know the kind of electoral travesty that led to last Sunday's so-called election. The co-ordinating committee would like to see the Canadian Government immediately and unequivocally condemn this illegal government's National Council for its human rights violations in Haiti and refuse to recognize the "Macoute" election held last Sunday. The committee also asks the Government of Canada to deny any formal or informal recognition to the government formed as a result of that election.
Monday, the Minister said in answer to one of my questions that, considering the extremely low-rate of participation, Canada did not recognize this election. That is one point the co-ordinating committee will appreciate.
Second, the Minister said: We intend to review our relations with Haiti, including development aid. Reviewing our relations with Haiti is basically a matter of recognition. Will the Minister, who said publicly that he did not recognize the election, turn around and recognize the Government that is expected to be formed shortly? That is a question the Minister failed to answer, but it is a fundamental one, and we would certainly appreciate the Government giving us a specific and intelligent answer.

January 21, 1988
Adjournment Debate
If the Government does not recognize the election, it would of course be very difficult to recognize the government formed as a result of that election.
The Minister also said he intended to review his development aid program. If that is indeed the case, I think the Minister will have to consider recommendations made by eight non-governmental observers, sponsored by the International Human Rights Federation, who went to observe the election that was supposed to be held last November in Haiti. They returned to Canada and submitted a report with some very specific recommendations on Canadian aid to Haiti.
First of all, these impartial observers suggested that the Canadian Government immediately stop food aid because it is a disincentive to local food production.
Second, the Government should suspend bilateral aid to Haitian government departments and the institutions that are part of these departments, especially the "institutional reform" and "energy" sectors of the Canadian International Development Agency's Program.
Third, to re-examine publicly all assistance programs to Haiti, in consultation with Canadian non-government organizations operating in Haiti.
Fourth, to act in co-operation with other governments to withdraw any direct assistance to the Haitian government.
Fifth, to maintain and reinforce the projects of nongovernment organizations which benefit the basic groups in the community and strengthen the fabric of the Haitian society in areas such as literacy programs, free radio stations, labour unions, and so on, which can truly help the Haitian people to gain eventually a democratically elected government following a really free election by the Haitian population.
It seems obvious that the Canadian Government is embarrassed. On one hand, it gave in good faith its support to an election. It sent all the proper electoral equipment to Haiti, as well as Canadians to ensure the presence of a local force to guarantee a free election. The fact is that this did not happen. First, General Namphy simply cancelled the election, and second, he took action to ensure that the election would take place while the population could not truly exercise its voting rights democratically. We expect answers from the Government, and I trust that these answers will reflect the proposals of the co-ordinating committee of Canadian solidarity with the Haitian people.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Madam Speaker, in his intervention yesterday, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) drew our attention to three points on which I would now like to comment further.
First, he suggested that the Canadian Government supported for months the military junta of General Namphy. I am certain that the Hon. Member would not wish to put the thorny Haitian issue under the impassioned, abusive and unproductive light too often favoured by certain groups.
In reply to his questions, it would be good to recall that the National Government Council or CNG led by General Namphy, whether we like it or not, represents the constitutionally identified authority to govern the affairs of Haiti until February 7, and thus to ensure the transition to a new government. It was therefore impossible not to have proper relations with the CNG. Until November 29, as I believe that everyone will agree, we provided assistance to organize the election, through the CNG as well as the CEP, while remaining concerned about the growing conflict between the two parties. After November 29, we focussed our action on the CNG using the means at our disposal, short of interfering in the internal affairs of an independent country, to remind the Haitian Government of its constitutional obligations each time it took undesirable action. It was without any illusion that we waited until January 17 to express ourselves as we did to avoid being accused of interfering in the internal affairs of another country at such a critical moment as the holding of an election, whatever the quality of this election. Some view this as improper procrastination. I urge them to give serious consideration to what might have been the democratic value of such a premature intervention, not to mention its real influence on the outcome of events.
Secondly, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has already indicated that we were holding consultations with countries concerned over Haiti. A meeting is being organized with the ambassadors of EEC countries that are interested in gaining a better insight into our position. Generally speaking, our partners are now seeking further consultations on the Haitian question. Still it may be too early to conclude that they are prepared to express similar positions in this respect or consider that pressure through their means of assistance might be the most appropriate way to proceed.
The question of possible concerted action remains relevant and is the subject of consultations. I think I can reassure the Hon. Member by saying that the assistance program is indeed part of the review process with respect to our relations with Haiti. Contrary to a number of blatant allegations, the Government does not fear that our financial assistance might be diverted towards questionable endeavours. However it would rather seek agreement with all the organizations involved and, if need be, make adjustments so that there be no doubt left as to our intentions and actions.



[Stage Direction]
LICENCES IN NOVA SCOTIA/REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF LICENCES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on January 19, 1988, I put a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) concerning the irregular issuing of four new Class A lobster licences. 1 asked the Minister to cancel those licences in view of a number of factors that would have to be taken into consideration.
January 21, 1988

By awarding these four new Class A lobster licences, the Minister has broken an undertaking he gave to the Lobster Advisory Committee, which advises him on such matters, and therefore has undermined the integrity of the entire fisheries management system on the East Coast.
Four new Class A licences were given to the offshore fleet when the inshore fleet is struggling to make a living. I might say that this year has been better than most as far as lobster catch is concerned, but the Minister took it upon himself to reverse an undertaking he gave to the Lobster Advisory Committee six months prior to the awarding of these licences. His undertaking was that he would consult with the Lobster Advisory Committee prior to the issuing of new lobster licences. As I indicated to the House, the Minister broke that undertaking.
When one considers the recipients of these new four Class A licences, one must call into serious question the patronage which is being exhibited by the Government of Canada. It is a well known fact that the individuals involved were known supporters and affiliates of the Conservative Party of Canada. That does not mean one ought not to be given an opportunity to make an application for various licences because one holds a particular political belief, but, on the other hand, it is very clear and obvious to many that the system we have in Atlantic Canada for issuing lobster licences was circumvented in this particular instance and four prominent supporters of the Conservative Party were able to obtain those licences and the largesse that goes along with those new four Class A lobster licences.
In fact, in August last year, the Minister took it upon himself to meet with two companies that I am aware of, and perhaps with even more privately, at the Prince George Hotel in Halifax. These two companies were Comeau Seafoods and Newell Lobsters. A business partner of Newell Lobsters just happens to be a Conservative MLA in Nova Scotia.
I am not suggesting any impropriety by the sitting MLA in Nova Scotia, but I am suggesting very clearly that there is a perception, and I believe it to be a real perception, that the only reason the recipients of those licences in Nova Scotia were successful in getting them is because of their affiliation and contacts with the Conservative Party of Canada. That is shameful, in view of the fact there is a large inshore fishery in Nova Scotia and the Atlantic region whose economic interests the Minister has sacrificed in order to soothe and facilitate his political friends who are operating boats on the offshore.
I think it rather repugnant that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would stand in the House and refuse to cancel those licences. It is so repugnant that the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia has called for cancellation of those licences. The Minister of Fisheries in Nova Scotia has called for the cancellation of those licences. The Leader of the Liberal Opposition in Nova Scotia, who brought this issue to the forefront, has also called for the cancellation, as have
Adjournment Debate
fishing groups, unions, and so on, in the Atlantic region. Yet this Government continues to wear the label of sleaze and patronage. When it has an opportunity, it refuses to seize the opportunity to cancel those licences and thereby restore confidence and integrity to the management system in the fisheries in Atlantic Canada. By supporting the inshore fishermen as opposed to the offshore fishermen, it would certainly rid itself of the label and symbolism of patronage, sleaze, and so on.
I hope the response from the Parliamentary Secretary today will provide us with new information, that it will now cancel those licences, since it has circumvented the process which has been put in place for many years. If he would do that, I am sure all those individuals, including myself, who have spoken out fairly forcefully on this issue, would compliment the Minister for taking this action. He now knows that the action he did take by issuing those licences was certainly not in the best interest of the inshore fishermen or, indeed, the Atlantic fisheries as a whole.


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, the selection procedures for issuing new offshore lobster licences are similar to those used for new licences in other fisheries. The Department provided the Minister with a list of 13 applicants and a list of criteria which ideally could be met by candidates and against which they could be evaluated. Based on an evaluation, he chose the four applicants which best fit the criteria. The strongest candidate met all the criteria and received two licences. The other two were stronger than the remaining candidates and each received one licence.
In discussions over the past two years, lobster fishermen have stressed that no new inshore or offshore licences should be issued in traditional South West Nova fishing zones. They argue that no new fishing effort could be accommodated on these zones 4X and 5. The Minister has heeded this advice. There have been no new inshore licences in these traditional zones. What has happened is the Minister, based on advice from officials, has opened a new fishing zone in area 4W eastern Nova Scotia and allowed four new licences to harvest a developmental quota of 360 tonnes in that area.
In order to lessen the risk for the new participants in this fishery, he has allowed each of the new licences to have 30 tonnes, 120 tonnes in total, in the traditional offshore area 4X and 5 and reduced the over-all enterprise allocations of the original eight licences by a corresponding amount of 120 tonnes. To compensate the original licence holders, they have been given 15 tonnes each in the new zone. Let me repeat, the total offshore quota in 4X and 5 remains at 720 tonnes. It has not increased. In summary, the Minister has not increased effort in the 4X and 5 area and this was consistent with the advice of the committees.

January 21, 1988
Adjournment Debate
NATIONAL DEFENCE-AWARDING OFCF-18 MAINTENANCE CONTRACT/SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE-POSITION OF MANITOBA UNIVERSITIES


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, on January 18, I put several questions to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) with respect to the awarding by the Government of the CF-18 contract to Canadair in Montreal rather than to Bristol Air in Winnipeg. That is a decision which has infuriated people from all sectors of the communities in Manitoba.
I asked the Minister why he had told the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who asked about this decision and who asked for assurances that the decision was made on the basis of an analysis of the competitive bids, and the Minister said that the Government had done that. The Leader of the New Democratic Party also asked why the Minister did not agree to the proposal that the New Democratic Party made, that the decision be looked into by the Auditor General. This is a proposal that was rejected by the Minister.
We now know, as a result of information obtained by The Globe and Mail and the Winnipeg Free Press, that the decision was made for political reasons. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion said in the House that the two bids were very close on technical merit and on cost, and that the results were very close between two highly competent groups of companies. Outside the House he said that the Canadair bid was $104 million over three and a half years compared with $105 million for Bristol.
We now know that according to the evaluation done for the Department by its technical experts that the facts are incorrect. In fact, what the experts said was that the Canadair bid would cost 13 per cent more in the first four years. With regard to the question of technical merit, they said that while both companies were technically acceptable, Bristol was the preferred bid based on "a significantly higher technical assessment". The people of Manitoba have every reason to continue to be angry with the Government for its wrongful decision.
The second question 1 asked the Minister was in connection with the report in the Winnipeg Free Press that highly-placed senior public servants had made it very clear that in the decision as to which universities would be chosen to receive funding as centres of scientific excellence that Manitoba universities would be frozen out because of the fact that the Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Pawley, has opposed so many of the recommendations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), such as the free trade agreement. The fact is that the Prime Minister's proposal that the Government of Canada allocate $1.3 billion of new money for improving the quality of our higher education system and the establishment of the centres
of excellence at a number of universities in Canada to concentrate on scientific research and development does not deal with new money at all.
The fact is that the Prime Minister, before he became the Prime Minister, criticized former Liberal Governments for their failures to adequately fund scientific research and development. He pointed out quite correctly that in Canada we were spending about 1.5 per cent of Gross National Product on research and development and that this was among the lowest of any of the countries belonging to the OECD, as well as Japan. He promised that a Conservative Government would increase expenditures to 2.5 per cent of Gross National Product.
We know now that in fact expenditures are still at the level they were during the Liberal years, that is 1.3 per cent. We know now that business and industry have not responded as the Conservatives promised they would to increase significantly their expenditures and their efforts in the field of scientific research and development. We know now that Canada is near the bottom, if not right at the bottom, of all the countries in the western world, including Japan, in terms of the efforts that are made in the field of scientific research and development. We know now that after the Conservative Government took office it realized what a tremendous scam and scandal had been created by the Liberal Government scientific research credit fund, which was supposed to encourage industry to participate in and increase its efforts in scientific research, and that it would probably cost the treasury of Canada and the people of Canada approximately $800 million. In fact, it would cost a great deal more.
The Conservatives announced the stoppage of that plan, but they grandfathered all those already in the pipeline. The result is that Canadian taxpayers will probably lose approximately $3 billion. In fact, very little in the way of real research has been done.
I say that it is time for the Government to face up to realities. It is time to stop playing politics when handing out contracts. It is time to live up to the promise made by the Prime Minister when he was the Leader of the Opposition, that the Conservative Government would substantially increase the efforts of Canada in the field of scientific research and development.


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to my NDP friend telling us about the CF-18 maintenance contracts, but I found rather strange his reluctance to provide all the figures. Although he and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) may not know it, the CF-18 maintenance contract was in two parts. The first part dealt with engineering and the second with repairs.
January 21, 1988

In his remarks, the Hon. Member said that, compared with Canadair, Bristol's bid was 13 per cent lower on the engineering side. What he failed to indicate, however, is that Canadair's bid on the repairs side was 10.5 per cent lower than Bristol's.
Well, Madam Speaker, if we consider the situation and the contract as a whole, we realize, as the Treasury Board minister indicated at the time, that there was some 3 per cent differential on the basis of which the Conservative government, anxious to promote national and collective interests-a notion which may escape the NDP member, let alone his leader- ruled in favour of Canadair.
It is on the basis of its concern for national identity and the equitable sharing of contracts that the federal government following various departmental assessments on technical merits and costs decided, under the circumstances, to award the contract to Canadair.
Adjournment Debate
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, may I tell my honourable friend that we have provided the Auditor General with the documents he was seeking and that the government would gladly and at any time provide ... Of course, there remains the condition of confidentiality for the bids made by existing companies, but whenever the Auditor General wants to have a look at bid papers, Madam Speaker, the minister will gladly provide them, as tradition will have it. Again, the Progressive Conservative Government is demonstrating that it is accountable for its decisions which are based on the need to promote national unity and equitable sharing of contracts among all Canadians.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, January 22, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers