1988-04-29

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Clement Cote, Member for the electoral district of Lac-Saint-Jean, by resignation. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime), as reported (with amendment) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West) moved:: That Bill C-89 be amended in Clause 7, in the French version, by striking out lines 20 to 25 at page 15 and substituting therefor:
"(1.4) pour ['application du present article, la victime est:
a) la personne qui subit des pertes ou des dommages materiels ou moraux par suite la perpetration d'une infraction".


Mr. Speaker:: The motion has been put. Does the Minister wish to continue with debate?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this comes as a surprise to me. I was not expecting to speak at this stage. I had understood that there had been discussions between my acting Parliamentary Secretary and the Opposition critics-


An Hon. Member:: He is doing a bad job for you.


Mr. Riis:: There have been no discussions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -with respect to this amendment, an amendment which is technical in nature. It simply corrects the French version. It is not a substantive amendment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We were told yesterday what the business of the House was to be for today, and-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If it is the intention of the Opposition to stall this Bill for reasons unrelated to its merits, I would very much regret that decision. Bill C-89 has to do with victims of crime, and it is one which is universally supported.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It was not discussed as part of the business of the House for today.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If the House Leader of the New Democratic Party wants to carry on his negotiations, perhaps he could go behind the curtains and allow me the courtesy of finishing my remarks. He knows and I know that Rule 904 does exist. If I were inclined to invoke that, we could spend the rest of the day talking about this Bill. I do not operate that way. I think the New Democratic Party should try to be straightforward. If New Democrats are trying to delay and disrupt the proceedings of the House then let them stand up and say so. 1 understood that this matter had been cleared. We are quite prepared to go ahead with this other technical matter. If that is not the case and there is some problem that 1 have not communicated fully, then I apologize.


Mr. Blaikie:: Don't be a cry-baby.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If anyone had a reason to be a cry-baby after what happened in Manitoba, the Hon. Members over there should be out there with Kleenex.
If there is not an inclination to proceed, we can have a vote on this technical amendment and show how childish the New Democrats are, and 1 will come back another day.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I came to the House with an understanding from the Government that there had been an all-Party agreement to deal with this matter. I was not expecting it to be first on the list until very late in the day yesterday. I am here and prepared to proceed. I hope we can deal with this Bill now, as the Government says. It is a step about which I would like to comment. It deals with the problems of victims and their legitimate claims for better treatment under the criminal law. I did come on the under-

April 29, 1988
Criminal Code
standing that there was an agreement about which 1 had not myself consulted with the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight on this matter, in the middle of this week I spoke with the Acting Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. For many months the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has not had a Parliamentary Secretary to work for him. We are still waiting for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to appoint one. Apparently there is some difficulty getting someone to work with the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I spoke in the middle of this week, to set the record very straight, with the Acting Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. At that time I informed the Acting Parliamentary Secretary with respect to a technical amendment to Bill C-89 that we were certainly prepared to agree to it. We have supported this Bill in principle. We have worked to improve the legislation in the House and we will support the Bill at third reading.
Let us set the record straight in terms of the all-Party agreement. Yesterday I spoke again with the Acting Parliamentary Secretary. I spoke with the Government House Leader, and I indicated that we in the New Democratic Party were prepared to deal with this Bill early next week with very few speakers and to pass the legislation. In fact, I even suggested that perhaps in the middle of the week we might want to deal with the legislation at all stages, report stage and third reading, in one afternoon session. That was the agreement we made because we recognize the importance of the legislation.
Yesterday, immediately after the Question Period when the Government House Leader was asked what legislation would be before the House on Friday morning, he indicated that it would be the Western Diversification Act. Then he said that Bill C-74, the Environmental Protection Act would be called, followed by Bill C-92, amendments to the Wheat Board Act and Bill C-89, victims of crime. That was the order we were given yesterday afternoon at 3.15 p.m.
At approximately six o'clock yesterday afternoon we were phoned and told that all that was changed. The New Democratic Party House Leader, the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis), was informed about six o'clock yesterday afternoon to forget what was said, that Bill C-89 was to come forward at 10 o'clock today. In other words, forget what he was told at 3.15. This House cannot function in that way. Some of us have responsibilities in our constituencies and we must have some notice.
The Acting Parliamentary Secretary is a man of honour, and he will know that the agreement very clearly was that this legislation would be dealt with next week and dealt with expeditiously. There was never any suggestion to the contrary. The Acting Parliamentary Secretary knows that.
When the Government attempts to change at the last minute the order of important legislation, despite indications of full co-operation from the Opposition, it still remains our responsibility to ensure that the legislation is given the kind of debate that is appropriate. A number of my caucus colleagues who want to speak on this legislation are unable to be here today. They assumed that the Government would act in good faith and would proceed as it indicated yesterday afternoon and as was indicated to me. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, we are given no alternative but to insist on a vote on this otherwise technical amendment and hope that the Government next time will co-operate with opposition critics in scheduling the debate for a time that is mutually agreeable.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words regarding this important interchange. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) indicated that he was quite prepared to debate this matter today. I feel sorry in a sense that he was given information that there had been some understanding because, as my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) indicated, the Deputy House Leader said yesterday that today's business would be the Environmental Protection Act and we assumed that that was what the business would be. If we completed that legislation, we would then go on to the Wheat Board Act. Again, we assumed that that was what we would be doing later today. Consequently people made arrangements, assuming that what the Government said would be the business for Friday would be the business on Friday. But we found out late last night that there had been some changes.
In the meantime, I am afraid to say this but I say it with all sincerity to the Minister of Justice, the people who wanted to participate in the debate on this most important piece of legislation regarding victims of crime have left town for other business. I know the Minister knows that if people feel strongly about the issue they ought to have the opportunity to speak. I understand there was an agreement that we would be debating this matter presumably mid-week. As the Justice critic for the New Democratic Party has said, there was an indication that there would be a short list of speakers and that we would attempt to wrap up the matter in one day's debate. That is the way we do business, and I would like to think that is the way we will continue to do business.
We are trying, as Members of the New Democratic Party, to make the House of Commons work as effectively and as efficiently as possible. We are trying to conduct the business of the House of Commons in a business-like way, which means giving notice so that we can make plans and the debates can be informed and Members can participate in a positive way. We should deal with this legislation now. There is an amendment before the House. Let us deal with it and move on in an expeditious and positive way.


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. April 29, 1988

Speaker, I would also like to provide some clarification about the agreement on the technical amendment. This week, in the course of negotiations with the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), there was agreement on having the amendment approved immediately. The amendment is of a technical nature and applies only to the wording of the French text. There are no amendments to the English version of the Bill.
As for the responsibility of the spokesmen for the respective parties, I think the House should adopt Bill C-89 which is extremely important to all Canadians.
As far as today's debate is concerned, the Government House Leader's office advised Opposition Members last Wednesday that Bill C-89 would be considered within the next few days. So the news did not come yesterday evening at six o'clock but Wednesday, when negotiations took place with the offices of the respective House Leaders.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this is a very important Bill and that there was agreement among all three Parties on accepting this technical amendment.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment of Mr. Hnatyshyn. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the House that pursuant to Standing Orders, this vote will be deferred until six o'clock on Monday.
Western Economic Diversification Act WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION ACT


MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure-


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the record will show that I was in mid-speech when we last handled this Bill, and I would like to complete my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is very much in favour of an orderly proceeding this morning, and I am observing the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) who seems to be in agreement with the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), so I will recognize the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre on debate.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, when I was last interrupted, I was drawing to the attention of the House some of the difficulties I thought would arise as a result of the mandate for the western diversification office. I was commenting on the mandate, which is that the Western Diversification Office will represent the interests of western Canada in the development of national policies and the design of national programs and will ensure that western Canada is effectively linked to decision-making in Ottawa.
I had noted that the amount of federal moneys going to western Canada by way of federal expenditures for goods and services had actually dropped during the mandate of this Government. It had dropped from approximately 15 per cent to approximately 13 per cent. I was saying that it was indeed very necessary for someone in the Government to start looking after the interests of western Canada.
I find that this necessity is very hard to understand in light of the fact that throughout this Government's mandate, three of the four western provinces have been very supportive of the Government. Members of Parliament from government benches predominate in western Canada. In Alberta, for instance, there are no MPs except government MPs. Yet the amount of money going to the purchase of goods and services by the federal Government in western Canada declined. I can see why the Government felt it necessary to do something to increase the influence of westerners in the Government.
We all agree that the Senate is very ineffectual at representing regional interests and has never really performed that job, if in fact it was intended to perform that job in 1867 when the Constitution was put together. In spite of biannual and sometimes even more frequent meetings of the premiers, their

April 29, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
influence on the Government does not seem to be taking, even though most of them are supporters of the Government. The preponderance of MPs on the government side does not seem to be helping either.
Perhaps the problem then rests in the Cabinet. Does this Bill change that? I submit that it does not. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) will simply take on an extra responsibility. There will be no more votes in Cabinet and he will have no more power in Cabinet than he has now. How will western Canada be further represented and have its interests guarded, given that western Canada has already sent an overwhelming majority of government Members to Ottawa?
The Government's response has been to put another Deputy Minister outside Ottawa in Edmonton where he or she can speak on behalf of western Canada. Edmonton is a long way from Ottawa. The Premier of Alberta, when dealing with this Government, is finding that out. I do not understand how a Deputy Minister's voice will be any stronger with the Government than those of elected officials. I am concerned about whether or not the mandate of the Western Diversification Office will change the way western Canada is treated in confederation.
I would suspect that a Deputy Minister who is located in Ottawa might have more influence because of the way Ottawa Deputy Ministers function. There are meetings and official and unofficial gatherings. My understanding is that much of the interdepartmental work gets done at those kinds of functions. It will be difficult for a Deputy Minister located in Edmonton to exert the kind of influence that Deputy Ministers of other Departments influence over each other.
As I was pointing out the other day, there are some fairly strong Ministries with which the Western Diversification Office will have to deal. These Ministries also have an interest in western Canada as well as in other parts of the country and their final words tend to become law. The Ministry of Finance, for example, is now busily fighting inflation and the threat of inflation, even though in western Canada, the problem is deflation, not inflation. In my riding, property values have dropped by about 50 per cent since 1984. Yet the federal Government and the Department of Finance is fighting a war against inflation.
It is pretty hard to understand that we have inflation for those whose property values have dropped by 50 per cent, whether they own homes in small towns or farms in the agricultural area of my riding. For westerners, the focus on inflation does not seem to be a proper one. We are wondering who in Cabinet will be able to convince the Department of Finance of that fact.
In order to fight inflation, the Department of Finance has been raising interest rates. How does this help western Canada? Western Canadians are already carrying a very high debt load because of the depression. As incomes drop and property values drop, their ability to borrow money has
declined and interest rates are going back up. How will they be able to stay in business with interest rates rising?
Another factor that goes along with the business of raising interest rates is a policy of the Department of Finance which the Western Diversification Office and western MPs and cabinet Ministers will have to resist. It has raised the value of the Canadian dollar quite precipitously, more than 10 cents in the last year. What does that mean for my constituents and western Canadians? It means that the value of their wood products, their grain, and the oil that they export is down approximately 12 per cent in real value in terms of Canadian dollars from what it was one year ago. Not only are they having to fight a wrong-headed policy for their region, but they do not seem to be getting very much assistance from the premiers, from the Senators, or indeed from the government Members from that part of the country. The Western Diversification Office, and the creation of that office, will have great difficulty changing that, because so far all of the elements have appeared to be quite ineffectual in dealing with the interests of western Canada.


Mr. Langdon:: My colleague from the West referred especially to the problems of the agricultural economy, which have been devastating to western Canada. Since we have just had a national day of protest with respect to these agricultural problems, I would like to ask what his sense is of whether this Western Diversification Office is likely to provide any solutions or responses to those crises in agriculture, and what suggestions he might make as a counter to what the Conservatives have so far failed to do in western Canada?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: One of the chief things that could be done to address the problem raised during the day of protest is to act on some of the proposals that have been put forward by the farm organizations, and the Senate agriculture committee, which published a report yesterday with regard to farm finance. In that report it pointed out that there were some 54,000 farmers across Canada who were in jeopardy of going out of business in the next year or two. This is close to 31 per cent of the active commercial farmers in the country. That committee report proposed a form of debt set aside, or a period of time when the farmers would not be required to pay interest on the debt that has accumulated over the past years. This would permit them to have a chance to get their feet under them, so to speak.
This proposal has the backing of most of the national farm organizations. It would have a great impact on maintaining the economy, especially the small economies in rural Canada, which rotate around small towns and villages. It would keep people on the farms and provide the population that is necessary to maintain the service sector in those small towns and villages.
The Government ought to be pursuing this approach more vigorously. It has had nearly four years to deal with this. It is
April 29, 1988

something that is known across the country as a $22 dilemma. The Canadian farming community owes $22 billion. This debt is far too high for the amount of income that can be generated from farm goods and services at the moment.


Mr. Towers:: I wish to ask the Hon. Member a question, Mr. Speaker. The NDP was crying the blues when the Canadian dollar was devalued. Now the NDP is crying the blues when it is increasing in value. On which side of the issue did the NDP cry the loudest?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Any time that values change by 10 cents, which is the equivalent of 12 per cent or 13 per cent, in the course of one year, there is a very difficult readjustment to overcome. The rapidity of this adjustment will be felt in the export oriented community, which is basically the farmers of western Canada, and it will impact on them just as negatively as the rapid increase in the interest rates that we suffered under the Liberals. As the Hon. Member will recall, interest rates went from 12 per cent to 24 per cent in the course of approximately a year and a half. That virtually wiped out a lot of younger and growing farmers, farmers who had added to their debt load. This particular initiative that the Department of Finance is now engaged in will have exactly the same effect over the course of the next year or two, mark my words.


Mr. Cassidy:: I would like my friend, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, to comment on whether the diversification fund will be put in a place where the funding will be equitably distributed among different regions and provinces in western Canada. When allocation of funding began, which I believe was prior to the legislation being adopted here, and there has already been some allocation take place, there was only what can appear like a politically motivated decision to make allocations and to talk about supporting different diversification projects in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, but not in Manitoba. In fact, the tap was very distinctly kept shut in Manitoba. I believe that that reflected political intervention by the present Government. It was attempting to make the New Democratic Party that was in power there look as though it could not deliver, because the diversification funds were not coming through. With the election in process, suddenly the tap opened up, because the Government was trying to show that somehow if the people voted Conservative, that would do good things.
It has not created a strong new government there. The new government is weak. In fact, it lost votes from the last election, where the Conservatives had more seats and more votes than they have now.
Does my hon. friend believe that this politically motivated interference will be acceptable to westerners, and will make the best use of taxpayers dollars, thus achieving the needed economic diversification in western Canada?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I think that the people of Manitoba showed that it was not acceptable. They gave Gary Filmon's Conservatives less seats than they had in the previous Government when
Western Economic Diversification Act
they were in opposition, and basically told the federal Government that they did not like the activities that the Conservative Party had engaged in in that province.
The reaction of westerners in general has been pretty much a wait-and-see attitude toward this initiative. Most westerners see it as a reshuffling of money and programs that did exist, and the hanging of a new sign on a lot of old programs. There has not been a lot of excitement one way or another. I note that the small business community has indicated that it is very fearful on the basis of some of the initial actions under the aegis of the Western Diversification Office, which appears to be more politically oriented than economically oriented. They have questioned some of the grants that have been made.
I remind the House that the initiatives are supposed to be targeted toward small and medium-sized businesses, yet one of the first diversification programs has been the announcement to assist a very large pulp and paper operation in northern Alberta. Another initiative was the creation of a national park, which is a very laudable use of federal money, but does not normally fall within the assistance of small and medium-sized businesses. It is small wonder that many westerners think that this will be used as much for a political slush fund as anything else.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. As other speakers have said, this Bill is a red herring to let the Government convince western Canadians that there is something new coming for that region of the country. Western Canadians are on to this scam and realize that this will not be the situation.
Government, of course, knows full well how regional development works and how it has worked for some time. We have had different programs. We have had regional bodies and regional programs. We had the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and then the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. As we go along it seems that the commitment of the early 1970s to regional development is not getting stronger but weaker. The Government does not have the conviction to proceed with regional development.
The four western provinces and the four Atlantic provinces seem to be forgotten more and more with each passing year as far as this very important principle is concerned. That is evident. If we look at the facts and look deeply into the structure of how the Government has disbursed funds, we will see that this is very evident. This evidence is apparent in the closing of rail lines, the reduction of postal services, and the general reduction of government services which are important if people are going to locate business enterprises in western Canada. This cannot continue to be the case. If we continue

April 29, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
the present trend of centralization, Canada as we know it will disappear.
In Canada we have approximately 800 one-industry towns. That is why we have been trying to convince the Minister of Finance to continue with flow-through shares as a means of continuing real, meaningful regional development. If we do away with flow-through shares we will hurt the mining industry, which is a large support for those 800 one-industry towns. It is the one industry in many of the towns as is the fishing industry in many other towns. Flow-through shares are a very important part of regional development, yet they are not mentioned in this Bill.
On March 4, 1987, the federal Government announced the amalgamation of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Ministry of Science and Technology to form the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. The responsibility for regional development functions was given to ACOA in Atlantic Canada, to the Northern Ontario Advisory Board for northern Ontario, and to the Department of Western Economic Diversification for western Canada, the head office to be located in Edmonton, Alberta.
This is another reorganization, it is a shuffling of the cards and no more. Each time the cards are shuffled something falls from the table, something very important for regional development, something from the fibre of this very important process. When we went from DREE to DRIE we lost a lot of commitment from the Government on regional development. We are again losing a great deal.
The new Department of Industry, Science and Technology will deal with a number of things which will be mainly in central Canada. The Government has parcelled out a sum of money to northern Ontario, to Atlantic Canada, and to western Canada. It said "Here is your fund, don't bother us any more. This is what you are going to get, now be quiet".
In addition to co-ordinating federal programs in western Canada, this Western Diversification Fund, which will be $1.2 billion over five years, is going to be insufficient to meet the economic needs in western Canada. As my colleagues from Winnipeg-Fort Garry and Algoma have noted, this $1.2 billion over five years amounts to $220 million a year, which will not be sufficient to meet the purposes which the Government would like us to believe it intends for western Canada.
By 1983-84 a commitment for $1.2 billion was made to western Canada under the ERDA agreement. This was matched by the provincial governments for a total of $2.1 billion. It is obvious that the Western Diversification Fund is not generous and that it is not a new initiative by the Government. The question is what moneys which are presently in the system are going to be taken from other programs and put into the Western Diversification Fund. How much of this is new money?
The Government also wants us to believe that this system of regional development through a department or agency in a
particular region is going to be easier for people in Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario, and western Canada. The Government has told us that this money will be looked after by people from the region and will be more sympathetically allotted throughout the respective areas. That would be fine if that were what the Government really intended.
The recommendations and studies done by the Government on how to approach regional development specified that if you are going to have a regional agency, it must be non-political. You cannot put people in control who have political backgrounds or are in any way identified with political operations.
The Government has not followed this recommendation. It succumbed to the temptation of putting in people who have been connected with the Progressive Conservative Party. That is bad because, even if the Government did not intend it, as happens in many cases where there are political appointments, the first thing to be looked after is the political connections. That does not always mean that the best projects are funded. It means that the best political contacts are funded.
This is a travesty. We are telling the people of western Canada, Atlantic Canada, and northern Ontario that this is going to be something new, that the frustrations with regional development over the years are going to be met, that things are different now. However, things are not going to be different. Things cannot be different until the Government develops a purposeful will to get out of the political business in dealing with the welfare of the regions of the country.
I see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) is in the House today. On March 29 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) a question on the Canadian Exploration Development Incentive Program of which the Minister is well aware. The Minister of Energy and the rest of the Government are planning to reduce CEDIP considerably by October 1 of this year. At present CEDIP refunds one-third of investments of up to $10 million by particular companies in the oil and gas industry.
This was wonderful for small companies. While it may not have been the best program that could have been developed, it was an initiative taken by the Government. It was a step in the right direction that was much appreciated by small oil and gas companies in western Canada. This fund was introduced when oil prices were low in an attempt to help small companies that are so very important to the oil and gas industry in western Canada. They have come to depend on this funding, much of which is spent on exploration and development.
When oil prices rose, the Government felt that it could reduce these funds. Rather than a one-third refund it is considering a one-sixth refund, to take effect October 1. There is a significant difference between one-third of $10 million and one-sixth of $10 million, and our Party and small producers have suggested to the Government that rather than making a change by reducing the 33.3 per cent refund to 16 2/3 per cent,
April 29, 1988

it should reduce the $10 million to $5 million. It would still protect the smaller companies and give the full percentage they have at the present time.
The Government has not responded to this suggestion, and refuses to make a commitment. I believe the Government is letting down the small oil and gas producers in this country. There is no need for a royal commission or an investigation in this particular area. The Government only needs to make a decision, but that is not forthcoming.
Let us consider the free trade agreement. It may seem to the energy sector that it will be able to sell more oil and gas into the United States, but it is not taking into consideration the ramifications of the omnibus trade Bill. If that passes, it will be a severe deterrent to our trading rights with the United States.
Last spring the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke to the people in Alberta and said that the regulations imposed by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the sale of natural gas through the pipeline system into the United States was wrong. He said that it was extraterritorial and that the United States had no right to do this. However, when the free trade agreement was negotiated, the National Energy Board was almost completely decimated. Its powers have been severely reduced so that even if it is able to function, we do not know if it will have any meaningful effect.
In return, the United States was required to do very little. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was left almost completely intact. The agreement contains only a nebulous comment which states that the federal Government of Canada and the United States Government will enter into negotiations to try to work at reducing the regulatory network that exists in the two countries. That is not good enough. The Prime Minister told the people in western Canada that this arrangement would not be good enough, but the changes he was seeking did not occur. One must ask if the Government has any real intention to strengthen regional development in western Canada.
We have to consider the CF-18 contract and other contracts for which western Canada had every right to be considered but was ignored. We have not seen any real change in the Government's lack of commitment to western Canada.
The Government must do more than simply offer $120 million and ask to be left alone. It must have a comprehensive plan to meet the aspirations of western Canada. It must introduce such a plan soon in order to address the difficulties facing the West, with lower prices and fewer problems in the agricultural industry. The Government is only paying lip service to farmers at a time when families in western Canada who have been in farming for generations are losing their farms. Yet the Government continues on in the belief that western Canada will accept a pittance in the form of a slush fund and forget that western Canada will be ignored as a vital centre of this country, which it should really be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Is it the wish of the House to call it 11 o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in the recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion, all seven Justices said that they were not deciding on the rights of the fetus but that there is a valid state objective to do so. They also made it clear that the state interest in protecting the fetus increases as it develops.
The bedrock of fundamental justice cannot be based on arbitrary gestation periods. If life gains value as it matures, does it lose value as it gets much older? I think not.
Dr. Albert Schweitzer said: "If a man loses reverence for any part of life, he will lose reverence for all life".
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote recently: "For us to accept abortion would be to deny our belief in the value of human life".
I urge our Government to act quickly on fetal rights, to develop comprehensive national programs that show abortion is no answer to unwanted pregnancies, to strengthen services to help pregnant women and unwanted children, and to do what is morally right and not allow abortion on demand.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the acid rain saga with the United States continued yesterday when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that a treaty on acid rain between Canada and the United States is inevitable, just as surely as summer follows spring.
Apparently the President will ask George Shultz to discuss Canada's eight-point proposal for an acid rain accord as a matter of priority with our External Affairs Minister. But in his remarks the Prime Minister did not mention that in January this year such a plan was examined by the United States and rejected by the same George Shultz. In addition, Michael Perley of the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain scoffed at the Prime Minister's assertion that shifting the issue to Shultz is a sign of progress. He said:

April 29, 1988
This is just a repetition of what has already been done. It is a sign that the Prime Minister failed to get the President to act. Reagan never had any intention of doing anything on acid rain.
Unfortunately, we seem to be back to square one.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in the April 28 edition of The Globe and Mail, Brian Milner writes as follows:
Manitoba's new Government is stepping into a financial quagmire with little room to manoeuvre ...
That is the harsh assessment of Dominion Bond Rating Service .. . which paints a picture of persistent economic mismanagement by former Premier Howard Pawley's New Democrats.
The lessen is clear. An NDP Government means economic stagnation and social regression. Barret destroyed the British Columbia economy. Pawley did likewise in Manitoba. We must never, ever, let Broadbent and his gang similarly ruin Canada.



AGRICULTURE


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, farmers and small businessmen in Canada know the economic devastation that was created when the Bank of Canada, under a Liberal Government, permitted interest rates to rise from 12 per cent to 24 per cent in a very short period of time. They could not adjust their price. They could only suffer and incur debt. This Government is also adding an equally devastating debt burden to farmers and small business people who export their products. By raising the Canadian dollar, it is reducing the export value of these products, again forcing these people into debt.
Farmers do not need more debt. It is inappropriate at a time when the Senate Agriculture Committee report of yesterday estimates that 31 per cent of Canada's farmers are practically insolvent due to debt. It calls for a relief scheme where the Government would pay all or part of a farmer's interest charges for a fixed period, for a restructuring of debt on more favourable terms, and extensions of repayment periods. It also calls for the establishment of a secondary loan market similar to CMHC.
The Government has used up nearly four years of its mandate. When will it address the problem, the $22 billion problem?



ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to remind Hon. Members and the general public that this week is National Organ Donor Awareness Week. Our Government, through our Minister of National Health and Welfare, works with various agencies to help inform the public and health professionals of the benefits of transplants and the need for organ and tissue donors.
I invite all Canadians to take a moment to think about becoming donors and discuss their decisions with members of their families. Through organ donations, each one of us can give the most generous gift there is, the gift of life.
However, Mr. Speaker, my invitation specifically excludes all Members of the PD Caucus. That tribe should not be allowed to reproduce in any way whatsoever!



MINORITIES


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are equal before the law. The Devine government in Saskatchewan is now violating this fundamental principle of a democracy by abolishing the Fransaskois' basic rights and replacing them with a misleading law that gives the government absolute discretionary power.
This kind of action by Saskatchewan threatens the future of all linguistic minorities in the country, be they English- or French-speaking. We do not want any politician to be able to play with the basic rights of minorities, which are already too fragile and vulnerable.
Respect for minorities is an essential feature of Canada, one which makes our country a distinct society. Minorities do not need fine speeches. They need results in order to live fully.
Bill 2 violates the spirit of Canadian society. It is mean-spirited because it rejects existing rights instead of guaranteeing them and then finding ways to implement them appropriately.
It is regrettable that the Government did not see fit to consult the Fransaskois because their demands are reasonable and their future is at stake. I believe that the Conservative Government has not played a constructive, helpful role in this affair.
April 29, 1988



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago 70 per cent of the Canadian workforce was engaged in the resource and manufacturing industries. Today in 1988 industries using new-wrought information technology employ an ever increasing number of persons. Within the Canadian economy, total revenue for knowledge intensive industries in 1987 was $18 billion and those industries employed more than 230,000 persons.
The information technology sector is growing quickly. The knowledge intensive sector is expected to grow at an annual rate of 15.5 per cent, much faster than the Gross Domestic Product. The software and services segment of this industry is growing at an annual rate of 20 per cent. Information technology spending has accounted for 35 per cent of all R and D initiatives in Canada in recent years.
Canada's standard of living ultimately depends on its success in exporting internationally competitive goods and services, but our advantages in the natural resource industries are being severely challenged by other nations. Our future lies in exporting information technology. As the natural resource industries lose ground, knowledge intensive industries will provide opportunities for Canada to seize world export markets and bolster our standard of living.



ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Conservative majority of this House voted against a series of amendments made by the New Democratic Party to improve the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. These amendments would focus the agency on attacking regional disparity, guarantee fairness between the Atlantic provinces, and ensure that the ACOA board would be representative of all interests in economic development, not just a narrow view.
The Government refused to support these amendments and went further in this week's debate by having members of Cabinet, including the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), attack members of this Party for speaking out for Atlantic Canada on the grounds that they represent Ontario ridings.
With this attitude of the Government it is no wonder that Atlantic Canada is not treated fairly. New Democratic Members of Parliament from all over Canada will continue to fight for regional development in Atlantic Canada in spite of government opposition. This fight will continue until regional
disparity is eliminated and Atlantic Canadians are treated fairly and have equal opportunities with the rest of Canadians.



FINANCE


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to emphasize the seriousness of the phase out of flowthrough shares. The White Paper of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) issued in June, 1987, does change the value and use of flow-through shares. This vehicle has been used by small and medium-sized resource companies, oil, gas, and mining, to raise capital for exploration and development, especially in our remote areas. It has created hundreds of thousands of jobs all across Canada.
To explore is a high-risk business. Flow-through is probably the only way for juniors to raise cash in a high-risk industry. I urge the Government to review this severe situation immediately.



HARBOURS AND PORTS


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to plead with the Government to get on with its commitments with respect to the people of Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe. In the Estimates brought down nearly two months ago was a clause or a provision for $17 million for harbour development for the city of Corner Brook, Newfoundland. This harbour development project goes back five years to a time under the previous administration. Nearly $400,000 was spent doing the engineering and design work.
It is critical at this time. Two container services run into the city of Corner Brook which is a major hub for western Newfoundland. We have a booming fishery, an export trade to the Soviet Union of some $900 million worth of fish. Quite literally, the economic activity of that Newfoundland west coast city is being choked because of inadequate harbour facilities.
The project was contained in the Transport Canada estimates two months ago. The engineering work is completed and ready to go. We are not talking about cutting a ribbon or cracking a bottle of champagne. We are talking about breaking the bottleneck that prevents economic growth and activity, and jobs in a region with unemployment of 30 per cent, from going ahead.

April 29, 1988
For God's sake, let's get the ball rolling. Let's make the harbour development happen. Let's let economic activity move ahead in Humber-Port au Port Ste. Barbe and, in particular, in the city of Corner Brook and let's do it now.

[DOT] (ii10)



CHILDREN


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, a dark and terrible aspect of our society was revealed in Thurso this week.
We all mourn the fate of the young victims of this so-called sexual abuse ring that supposedly included the parents of the young victims. We all know that children who are victims of such criminal acts will be marked for life and that our whole society will lose as a result.
That is why I appeal to the sense of responsibility of all leaders in our society, including the media, police and our judicial system. I remind them that sensational revelations, sensationalism and irresponsible comments on the background of the accused contribute nothing to the situation.
We have before us Bill C-89 to help crime victims. This morning, unfortunately, the New Democratic Party took offence for procedural reasons and did not admit the urgency of proceeding with this Bill. It is regrettable, given the circumstances.
We must all pray for these young children who did not receive the protection that the adults in whose care they were owed them, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the scandalous Expro affair has revealed several failings of the Government and the munitions export system. At the beginning of its mandate, the Secretary of State (for External Affairs) stated that the Government would never allow the exporting of weapons to a country at war. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems that this has happened four times and a fifth shipment for the Iran-Iraq war, to be sent via the coast of Iran, may now be in preparation.
It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that the present export licensing system must be thoroughly reformed to prevent a recurrence in future. Also, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State
for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) must look at the answers that his own Parliamentary Secretary gave in this House to see whether they are as honest as the Government is entitled to demand its Parliamentary Secretaries' answers to be.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I join the people of the Upper Saint-Maurice in thanking the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) for the grant of S2.3 million under the Community Development Program. I must also point out the excellent cooperation of the industrial commissioner and his team in bringing about this project.
The people of the Upper Saint-Maurice are proud and believe in its development potential. By carrying through this project, they now have the financial leverage to diversify the economy and a local decision-making structure working for the community. This is further proof, Mr. Speaker, that our Government believes in regional development, in its diversification and above all in its success through the participation of responsible people representing the community.



CHILD CARE


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, we heard this morning the stark reality that in Canada the lowest paid workers are child care workers. We heard earlier this week, and it is a shameful fact, that somebody who is a guardian of animals, a zoo keeper, is far more valued in our society in terms of the amount of money that person receives than are child care workers.
We also hear the Government claiming it will come up with a national child care strategy. Well, actions speak louder than words.
Right now in the city of Edmonton there is a federal government building that is scheduled to open at the beginning of June. Under the previous Liberal administration we planned a child care facility in that building. Right now that facility has been put on hold.
There are parents who want to know what is going to happen at the end of May, the beginning of June. They are waiting to put their children into this child care facility.



April 29, 1988

The child care facility has been put on hold. We demand that the Government put its money where its mouth is and open that child care facility when the building opens in Edmonton.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) speech to the U.S. Congress was a great success. It drew the attention of the American public to the very serious problem of acid rain. It was educational in that many people who live outside the northeastern states in America had no knowledge of the seriousness of the problem of acid rain.
It is clear from the response of callers to an open line call-in show on an American network that people in all parts of the U.S. are now taking notice. Americans have been calling their Congressmen to let them know that they want something done.
It has taken a number of years to educate Canadians about the devastating effects of acid rain. The awareness and education process of Americans was certainly enhanced by the Prime Minister's address to Congress. The general public in the U.S. is beginning to take notice of this serious problem. For that we must thank our Prime Minister and our Government for giving this issue the importance it deserves by raising it not only in the minds of elected representatives in the United States but also with the American public.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, this week marked a historic step in the constitutional development of the Yukon when an agreement was signed between the Yukon Territorial Government and the federal Government to entrench French language rights in the territorial Legislature and courts.
In recognition as well of the cultural and historical importance of aboriginal languages in the territory, an agreement was also made regarding a start on developing essential services in the seven aboriginal languages as well.
This is an important step forward in the Yukon. It recognizes the contribution of Francophone people within the Yukon and their rights, and also the important language and cultural development of aboriginal people, the Yukon's first citizens.
Oral Questions



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, a year and a half after Mr. Picard's committee submitted its report on the development of the Montreal region, the people of Montreal are still waiting for the space agency and the development of the Port of Montreal. The people are still waiting for really effective help for eastern and southwestern Montreal, are still waiting for housing assistance in the Montreal area and a real banking centre for east-end Montreal. The only answer the Government has given, Mr. Speaker, is to abolish the departmental committee. Montrealers will remember in the next election campaign. They will remember that it is the Liberals who defend them.



NATIONAL FORESTRY WEEK


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is about to celebrate National Forestry Week. Canadians have much to celebrate.
Ten per cent of our national workforce is employed in forest or related industries. Over half of Canada's forest product is produced in my home province of British Columbia.
As long as we continue to farm our forests responsibly, Canadians can rely on more and more economic growth in primary and secondary forest production. From Vancouver Island to the island of Newfoundland, Canadians will celebrate National Forestry Week next week.
The contribution of our foresters to our national economy is truly something to celebrate.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. When he addressed the U.S. Congress, the Prime Minister did not utter a single word to condemn the omnibus trade Bill. He did not ask President Reagan publicly to veto this Bill. He said nothing to urge Congress not to override the veto. He sang the praises of his own trade agreement with the United States but not a word about the biggest threat to world trade and to his

April 29, 1988
Oral Questions
own trade agreement with the United States. Why didn't the Prime Minister have the courage to tell Congress that the omnibus trade Bill is not acceptable to Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that President Reagan told me he was going to veto the Bill.


M. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: We are waiting for the outcome, but Congress still has the right to reverse the veto. The Prime Minister didn't mention that to Congress, any more than he mentioned the omnibus Bill.


UNITED STATES TRADE REMEDY LAW
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians that U.S. trade remedy law cannot apply to Canada, period. That is what he said a year or so ago.
He also told Canadians that he would raise the omnibus Bill with the United States Congress. But he did not. He also told Canadians that we would get an exemption from the omnibus Bill currently before the Congress. He did not.
I ask the Prime Minister this. Where is the exemption from U.S. trade remedy law he promised us, and where is the exemption for Canada in that omnibus trade Bill?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition contends that I indicated that I would raise the omnibus trade Bill with the U.S. Congress and that 1 did not. He is, of course, quite wrong. I raised the omnibus trade Bill with the leaders of the U.S. Congress, with the majority and with the minority leaderships, both in the House and in the Senate. We had very extensive and important discussions with regard to it.
Inasmuch as the President of the United States had already indicated privately to me, and publicly to the people of the United States, that he was going to veto the measure, it is entirely appropriate for us to allow the mechanisms that exist in the United States, in the U.S. Congress, to unfold as they should.
There has already been indication on the part of those concerned with the omnibus trade Bill that any congressional override would not succeed. But that is for them to decide.


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister knows that any motive of the President of the United States to veto the omnibus trade Bill relates, not to his preoccupation with Canada, but the domestic politics of the plant-closing clause of that Bill.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of acid rain, we had the Prime Minister's admission of failure on television last evening, when he said: "Well, what do you do? What do you do with the United States? Do you declare war?"
We would not ask for that, but we do want the Prime Minister to declare war on acid rain, and to tell the President of the United States that this is the single most important bilateral issue between our two countries at the moment.
My question of the Prime Minister is this. Why did he not tell the President and the U.S. Congress that the situation in respect of acid rain is of crucial and vital importance to Canada; that our priority is not a technological deal on nuclear submarines, but to clean up the environment of our two countries?
The Prime Minister knows as well as I do that the U.S. generates six million tonnes of acid rain-causing emissions every year, and that those emissions are killing our rivers and lakes.
Why does the Prime Minister not admit to the country that he has failed to persuade the President and the Congress on this very vital issue to Canadians?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is because the opposite is the case. There are two things that I want to say about this. First of all, there were suggestions in the House of Commons, before the most recent meeting between the President and the Prime Minister, that Canada should declare failure on the question of acid rain before going to the summit.


An Hon. Member:: Another inaccuracy.


Charles Joseph Clark: That was the proposal of the New Democratic Party and others in this House.
That was not the course that we intended to follow. Indeed, the Prime Minister placed before the President a summary of the position that Canada has put forward on acid rain. As a result of that initiative taken by the Prime Minister with the President, President Reagan has specifically instructed Secretary Shultz to meet with me in the very near future to go over the eight central points of that Canadian proposal, to see if we can make progress.


An Hon. Member:: Oh boy!


Charles Joseph Clark: People scoff. Members of the Liberal Party, who did nothing for years on acid rain, sit and scoff when we stand in the House to report progress.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 29, 1988


Charles Joseph Clark: The second point which is well worth making on the record has to do with the Prime Minister's success in dealing with the other half of the American equation, with Members of Congress. Let me quote for the record the response of some of the Members who heard the Prime Minister on this question-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Charles Joseph Clark: Senator Moynihan of New York stated, and I quote: "I have never seen a head of government received as well as he was received today."


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Charles Joseph Clark: He continued: "It was a brilliant speech."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Charles Joseph Clark: Senator Moynihan, who enjoys more support in the Liberal caucus than the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition does, went on to say, and I quote-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Port Garry.


PRIME MINISTER'S APPROACH TO ISSUE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my questions to the Prime Minister. I have listened to the comments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given that he was not invited to the meetings in Washington, he must be quite confused as to what went on.
I want to ask the Prime Minister about a statement he made to Mr. Michael Herman, a Quebec maple sugar farmer. During a press conference in Washington, Mr. Herman posed the following question to the Prime Minister: "Did you achieve anything that would stop acid rain from destroying my trees?" And the Prime Minister said "no".
Obviously, the Secretary of State is totally confused as to what the Prime Minister said.
Now that the Prime Minister has admitted that the efforts of the last four years of his style and approach have been a total and complete failure, is he prepared to say what he is going to do now? What is going to be the approach in policy and strategy vis-a-vis the Americans on acid rain?
We now have the clear admission of the Prime Minister that his approach to this point in time has been a total and abysmal failure.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to a question being posed by a maple sugar producer and my answer having been "no". That,
Oral Questions
of course, is false. The Prime Minister said: "No, not tomorrow". Of course I did not expect any miracles overnight-


An Hon. Member:: You have had four years.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Only the Liberals and the NDP would expect that one would go to a meeting on acid rain and that acid rain would cease the next day.


An Hon. Member:: You have had four years to resolve the issue.


Martin Brian Mulroney: As the Secretary of State has already indicated, we did engage with-


An Hon. Member:: You have had four years.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, while the Opposition ask the question, they clearly do not want to hear the answer. They know that the answer will be much more compelling than their rhetoric of "failure over four years in not having dealt with this fundamental problem".


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is not saying that we must have miracles; what we are saying is that we want the representatives of the Government of Canada, when in the United States, to stand up for Canadian interests. That is what we want.
The Prime Minister seems to have changed his mind one more time. His admission of failure at the press conference has now become an assertion of great success.
Is it the position of the Prime Minister, now, that his approach, his strategy, his style, has succeeded and, if so, can he show us the results? Can he point to any progress that has been made over the past four years?
What we have had over the past four years is the total failure of the Government to bring about any further movement on the part of the U.S. administration on the issue of acid rain.
Can the Prime Minister point to any evidence whatsoever that his Government has done anything that is going to solve the problem of Mr. Herman and the plight of his maple sugar farm?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, three or four days ago the opposition Parties were making the case that no further progress could be made on this issue. The Prime Minister secured from the President of the United States an agreement as to a next step, a step that may hold a better prospect for change than we had thought possible before the summit.
That speaks to the progress that is' available to be made with the U.S. administration. It is not settled, but there has been a significant new chapter opened, one which will allow for meetings between-

April 29, 1988
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: What is that? Elaving more talks! Tell us about that.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am asked, Mr. Speaker, what that is; I am asked whether we are to have "more talks", and I am asked that in a pejorative sense, as though there were something wrong with holding talks.
Yes, we are having talks, and those talks will focus on the eight points put forward by Canada in response to the President's suggestion that he would accept the proposal for an accord put forward by the Prime Minister of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: We have been talking for four years.


Charles Joseph Clark: The members of the Opposition can pretend progress is not progress; but there has clearly been a step forward insofar as the position of the U.S. administration is concerned. That speaks to the progress that has been made with the U.S. administration. That is one-half of the equation in the U.S.
As to the situation with respect to the U.S. Congress, let me continue to quote the remarks of Senator Moynihan, as follows: "On acid rain, the Prime Minister was much more open with us than I think we have heard in the past, and he put it in terms so compelling, a case so clear, and a mutual one. He did not say: 'You Americans must do this like Canadians'. He said: 'We have to do this for one another'; and he is right."
That is the position of a leading Senator in the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Charles Joseph Clark: A Member of Congress, Mr. Oxley, said: "The Canadians are doing a good job. They are spending 10 times more per capita on acid rain control than-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We have just heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs say that a "significant new chapter has been opened on acid rain"; that progress is being made. In today's The Gazette, we have-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As Hon. Members are aware, at one time we had a rule against even quoting from newspapers. Certainly, I do not think, when quoting from a newspaper, that the newspaper should be waved around in the Chamber.
Perhaps the Hon. Member can make reference to the article without waving the article itself around, because it does seem to create disorder.
The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I cited The Montreal Gazette. I have the Washington Post which I will not hold up. Its headline, from the very day the Prime Minister arrived in Washington, points out that the Reagan administration, while it was saying sweet words to Canadians on the one hand, was at the same time in Geneva calling for a right of the United States to increase its emissions of acid rain, the key ingredient, by some 20 per cent.
How can the Prime Minister say there has been progress when the United States administration, where it really counts in an international agreement, is asking for the right to increase emissions? Who is the hypocrite-President Reagan when he talks to the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister when he talks to the people of Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the word hypocrite is parliamentary, but Canadians themselves can judge on the basis of the facts.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party is speaking in this House about what he claims is a current U.S. proposal regarding the NOx emissions. The United States proposal for an emission credit clause has been deleted. The Leader of the New Democratic Party should keep up to date. He is talking about a set of events that has disappeared. He is talking about news that is two days old. The current news is that, as a result of the work and the effort by Canada and other countries, a proposal put forward by the United States at Geneva, an unacceptable proposal, has been withdrawn.


UNITED STATES POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, not for the first time the Secretary of State for External Affairs has missed the point.
While the Reagan administration was saying one thing to our Prime Minister, in Geneva the Americans were trying to move in the opposite direction to get increases in the right of emissions. That explains why the Canadian Prime Minister in four years of buttering up to Reagan, telling him everything he wanted to hear, does not have one bit of progress on the issue of acid rain.
Maybe the Prime Minister will answer, instead of allowing his Foreign Minister to answer for him. Will he give us a single example of progress in changing the policy direction of the Reagan administration, which has the only head of government in the modern world who believes that trees cause pollution?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Sit down. Brian can answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Member for
April 29, 1988

Hamilton East has the courage to stand up in the House of Commons or can only speak from her seat.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.


John Edward Broadbent: Issue the writ. Go ahead. It will be zap for you guys.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs has the floor.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that the attitudes taken by Parties in this House very much reflect our capacity to comport ourselves effectively internationally.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: What does that mean?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Leader of the Opposition-


An Hon. Member:: It is a hard job. Someone has to do it.


Charles Joseph Clark: The New Democratic Party is so deeply imbued with anti-Americanism that that is all it can express on any issue in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me deal with the substance of the issue which has been raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: If we can quiet the zoo across the way, let me deal with that issue.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party misrepresented the facts as to what was happening regarding NOx emissions in Geneva. There have been discussions going on for four years regarding those levels of emissions. It may be that they were discovered by the NDP on the day that the President and the Prime Minister met, but they have been going on for years.
Simultaneously with the meeting of the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States on acid rain in Washington, Canada and other countries were successful in moving the Americans back from their proposals for more emissions of NOx in Geneva. Not only did we win in Washington but we won in Geneva and there should be some credit given for that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Joe Clark, Bush's running mate.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplemental.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Prime Minister goes to the meetings but the Secretary of State for External Affairs does the answering. That is called leadership in the Conservative Party.


Mr. Speaker:: In the interests of moving this matter along, I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question quite directly.


QUERY CONCERNING PROGRESS MADE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He mentioned that the Canadian Government made some progress on acid rain. Could the Prime Minister give Canadians an example, for the benefit of Quebecers and all other Canadians who are faced with many problems as a result of acid rain emissions from the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already done so. The President's instructions to Secretary of State Shultz to immediately engage in a dialogue on an eight-point treaty is, I believe, a gesture that deserves reflection, not criticism on the part of the New Democrats. Second, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has read some important comments made by U.S. Senators and representatives, indicating that the trend has been reversed and that we now have a far better chance of signing a worthwhile treaty with the Anmericans. In the United States two elements are important: the administration and Congress. And reactions from U.S. legislators have been most favourable.
I believe I mentioned that a treaty is inevitable between our two countries, and this important initiative involving the Senators and representatives will, I hope, have a positive effect, together with the initiative of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with Secrertary Shultz, and we hope this will result in major dividends for Canada and ultimately in resolving the problem. I think this should be reason for rejoicing, not criticizing, by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns not the U.S. but Canadian issues and, more specifically, the Montreal region.
Last week, we heard the Government had abolished the ministerial committee on economic development of the Montreal region. Yesterday, the Mayor of Montreal said he was very upset because the federal Government had abolished

April 29, 1988
Oral Questions
this committee and that he was not satisfied with the Government's response to the Picard report. Could the Prime Minister inform the House why he abolished this committee that was so important for the Montreal region, without either consulting with or notifying the authorities in Montreal?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion previously tried to explain to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie what happened to the ministerial committee but as usual, he either can't or won't understand. And we can't do anything about that.
As for the Picard report, the Hon. Member has been claiming for months and would have the people of Montreal believe that the report recommended putting Montreal under trusteeship. That is his opinion of Montreal. But if he cared to take off his blinkers-I hope he can, because they must be pretty tight-and look at what is happening in Montreal, he would see that since September 1984, we have earmarked more than $500 million for development projects in Montreal. Unemployment has dropped, and development centres have been identified. Substantial progress is being made, although not necessarily in the area that concerns the Hon. Member, but a lot of work is being done in Montreal and that will continue.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, if I ever need a role model for stupidity, I'll know where to look.


OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
Further to his Minister's reply, there was nothing in the Picard report about the space agency, the development project for the Port of Montreal, the pre-retirement benefits issue in Montreal East, the shipyards or the railway industry.
I wonder why, and I would ask the Prime Minister to at least respond to the issues that concern Montreal, because 1 know he is letting Quebec go altogether. Will the Prime Minister, at the official request of municipal authorities, the unions who also want the ministerial committee and the Chamber of Commerce ...
If an official request is made by these three groups for setting up a ministerial committee, with more competent members, would the Prime Minister agree to act on this request?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that a Member who claims to have any credibility at all should rise in the House and lie to Quebecers and lie to the people of Montreal as he is doing.
It is clear the federal Government has undertaken ...


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister would like to correct himself.


Bernard Valcourt: You are right, Mr. Speaker. I will follow their example. My choice of words was unfortunate, and I withdraw what I said.
I assume he has a poor grasp of the issues, so he doesn't realize what is happening in Montreal, but the fact remains he keeps saying nothing has been done in Montreal. What about Petromont, the CF-18 contract and the announcement the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion made in the House this week that finally an agreement had been reached with Quebec? By May 15 there will be a tripartite agreement on the development of the Port of Montreal, and I suppose this clown will get up and say we aren't doing anything for Montreal!


FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. I would like to return to his visit to the United States.
My sources tell me that the Government's new film distribution policy is a sellout that will give the Americans national treatment while attempting to buy the acquiescence of our Canadian industry with some sort of a grant program. Why does the Prime Minister not make the structural changes to the film distribution industry here in Canada that, first, were recommended by the film industry task force, second, were promised by his Government in the House in February of 1987 and, third, were found in the original draft legislation? Why does he not do that, or is it not really a fact that the Canadian film industry will be another sacrifice on the altar of free trade?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that assertion is categorically false. I do not know if the Hon. Member, who is a very busy Member, was in the House yesterday when my colleague, the Minister of Communications, had an opportunity to respond to questions respecting that policy and that legislation. The Minister made it very clear that Canada has been seeking the means to ensure that Canada operates as a distinct and separate national distribution market for films. That is the goal we have been pursuing, that is the goal that will be at the centre of legislation that will be introduced into the House by my colleague, the Minister of Communications.
April 29, 1988

That is a step forward taken by this Government for Canadian reasons. It improves upon a situation that was not in the interests of Canadian film makers, not in the interests of Canadians who want to see Canadian films, and not in the interest of Canadian culture, a situation that existed before. As in so many other fields, we are changing that bad former situation.
The Bill will be before the House soon, and I certainly hope that we will have the support of the Hon. Member if he is indeed interested in improving the quality of Canadian culture and Canadian film, and is not simply seeking to create false controversies here on the floor of the House of Commons.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Secretary of State would look at the gentleman on his left. Is the Secretary of State aware that the former Minister of Communications released a letter in which he noted the abandonment of the Government's film policy, cultural policy, and book-publishing policy, and tied it to free trade? I am not the one who is saying that, it is his colleague who is saying that.
1 want to ask the Prime Minister, because Canadians want to know, just what sort of deal he made with President Reagan and Jack Valenti for a film distribution policy in Canada, and why has he sold out the Canadian film distributors, again at the altar of free trade? Tell Canadians what sort of deal the Prime Minister made.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as direct as I can. What sort of deal, none. What sort of deal did the Prime Minister-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That's not true. You were changing your policy completely.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is very difficult to answer. I do not know what it is about Friday mornings, but whenever an answer that tries to convey some facts begins, there is shouting from the other side.
The Hon. Member asked what sort of deal did the Prime Minister make with Mr. Valenti. None, no deal was made by the Prime Minister and Mr. Valenti.
The point is that we are dealing here with the need to address a problem that has afflicted the Canadian film industry for a long time-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Like Ronald Reagan didn't want your policy. Be honest.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Ronald Reagan goes back a long time.


John Edward Broadbent: Yeah, the 18th century. Back to silent movies.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Minister will continue his answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the problems with the Canadian film-


John Napier Turner: One last one for the
Gipper.


Charles Joseph Clark: I understand why the Leader of the Opposition is diverted these days, but-


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps we will move on. I recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton.


PUBLIC SERVICE LANGUAGE TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Will the real Mr. Turner stand up?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am the Tory Turner.
My question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. I wish to congratulate her on her new-found responsibilities and to wish her well. I am sure by now the Minister is very much aware of the ongoing serious problems with respect to the hours of teaching of federal language training teachers across Canada. I wonder if the Minister can tell the House the status of the negotiations on this very important issue and when she expects to have a resolution to this problem.


Hon. Pat Carney (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Carleton for his question. I know he has taken a great interest in this matter and has met with the language teachers. I would like to reinforce the Government's support for dealing with this matter and for reaching a settlement.
The Hon. Member should be aware that on April 22 a mediator was appointed by the Public Service Staff Relations Board. The parties will start work with the mediator on May 9, and we hope that this will lead to a quick solution.

April 29, 1988
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions to ask the Minister of Finance concerning the welfare of Canadians living in northern regions.
We know that Members of all three Parties in this House are urging him not to eliminate the earned depletion allowance on flow-through shares, which is an important tax incentive for the development of northern Ontario, the Abitibi, the Lac-Saint-Jean area, northern Manitoba, etc.
The Minister told us several times in the House that he was reviewing the matter and that he would be able to make a statement soon.
Could the Minister tell us today whether he has made his decision to maintain the depletion allowance and to restore the 33 1/3 per cent on flow-through shares so as to maintain the development of our northern regions and particularly our mining regions in future years?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that we have maintained the flow-through share mechanism. We are now looking at ways to enhance flow-through shares. To answer his question directly, I have not yet made a decision, but I will soon, possibly!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister to make his decision very soon, because based on the consultations 1 have had, flow-through shares are disappearing completely and the mining regions will no longer be able to find funds.


DEDUCTIONS FOR NORTHERN RESIDENTS-ESTABLISHMENT OF TASK FORCE
Raymond Garneau: I would now like to ask my question on-

-fiscal reductions for residents living of northern regions.
The Minister has promised on a number of occasions to set up a task force to study the question of deductions for northern residents to make them more fair and less arbitrary. Can the Minister tell us when this task force will be set up and when it will have to report to him or to the House? Can he assure the citizens of northern regions that the measures will be applicable retroactively so that residents will not lose benefits for the 1987 tax year?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear that I think in the way that the Hon. Member has expressed that question he has indicated that we are taking something away from northern residents. We are not taking anything away from northern residents. In fact, we
have augmented the program quite substantially from a revenue cost of some $50 million in the previous years to $200 million under the changes that have been proposed.
The Hon. Member is correct, we are going to establish a commission to look at the very difficult problem of where those boundaries should be and how those boundaries should be established. I would hope to make that announcement at a very early date.
V *	*


REVISED UNITED STATES TRADE BILL-REQUEST FOR CANADIAN EXEMPTION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the Prime Minister. Mr. Yeutter, the United States Trade Representative, said on television this morning that he expected a revised omnibus trade Bill, with Mr. Reagan's support, to be passed within three weeks.
Given that this revised Bill is still going to have within it many of the factors and many of the concerns that Canada has identified in the past, I wish to ask the Prime Minister directly, did he raise with Mr. Reagan the Canadian request that we be exempted from this omnibus trade Bill?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, who am I to doubt the prescience of a New Democratic Member of Parliament.


John Edward Broadbent: What went on at the meeting?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member is talking about the contents of a Bill whose ultimate details he cannot predict, and the consequences of which he cannot predict.
His point, if I can cut through what he said and come to it, is whether or not the agreements signed between Canada and the United States respecting trade between our two countries will prevail. The answer to that, as he well knows, is that they will. This is a historic undertaking that Canada has entered into. The fearful in Canada, or those who are captives of organized labour, are opposed to the arrangement. Most confident Canadians want us to go forward and to establish a free trade agreement that will help to guarantee the future of this country. That is what we are doing.


CANADIAN POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State well knows, there is no exemption for us whatsoever in the trade deal from the omnibus trade Bill- no exemption whatsoever.
Given that one of Canada's trade ambassadors, Gordon Ritchie, has stated that the trade deal legislation here is now

April 29, 1988

being delayed "because we obviously must formulate our legislation with a very close eye to what the Americans are doing ..." does this mean that our legislation is going to take into account changes which the Congress of the United States is pressing for in its implementation legislation?
In short, what has happened to Canadian independence?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, two quick things. One, as is the custom with New Democratic Members when they put the question, they tell part of the truth, not the whole truth. The Hon. Member quoted Mr. Ritchie on part of what Mr. Ritchie said, not all of what Mr. Ritchie said. I cannot use the term "dishonesty" in the House, Mr. Speaker, but certainly that practice would invite that term were it allowed.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the Hon. Minister that it is not allowed. The Hon. Minister will complete his answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If in that formulation I inadvertently bruised the rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, let me withdraw any infraction of the rules.
The second point is that the agreement that was worked out between negotiators for Canada and the United States in the free trade area sets forth the regime that will govern the commercial relations between Canada and the United States. It is consistent with the GATT. We expect that other legislation that proceeds from the United States will be consistent with the free trade agreement. That is the nature of the representations that we have been making on all levels to members of the United States administration and to the Congress.


THE ECONOMY
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns a report produced by the Conference Board of Canada, in which the President, Mr. Nininger, also mentioned the Government's excellent performance. The report established a link between the drop in interest rates from 12.1 per cent to 9.5 per cent and our controls, and said the same about the drop in unemployment from 13.3 per cent to 8.9 per cent. It said the economic growth rate will be 3.8 per cent in 1988 and 2.7 per cent the year after. I would ask the Minister to comment on the forecast for economic growth in 1988, 1989 and 1990.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the question from the Hon. Member. I think that
Oral Questions
the Conference Board report is indicative of the type of reports that we have seen from a number of economists recently. As Mr. Frank himself stated, it reinforces the feeling that the Canadian scene is very positive. He also stated that there is no recession this year because of strong employment gains.

I am very proud of our Government's record on the economy, and I think it is possible that the kind of progress we have already seen will continue in the future. I think it is also very important to mention that the conclusions of the report of the Conference Board of Canada are similar to those in many other reports by economists in this country.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was reported that at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers held yesterday in Brussels a decision was taken to upgrade the short-range nuclear weapons force in Europe.
Does the Minister support this decision? If so, is it not in fact a circumvention of the recent INF Treaty which would remove 1,400 nuclear warheads from Europe? Does it not make more difficult the present negotiations to reduce strategic nuclear weapons? Is this not a step backward for nuclear disarmament?
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the preoccupations of the countries that are involved in NATO is to take actions which support the INF agreement that has been reached, and that create conditions which will make it possible for us to have other agreements made between the Soviet Union and the United States regarding further kinds of arms control, whether those have to do with strategic weapons, chemical weapons, or with others.
In taking account of the necessity to maintain a climate that will allow for further progress in negotiations, we also naturally have to take account of the actual forces now not covered by treaty that exist on both sides between the Warsaw Pact and the NATO countries.
It is in that spirit that my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and his colleague Defence Ministers from other countries in NATO are holding discussions now.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, is the Minister saying that more and
[Stage Direction]
April 29, 1988
Oral Questions
better nuclear weapons are the way to peace and disarmament?
On December 10, following the INF Treaty, the Prime Minister said, "Canada hopes that the INF Treaty will now provide the momentum for reducing the huge number of nuclear weapons that remain and lead to an agreement in Moscow next spring. This would meet the fundamental Canadian priority, stable security at much lower levels of armaments".
How can the Government support this agreement to increase and improve nuclear arms when in fact it states that its policy is in the other direction? It does not make sense.
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I hate to say this because it is a phrase that was used by the Hon. Member's former Leader in the House very often, but it is unhappily in this case true, the premise of the Hon. Member's question is inaccurate.
The Hon. Member is a serious student of these matters and he knows that there is a wide range of threatening weapons on both sides that must be dealt with, if we are going to achieve stability in Europe, and indeed stability between the superpowers. Not all of them are nuclear weapons. There are hideous weapons in the chemical weapons field on which we are trying to make some progress.
It is important to continue the formula that brought us the INF. That formula was that the nations of NATO worked together in support of common goals, making it clear to the Soviets that the only way the Soviets could get agreement was by negotiated agreement, that they could not force NATO to back down in any particular area.
There is a range of questions on the table. We are trying to address several of them, strategic and chemical very high among them. It is in that context that my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and his colleagues from other NATO countries have been meeting and discussing.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport and is with regard to the longstanding anxiety in Winnipeg about jobs moving out of Winnipeg, either to Montreal through the CF-18, or to Toronto, and sometimes to Edmonton.
Word has it now that the CNR is planning to shut down its reclamation yard in Transcona and move the work from
Transcona to London, Ontario. Can the Minister answering on behalf of the Government give this House, and through the House the people of Winnipeg, an assurance that this will not be allowed to happen, that that work will stay in Winnipeg and will not be going to Ontario?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been informed by CN of such a decision. However, I think my friend knows very well that this kind of decision for CN is internal. In making the decision management would look at all employment, not only in Winnipeg, but elsewhere in the operations throughout the country.
For that reason I cannot confirm today that this will happen. However, I know that CN is studying this possibility. If the time comes to make an announcement, I will have more comments at that time.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have approached CN about this and they have certainly not denied that this is happening. The Minister may know that this is all related to a policy developed over the last few years of permitting CN, and CP for that matter, to lease American rolling stock which is made in the United States, repaired in the United States, and is now to be scrapped in the United States. This means that all the jobs associated with that are going to the United States or being concentrated in Ontario instead of Manitoba.
I want an end to this. I want the Minister's assurance that this is not an internal matter, that it is a matter of government policy, and that something is finally going to be done about it.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill can be very passionate. I will only tell him that there are 100 more people working in Transcona at the present time than there were last year.


HARBOURS AND PORTS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister will know that a harbour development project for Corner Brook, Newfoundland, which was approved in 1983, was deferred by the Government in November, 1984.
The Minister will further know that the same project was contained once again, after three and one-half years, in the Estimates of his Department brought down in March of this year, only a few months ago.
The $17 million fund has been provided for in the Estimates since March. The previous Minister of Transport promised an
April 29, 1988

official announcement on that project in order that it could start this year and we would not lose the construction season due to begin in a few weeks.
Can the Minister inform the House, and through the House the people of Corner Brook, Newfoundland, when that project is going to proceed? If he cannot give us an exact date, can he at least give us an assurance that the announcement will be forthcoming soon so that we will not lose this construction season?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am fully supportive of the project. Everything will be done to enable it to be announced within two or three weeks.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice as the Acting Solicitor General. A very important service to Nova Scotian ex-prisoners for getting re-established in the community and helping them find jobs, the Real Opportunities for Prisoner Employment, or ROPE program, headed by Rocky Jones, has had all federal government funding cut by the Tory Government.
Will the Minister look into the cut in funding for this important agency and restore funding to this agency which helps hundreds of ex-convicts every year? Will the federal Government bring back support for the ROPE?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we have evidence here of another flip-flop on the part of the New Democratic Party through the mouth of its justice critic.
I am obviously not aware of the exact circumstances of this program. Without accepting the premise, veracity, or accuracy of the Hon. Member's question, I will take the matter up with my colleague, the Solicitor General, and ensure that he gets back to the Hon. Member within an appropriate time with the information required.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, thank you for ending Question Period.
Motions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 152(1) of the Financial Administration Act, and Standing Order 67(2) of the House of Commons, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the 1987 annual report of the Canada Development Investment Corporation.


FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties on two motions. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and the necessary supporting staff be authorized to travel to the East Coast from May 2 to May 10, 1988, inclusive, for the purpose of continuing its on-going study of aquaculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by two Members who are unable to be in Ottawa today to seek the consent of the House, on their behalf, to have their respective Private Members' Business items withdrawn.
There have been discussions and I think you would find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion dealing with the withdrawal of these items. I move:
That Notice of Motion M-35 standing in the name of Mr. Schellenberger be withdrawn and that the order for second reading of Bill C-240, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, standing in the name of Mr. Ravis, be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor, I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to accept the motion?

April 29, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed debate on the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, several times in the past we in the West have heard about western diversification. As far back as 1911, 1912, 1913 the hue and cry was to diversify. We moved into massive irrigation projects. The Bassano dam was built, and irrigation projects were undertaken east of Calgary and between Calgary and Medicine Hat. A few years later irrigation projects were undertaken in the Lethbridge area. All of that was in aid of diversification.
During the war, western agriculture diversified into a variety of vegetable crops, including sugar beets. In the late 1950s, early 1960s, we were again advised to diversify. The hue and cry went out from the four provincial Governments and the federal Government that we had to attract more industry, and we did. From the late 1940s on, we had tremendous development in oil wells, gas wells, potash mines, and so forth.
In 1968-69, we again heard the cry that we had to diversify. Grain prices had gone all to heck. We were up to our ears in grain, literally speaking. Farmers diversified into livestock, establishing hog operations, cow-calf operations, and beef cattle operations. We had feedlots by the dozens, all over the West, to the point where we were shipping too many to the United States, resulting in the U.S. imposing a countervail and imposing quotas on product going from western Canada into U.S. markets. As well, at that time the Canadian dollar was trading at par with its U.S. counterpart. As a result, feedlots all over the West were going bankrupt. To give some indication of how depressed grain prices were in 1968-69, one could buy three bushels of barley for $1. So much for that diversification effort. That was the third or fourth diversification effort to go down the drain.
I heard the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) say earlier today that the NDP had been crying about the dollar going down, and now we were crying about it going up.
I have never heard any Member of my Party cry about the dollar going down. I wish it would go down much lower. I wish it would get down to 65 or 70 cents vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar. It is when the Canadian dollar is at that level vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar that we do well with exports. As well, Canadian manufactured and processed products can better compete in
April 29, 1988

the domestic market in competition with imports from the U.S. and other parts of the world.
If the Government of Canada manipulates the Canadian dollar to higher levels vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar, the producers, processors and manufacturers in the Atlantic provinces and the western provinces are going to have that much more difficulty, not only in competing in the markets in central Canada, but in U.S. markets, or markets anywhere else in the world.
Unless some fundamental change is made in policy direction, no diversification plan in the world will work. While there may be some salutary effects for a few hundred small businesses-and that is something about which I would not complain-the basic problem would remain.
The objective of this measure is to bring about increased diversification in western Canada and in Atlantic Canada, with a move to larger and more efficient modes of production, processing and manufacturing. No one can be against that. Who would not be in favour of that? However, since Atlantic Canada and western Canada have small markets, the problem then is how we get the products to the large market, in competition with those who produce, process or manufacture the same or similar products in central Canada or central and eastern United States. We have to compete.
We are quite happy to compete on quality, quantity, warranties and reliability. We can do those things in western Canada and Atlantic Canada as well as those in any place else in the whole continent. However, we also must compete against geography, against interest rates and against a Canadian dollar that is rising in comparison to the American dollar. Those are three major handicaps, and we have found out in the past that those handicaps have caused diversification ideas, as good as they were, to fail.
It seems to me that there must be a fundamental national policy of discrimination, not discrimination against the large industrial and manufacturing complexes from Quebec City to Windsor, but discrimination in favour of the western provinces, Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario and northern Quebec. One of the ways to do that is to do something about transportation costs.
In my province, there is a first-class poultry operation. It is located at Wynyard, Saskatchewan, 200 miles from Regina. The grocery stores in my city sell those chickens. However, over the last several months, we have found that there are chickens from elsewhere for sale in that store as well. Those chickens are from Georgia, 2,000 miles away, while Wynyard is 200 miles away.
Those chickens from Georgia are good chickens. There is no problem with their quality. The Wynyard operator also has an excellent operation. He has received grants and loans from the provincial and federal Governments. He employs a few dozen people. It is a family-owned and operated business and he pays
Western Economic Diversification Act
a good wage. In Georgia, they pay $1.65 per hour. I do not think there is one single self-respecting businessman in all of Canada who would lower himself to paying that kind of a wage. That is why the poultry producer in Georgia can place chickens in the Regina market for just as cheap as our own operator in Wynyard, 200 miles away. That is one of the handicaps we face in western Canada and in Atlantic Canada. Therefore, we need transportation assistance.
The programs that presently exist must be improved, and as well, we need additional programs. If the national Government really wants to do something about western diversification, let me suggest that we return to what we were doing up until 1960 when anywhere from five to 20 trainloads of coal moved out of Saskatchewan, Alberta and eastern British Columbia per day, destined for Ontario. That was low-sulphur coal that did not cause acid rain. Since that time, there have been no trainloads of coal moving from western Canada to the Ontario hydro plants. Those plants are burning high-sulphur coal from Virginia and Kentucky.
When we were debating the abolishment of the Crow rate in the House in 1982 and 1983, one of the things we said then, and we say again now, is that we need not only a Crow rate for grain but a Crow rate for coal and a Crow rate for a whole host of other products so that the transportation costs of a manufacturing plant in Alberta can be equalized with those of a manufacturing plant in southern Ontario. Then these plants would have to compete only on the quality of their products, their reliability, their serviceability and their warranties. They would have to compete in areas where the real competition should exist. Unless those who start industries in western Canada and Atlantic Canada can get their products to market at a cost no greater than their competitors in Boston, New York, Toronto or Montreal, they do not have a prayer.
There is another little item that could be helpful. This Government has made much of the whole issue of western diversification. One would have thought that in four years this Government would have made a calculated and deliberate move to increase the purchases made by the national Government in western Canada and Atlantic Canada and decrease the purchases made in Ontario and Quebec. That would be an example of discriminating in favour of the West and the Atlantic provinces.
What has happened instead? In 1984-85, this Government purchased 13.9 per cent of its requirements through Supply and Services in western Canada. In 1985-86, that figure went down to 12.8 per cent. In 1986-87, it went down further to 11.5 per cent.
We are not talking about peanuts here. The total figure for purchases in the four western provinces plus the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in 1986-87 was over $900 million, and that is only 11.8 per cent of the federal Government's purchases. Quebec got 32 per cent and there is a smaller population in Quebec than there is in the four western

April 29, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
provinces. Ontario, with a slightly higher population than the four western provinces, got 44 per cent.
In the Atlantic provinces, the picture is even worse. Federal government purchases from the four Atlantic provinces amounted to 7 per cent of the total. I suppose the Atlantic provinces would have something in the order of 3.5 million to 4 million people. They received 7 per cent, which was down from what they spot in the Atlantic provinces in 1985-86.
I have mentioned two areas where if we want to do something about diversification and greater opportunity for farmers, businessmen, and fishermen, we would redirect a lot of the government purchases that are required. Some of it could be diverted from offshore purposes without jeopardizing some of the purchases made in central Canada. We purchased billions from other parts of the world and from the United States.
I mentioned the whole matter of coal. There is at least a 500-year supply of low sulphur coal in western Canada. There is not a single mine left operating in the whole Drumheller Valley. There may be one left operating in the Crow's Nest Pass. The only reason there are strip mines in southern Saskatchewan is because the coal is being used by Saskatchewan Power Corporation, otherwise we would not be moving any of it. Here is an area of massive development-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to call a quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: I see a quorum. The debate will continue.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I thank my colleague for doing that. I want my good friends opposite to be able to enjoy my remarks.
I want to mention the main items that would ensure the success of diversification and opportunity for Atlantic Canada and for western Canada; have the Canadian dollar go down, reduce interest rates and, if necessary, bring in limited foreign exchange. If an investor in Canada wants to invest in some processing or manufacturing, and he wants to do it in the United States, he could be given a tax incentive to do it in Canada and it will cost him if he tries to do it somewhere else.
We must also look at Canadian history and remember and realize that transportation subsidies of various types, direct and indirect, are an absolute necessity for western Canada and for Atlantic Canada to be able to diversify their economies and compete where the markets are in central Canada and the heavily populated areas of the United States. Without that, no matter what political Party is in power, efforts to diversify the economies of northern Ontario, and northern Quebec, Atlantic and western Canada are doomed to failure. It has been tried before without ensuring that the things I have mentioned were in place. I hope that the Government's program for western development succeeds, but I am warning that it cannot succeed
unless interest rates are reduced, unless the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the United States dollar goes down, and unless something more is done about subsidizing transportation costs for our processors and manufacturers in those other regions of Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate regarding western Canada. As a western Canadian I must say that I remember when there were thousands of small and medium sized businesses in western Canada requesting assistance of one type or another from the federal Government to allow them to expand into new product lines and new markets, and we kept hearing that there was not any money available. Then the announcement was made that the Ghermezian brothers received $5 million from the federal Government for Fantasy-land. They are one of the richest families in Canada, they have one of the largest and most powerful industrial business conglomerates in Canada; and they received $5 million from the federal Government.
We remember that because it seemed to send a certain signal that, if you were a small western business person or a struggling westerner trying to establish a business or to expand a business, there were no funds available. However, if you had political connections with the Conservative Party, and presumably had lots of campaign funds, you could ask for $5 million and would receive it. Many westerners remember that day.
They also remember the day regarding the CF-18 maintenance contract where virtually every adviser to the federal Government said that the maintenance contract for the CF-18 fighter planes should be given to Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg; in other words, a western Canadian maintenance operator. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) overruled every adviser and said that that maintenance contract would go to Quebec.
That was a political decision, and the Prime Minister has the right to make political decisions. However, he should have had the gumption and the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say: "I am going to make a political decision which goes against all the advice that I have received, which goes against sound business reasoning, which goes against running a decent, up-front Government, and I am making this political decision". He did not, Mr. Speaker. He fumbled and fiddled around for days attempting to justify how he knew better than all of the advisers regarding the maintenance contract for the CF-18s. Of course, western Canada lost that contract.
We also remember that not long ago Preston Manning decided that he needed to found a new political Party in the West because the Conservatives had let westerners down. They had sent a lot of Conservatives to Parliament to reverse the dastardly deeds that Liberals had been doing to western Canadians for so many years. What is the record, Mr. Speaker? When he formed the Reform Party, a western
April 29, 1988

Canadian Party, Preston Manning stated that the situation has actually worsened under the Mulroney Government.
Then a few weeks ago the Premier from British Columbia indicated that he had had enough; British Columbians were fed up with always getting the short end of the stick, always getting short shrift, being left out of federal government programs, and never getting their fair share. The Premier went on to explain that British Columbia represents a major portion of the Canadian population. It pays in excess of $11 billion annually to the federal coffers in terms of corporate and personal income tax. The number of federal government contracts and supply and service contracts were almost infinitesimal.
Earlier this week people representing the printing industry in British Columbia came to lobby. They stated that although British Columbia has almost 11 per cent of the population, it received less than 1 per cent of all of the federal government printing contracts. In other words, the lion's share of printing federal government brochures and of all printing that the federal Government does goes to central Canadian printers. The representatives of the printers stated that they wanted to get their fair share, and 1 per cent is not a fair share to British Columbia.
I could go on and on about others from western Canada who have registered their disappointment and disillusionment of the West not receiving its fair share.
The federal Government then decided to set up the western development office with a western development fund of $1.2 billion over five years, which comes to about $60 million per province per year. This was going to be the major government initiative to diversify the western economy.
The first announcement made was that the money required to develop South Moresby Park, $79 million, would be coming from the Western Diversification Fund rather than the Policy Revenue Fund from where money normally comes to develop a national park. A few days later another announcement was made. The funding for the Salmonid Enhancement Program for British Columbia, $53.7 million, would not come from the fisheries budget, from where one would normally expect it to come, but from the Western Diversification Fund as well. That is British Columbia taken care of for two or three years. It is like a shell game-now you see it, now you don't.
I decided that it was time to do a little research to find out what the situation was. I listened to one of the cabinet Ministers, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) from Manitoba, who said with regard to the Western Development Fund:
It sounds like a lot of money, but in the over-all scheme of things it is not
that great.
That was a Minister of the Crown saying that the amount of funds is not that great.
Western Economic Diversification Act
I noticed that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) spoke to the Rotary Club just after the announcement was made and was quoted in the Edmonton Journal as saying:
The recently announced western diversification strategy,... is certainly a
modest step in the right direction-but certainly inadequate in its funding.
One of the most outspoken western Members of Parliament has said that it is inadequate.
Two days after the announcement The Financial Post said that there is no doubt whatever the potential contribution of Ottawa's western diversification initiative is truly piddling. The Financial Post called the amount of money piddling in terms of western diversification.
One of the senior officers of the Western Diversification Office, whose name I will not mention because it would not be fair to him, said on the public record that the fund is not all that big when you look at the amount of capital.
I could go on with a whole list of people who are members of the Cabinet, members of the Government, or senior officials in economic development portfolios for the federal Government, saying that this is an inadequate amount of funds to do anything. However, that is a little too close to the Government.
Let us go to one of the spokespersons for small and mediumsized business in Canada. Mr. John Bulloch heads up the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. He put out a report from which I will read only two or three things, because that is all I have time for. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the Western Development Fund "is a political slush fund to support vulnerable constituencies".
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business calls it a political slush fund. Good for John Bulloch for having the courage to speak out and call it what it is. He went on to say that it is also a "bureaucratic slush fund available for other line Departments of the Ministers to raid in lieu of other national programs that should have their fair share spent in the West". It is a slush fund for the politicians and for the bureaucrats.
He went on to say that it is a "narrow and highly concentrated centralized approach to diversification".
There is no grass roots involvement; it does not involve the people. A few bureaucrats headquartered in Edmonton will be making the decisions on western diversification based on political slush.
Mr. Bulloch went on to say that the Western Diversification Office was "a confusing black box lacking clear criteria or policy direction, and on a collision course with a myriad of client groups who are inevitably going to see thousands of applications rejected and thousands of hopes dashed".
I hate to say it, Mr. Speaker, but that is what has happened. In my own constituency there is a group called the Thompson

April 29, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
Nicola Manufacturers Association representing 500 manufacturing enterprises in the Kamloops region. They are struggling to co-ordinate organizations and represent manufacturers wanting to expand their operations. They went to the Western Diversification Fund and requested a paltry $40,000 per year for the next two years. They said that within two years their income from marketing royalties and software sales would be sufficient to ensure their ongoing financial independence.
Did the Western Diversification Fund support the Thompson Nicola Manufacturers Association to diversify the economy of central British Columbia to the tune of $40,000 a year for two years? No. It was rejected. I guess we should be asking the Ghermezian brothers to apply for us because they obviously have the right connections. They can get $5 million to build Fantasyland in Edmonton, but we cannot get $40,000 to expand a manufacturing base in western Canada.
Let us go on. Let us look at the facts. We have heard a lot of rhetoric and a lot of flim-flam and shell games. Let us look at the facts with regard to industrial assistance between September, 1984, and March, 1986, the last period for which we have good data. Over that period of time British Columbia received $47 million, Saskatchewan received $18 million, Alberta received $16 million, and Manitoba received $13 million, for a total of $111 million. In the same time frame Ontario received $260 million and Quebec received $430 million.
Once again the West did not get its fair share. We are not saying that Quebec should not get that amount of money or that Ontario should not get that kind of industrial assistance support. However, we are saying that the West should get its fair share; nothing more, just its fair share. However, it is not getting its fair share.
Let us refer back to the report which the Canadian Federation of Independent Business put together for parliamentarians. They talked about procurement, the fancy word for the federal Government buying things from western Canada. They said that with 11.4 per cent of the population, British Columbia received only 3.6 per cent of federal government procurement. Alberta won only 3.6 per cent of the contract even though it has 9.3 per cent of the Canadian population. Saskatchewan has 4 per cent of the population and gets only 1 per cent of government contracts, and Manitoba has 4.2 per cent of the population of Canada and gets only 2.8 per cent of the contracts. However, Ontario and Quebec together receive 76 per cent of all government contracts.
The source of this is not a partisan research division. It is the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in a report dated April 12, 1988, which points out that government supply and service comes overwhelmingly from central Canada.
Let us go on and look at Employment and Immigration. The Estimates indicate that last year the Department of Employment and Immigration spent $479 million in the West. Next year Employment and Immigration will spend $339 million in the West. That is a net reduction of nearly $140 million. At a time when the West is struggling to play its rightful role in the
Canadian economy, rather than providing support or even maintaining support the federal Government is cutting back on employment funds for western Canada.
Let us look, for example, at all supply and service purchases from western Canada. In the early 1960s, before the present Government took office, the federal Government purchased about 16 per cent of all its supplies from western Canada. When the Government of the present Prime Minister was elected in 1984 that had fallen to 13.9 per cent. In 1985 that had fallen to 12.8 per cent, and in the past year it fell to 11.5 per cent. There are the facts in black and white. Under this Conservative Government procurement in western Canada has actually decreased every year.
The West has 28 per cent of the population, and when we are told that the Government only purchases 11.5 per cent of its supplies from western Canada we get angry and upset. That is why western Canadians are telling the Government that we have had enough.
Let us go on. I have piles of material here which indicate that in virtually every Department the West is getting shafted, the West is getting the short shrift, the West is getting the short end of the stick.
With regard to service contracts I will compare, for example, Ontario and British Columbia. British Columbia is representative of any of the four western provinces. The information indicates that in 1986-87, the most recent year for which we have data, Ontario received $206 million in service contracts and British Columbia received $21 million in service contracts. When you consider the population of Ontario and British Columbia, you realize that there is no way British Columbia should get such an infinitesimal amount of contracts in terms of money.
Ontario received $138 million worth of goods and services contracts while B.C. received $15 million in contracts. When one adds up all the different contracts, including industrial cooperation, equipment contracts, goods contracts and service contracts, Ontario received $360 million worth in the last year while B.C. received $41 million. This is more evidence to indicate that British Columbia, like all western provinces, has to receive what it ought to receive in terms of federal Government investment in developing economic infrastructure.
I have already talked about the CF-18 contract. I have not mentioned the gas taxes that keep rising by one, two, or three cents a litre. It is westerners who are hurt the most by an increase in transportation cost. Westerners must travel over vast distances not only in terms of moving goods but for personal transportation.


Bernard Valcourt: What about farmers?


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about interest rate policy? The Governor of the Bank of Canada says that high interest rates are required to dampen the fires of inflation in Ontario. What about the
April 29, 1988

West? There are no fires of inflation in the West. Inflation is extremely low in the West, because many areas still face severe economic depression. The interest rate policy of the Government discriminates against western Canadian enterprises and western Canadian consumers.
Let us consider flow-through shares. 1 give credit to an Hon. Member from Calgary who earlier today stood in her place, as others have, to say that the Government must change its attitude about flow-through shares.
The flow-through share mechanism allowed small and medium sized resource companies in Canada, particularly in western Canada, to obtain the necessary capital to expand and explore for more deposits. It created tens of thousands of jobs in the most remote areas of Canada.
However, it did not create many jobs in downtown Toronto or in the heart of the cities. The Government proceeded to gut this program that was assisting western Canada. The prospectors, placer miners, the smaller junior mining companies and oil companies are on bended knee asking for a chance in western Canada. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) simply tells them that the Government has decided to do away with this program that provides so many benefits to junior oil and mining companies in western Canada.
It came to my attention recently that while there will be the Western Diversification Fund in western Canada, and a new agency in Atlantic Canada, the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology retains the regional development responsibilities for Ontario and Quebec. This new, dynamic division of the Government will be responsible for regional economic development in Ontario and Quebec. Will that not give an advantage to central Canada? Will it not have the automatic advantage of putting all these government programs and Departments at their disposal for industrial and economic development?
Will the Western Diversification Office play a co-ordinating role in light of the absolute failure of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in terms of co-ordination? The Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Mining simply continued programs while ignoring the programs of DREE.
We in the West need an office that will play an advocacy role and will ensure that an issue like the airbus contract will be carefully considered in order to ensure that anything that is done with Air Canada will benefit western Canada. That is what is required.
I realize that my time has expired. My colleagues will have much more to say about this subject. We recognize that there is potential for the Western Diversification Office. It could play a significant role, but it lacks capital and it lacks a mandate.
As Mr. Bulloch of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business calls it, it is a black box. We do not know what it does or what are its terms of reference. That must be changed.
Western Economic Diversification Act


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question with my distinguished House Leader because I do not want him to be unaware of the fact that many parts of central Canada also suffer from serious economic problems.
My own constituency has a 9 per cent unemployment rate, and parts of northern Ontario have an unemployment rate well above 10 per cent. One must also recognize that there is a tremendous poverty problem within Toronto, as there is in other cities like Edmonton, Vancouver, and Halifax.
Will he indicate the alternatives we are considering for the country after the next election and outline an approach that does not discriminate against the West nor attempt to follow the traditional political rhetoric of blaming central Canada for problems which exist? After all, it is the Conservative Government, not central Canada, that is responsible for the problems the country faces.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), is absolutely correct. In examining the economic hardship facing people in the country today, we have been looking at what is happening in western Canada. In the last few days we have been examining the appalling situation that continues to exist in Atlantic Canada.
As the Member so aptly points out, central Canada is also experiencing severe problems, even in the largest cities. When one considers that the largest city in Canada has the distinction of having one of the largest food banks, I think it tells the tale.
There is an obvious solution. It is to have a new Government. A New Democratic Party Government would set itself apart from the others by a simple distinction. At the top of the list of its priorities, the goal it would set out to achieve as one of the wealthiest countries in the world would be full employment and strategies to accomplish that goal.
One of the first steps should be not only to have a goal of full employment; we should set targets for the lowering of inflation and interest rates. We set targets in a whole range of areas. Why not set a target to lower unemployment not only across Canada but in the regions of the country which the Tories have essentially abandoned? They have abandoned the North, the West, the East, and whole regions of central Canada. Once we start setting a goal of full employment and putting in place strategies to accomplish that goal, once we start setting targets to reduce unemployment, we will be able to make real inroads into reducing the number of jobless and getting economic development back on track where it belongs.


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the politically motivated diatribe of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), and I must confess that over the course of his 20-minute speech I had to smile. As a western Canadian I remember full well that his Party was the Party which supported a federal Government

April 29, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
that for years, if not decades, excluded western Canada from its fair share of federal government programs.
In 1984 the Canadian voters in western Canada got the groom by reducing the western representation in the Liberal Party, but we did not get the bride. We reduced her effect, but we will get her in 1988 or 1989.
What we are hearing today is this born again interest in western Canada of the New Democratic Party, the Party that supported the Liberal Party of Canada. The Hon. Member talked about percentages in his speech. He said that British Columbia, having 10 per cent of Canada's population, was receiving 10 per cent or less of some federal government programs, not quite a proportionate share, in some cases.
I understand his argument, but is he suggesting that the sword cut both ways? The Government initiated $1 billion in reforestation funding, of which 30 per cent goes to British Columbia. Should that 30 per cent be reduced to 10 per cent? B.C. sends 30 per cent of unsolicited proposals to the Department of Supply and Services. Should that be reduced to 10 per cent, as well? How about the world's largest ice-breaker commissioned by the Government, $500 million worth? Should we build 10 per cent of that in British Columbia?
What about Phase II of the Salmonid Enhancement Program of $200 million? Should British Columbia only get 10 per cent of that? Is that what the Hon. Member wants, or is he just being selective with his figures? Is he suggesting that British Columbia be restricted to 10 per cent of all federal government programs, that all federal government funding be proportioned according to population, or is he simply having fun with figures this afternoon?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Hon. Member refer to the forest industry. I would think he would be embarrassed to refer to the forest industry, because his Government promised the people of British Columbia, indeed the people of Canada, that if elected it would put in place a full ministry of forests. The Tories failed to do that. Once again, another lie to the people of Canada. They broke another promise because they quite clearly said this was a priority. They are four years into office and we still have not seen this promise delivered. Again I say, another broken promise or even a lie.
Where is the Polar 8? We have heard some announcements, but the action is not there. The Hon. Member asks if British Columbia or the West should have its fair share? Not only should the west have its fair share but, for the next number of years-perhaps even for a two-year or three-year period- could we not have a program called economic affirmative action? Every Canadian understands that the West has been short-changed right from the very beginning. For the next few years, let us have not only a fair share but perhaps even a little more to allow, for instance, the manufacturing sector to be buoyed up. The printers in British Columbia came to Ottawa the other day asking for a fair share.
We are talking about regional industrial support and encouragement. Under the trade deal with the United States that will be impossible. That is what the Hon. Member is suggesting. He advocates, on the one hand, a free trade deal with the United States knowing full well that the minute it is signed regional development programs to support the West will be pulled right away. In other words, he wants to impoverish westerners and discriminate against western Canadians in terms of economic development.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the House Leader of the New Democratic Party in this debate. As a Member of Parliament from the far eastern part of Canada, I want to put on the record that Atlantic Canadian New Democrats also support regional development in western Canada. I know the Deputy House Leader spoke out Wednesday against people from Ontario who supported regional development in Atlantic Canada.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That's nonsense.


Jack Harris: I know the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) attacked the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) for supporting regional development in Atlantic Canada, but I want to put on record that I support regional development in western Canada as well.
Would the Hon. Member care to comment on the attitude the Government seems to have about the fact that only people from eastern Canada can talk about eastern regional development and only people from western Canada can talk about western regional development?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we have heard comments in this House that only can be called regional racism. It was a very sad day when a leader for the government benches felt it was appropriate that debate on an issue of particular interest to Atlantic Canada, be restricted to only Members from Atlantic Canada. I think it should be made clear that those who represent the New Democratic Party represent all Canadians. We represent northerners, easterners, westerners, and people from central Canada. I do not apologize for that. I do not apologize for being part of a Party which cares about Canadians no matter where they live.
I realize the Conservatives have regional interests, that they come from a particular region and do not care about another particular region, but I am proud to be part of a Party that puts Canadians first no matter where they happen to live.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to begin. Perhaps I will pick up on the last exchange which so clearly identifies the two sides to the New Democratic personality. Those Members talk about people from all across Canada and not being afraid to stand up and talk on behalf of all Canadians. No one in this Chamber in the last nine years has fought more often than I
April 29, 1988

have to ensure that all Canadians are first-class Canadians no matter where they live.
Members of the New Democratic Party go on about the need to talk, and all of us have to have a 24-hour memory. Yesterday afternoon at between three o'clock and five o'clock when we could have been talking about western diversification, we spent one quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers' money bobbing up and down in the Chamber, getting exercise every six minutes when we stood to vote, instead of talking about western diversification.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point the Hon Member just put on the record is categorically false. There were 133 Tories missing from Parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I please ask all Members to be relevant to the Bill. Thank you very much.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, there is a parliamentary tradition that goes back over centuries. We have evolved our right to freedom of speech. We have evolved principles to stop the tyranny of the majority, but we have also evolved principles to stop the tyranny of the minority. The New Democratic Party, aided and abetted by the Liberal Party of Canada, this week stalled support for victims of crime. They have stopped perhaps the most significant environmental Bill in 25 years, a Bill that was given over 100 amendments in committee and more in the House of Commons at report stage. This Bill needs to be in place to protect the health, environment and heritage of Canadians. That is what they have done this week. Then, when we brought on the Bill today to help western Canada we get a filibuster, and political gamesmanship-


Ms. Jewett:: Who is filibustering now?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There is a place for tactics of filibuster, that is, with respect to matters of fundamental principle.
I remember sitting in this place in 1980 when a constitutional proposal was brought forward and the Government of the day with its majority tried to ram it through. It was legitimate to use every rule of this Chamber because the principle was so fundamental to the future of our nation-


Ms. Mitchell:: Is western Canada not legitimate?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is an abomination of common sense. It is an abomination, an absolute abomination of why Members opposite receive an indemnity, money, from the taxpayers of the country to do the work of this Chamber, that is, to help-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member, theoretically, is debating the Western Diversification Bill. I would ask Your Honour to point out to the Hon. Member that ascribing motives to Members of this House with respect to their votes is completely against the rules of the House.
Western Economic Diversification Act
Further, I would ask that when the Hon. Member reminds Canadians of the actions of the Conservative Party when it was in Opposition, he not forget that it was not just a question of working within the rules. I was here that night in the House when he and some of his colleagues stormed up to the chair. They stormed to the chair and shook their fists at the Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Svend Johannes Robinson: That Member was one of them. Now he has the audacity to stand up here to criticize us for speaking out for Canadians. Let us have an end to hypocrisy.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, this Chamber has set aside in its wisdom approximately four hours a day-perhaps a little less; it probably comes out to three and a half hours-for the conduct of public business, for the public discussion on television of that public business. That is not much time. To stand up to say: "We want to talk", and to think back over this week the number of times the Opposition has caused bells to be rung, bells to be rung when no speaking can occur-


James Ross Fulton: Who rang the bells this morning? The Tories!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What has to be done with members of the New Democratic Party in particular is to listen carefully to what they say and then contrast that with what they do. Contrast that with what they do.
There was a very important evening in the history of this country in December of 1979. They moved a motion stating that they had no confidence in the budgetary plans of the Government.


Lloyd Axworthy: Neither did anyone else!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They moved that same motion repeatedly on an annual basis every time we brought in a Budget. History tells us, as does the welfare council, that the Budget brought in by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) in 1979 was the fairest Budget to the poor people of Canada in the decade-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to relate the 1979 Budget of the Hon. Member for St. John's West to this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Filibuster!


Lloyd Axworthy: He cannot. He is stuck in 1979. He is a typical Tory. He cannot get to the present.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If we continue to be able to pass our Budgets, our legislation, and our western diversification plans, we Will continue to take people off the poverty rolls.


Pauline Jewett: You will? What a laugh!

April 29, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They will have no one to talk to because everyone will be healthy, wealthy, and wise. Members of that Party do not want that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Call an election, Jim.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They say they do but they act as if they do not. That is the NDP for you. They did it in 1979 very graphically for the whole nation. It was the the most fair Budget to the poor people of the country, and they defeated it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The people of Canada defeated it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: And the Budget never came into being. Those poor people got poorer because of the social democratic alliance between two Parties. They joined together to keep people in poverty, to continue to receive government cheques, and to vote for them.
Why do we need a western diversification program in 1988? We need it today because the two social democratic Parties, in alliance, with public policies over time, 17 to 18 years in a row, created a situation, an advantage for certain regions of the country, and a disadvantage for other regions so that they could send out more cheques. This Party believes in sending out more jobs-more jobs for Atlantic Canada, more jobs for western Canada. In three and a half years we have created one and a quarter million new jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Go to Calgary and say that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: One half a million Canadians are now off the poverty rolls.


Ms. Dewar:: Not in British Columbia.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There is a significantly increased standard of living for seniors in the country, and retired people. That is what this legislation is all about. It is about jobs for friends of Members opposite, their neighbours who live in their neighbourhood in western Canada and who are unemployed today as we do not have policies-


Some Hon. Members:: That's right!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We do not pass legislation that provides the help we need. We listen to bells instead of passing legislation. We get filibuster, filibuster. We do not pass the laws that will help Canadians.
I will make Members an offer right this minute. Do we have unanimous consent to go beyond the normal hours of adjournment after Private Members' Hour to continue this debate and to pass this Bill? Can we have that from the Opposition?


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: "No", they say. They say: "We want to help the West". Will they give us unanimous consent to talk? They say that they believe in democracy. They say that they will not go on, that we will not have freedom of speech, and that we will not pass the Bill. They say that they will filibuster and ring the bells.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Go to the people. Let them decide.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The tyranny of this minority cannot continue. There is a will on the government side to pass the Bills that will help the victims of crime, that will help the environment, that will help Atlantic Canada, and that will help western Canada.
For that and many other reasons, but to stop at least a tiny portion of this filibuster and to move this Bill forward one small step, I move:
That this question be now put.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thanks, Jim, I can make another speech now.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Debate!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) on debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in the next 10 minutes I will have a chance to speak on this matter. I find it interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary who got up in the House is the same person who charged the Deputy Speaker many years ago. I find it interesting that he did not respect the procedures of the House of Commons on that late night many years ago when he physically charged the Deputy Speaker. Today in the House 10 minutes prior to the end of debate, he has moved a motion to cut off debate.
One of the problems we have had in the House is that when the Liberals were in government they ignored the minority. The Conservatives in those days used to rise in the House and say that the minority, the opposition Parties were being ignored. They made the claim that there was no chance for debate in the House of Commons; that the Liberals were ignoring the voices of the West, ignoring those who said that Parliament has a right, an obligation, a duty to examine carefully government legislation. Time after time we heard that view expressed by Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament. The very mover of the motion to bring in closure on this measure was so incensed when that happened when he was in Opposition that he, along with other Tory backbenchers at the time, physically charged the Chair.
April 29, 1988

It is interesting that this same Progressive Conservative Member, now sitting on the government benches, puts forward the closure motion in respect of this particular measure. And, immediately upon doing so, he left the Chamber.
There has not been a filibuster in respect of this measure. For that matter, there has hardly been adequate debate on it.
The legislative committee charged with studying Bill C-113 was not allowed to travel to the West in order to hear from those who wished to appear before it. We find that unacceptable. Whether one is talking about the West, the North, or Atlantic Canada, the residents themselves should be heard.
In the case of this particular measure, the committee should have had the opportunity to hear the views and opinions of those living in the West. Those living in the West should have been afforded the opportunity to put before Parliament their ideas, their concepts, their suggestions. Not many are in a position to travel to Ottawa in order to be heard. They have views to offer on community-based development, on cooperative development, on development based upon the resources of a given region.
I know that there are Progressive Conservative Members sitting opposite who recognize this. But they, too, must accept responsibility for the fact that this Progressive Conservative Government would not permit the committee to travel to western Canada in order to discuss with the people of western Canada this particular measure.
I remind Members of the House that the western diversification legislation that we are now discussing is about how to diversify the economy of western Canada. It does not make sense that a decision in respect of the economy of western Canada be made in the cabinet room in Ottawa, based only upon the advice of bureaucrats, most of whom are easterners. That makes no sense. Yet, that is the approach that this Government has taken with regard to Bill C-l 13.
When the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) was in power, there was talk of a "community of communities". It was the view of that Government that it was important that we understand that each province is different from its neighbours.
That is not what is happening now. I do not believe that we should pass legislation affecting a given region of this country without going to that region for input. The West is a very large region of this country, and certainly we should not pass Bill C-113 without going to the West and listening to the views of the people. We should have the opportunity to listen to their ideas and suggestions.
One of the problems that we have with Bill C-l 13 is that we have not had that opportunity. As is apparent from what is happening in the House at the present time, this Government, for political reasons, is afraid to go to the West.
Western Economic Diversification Act
At the time that diversification of the economy of Atlantic Canada was the subject, a parliamentary committee did travel throughout that region gathering input from the residents. But this Government, for political reasons, was afraid to have the legislative committee travel from place to place in western Canada for the purpose of receiving input in relation to Bill C-113. This Government was afraid that the remarks of the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) would be remembered; it was afraid that past remarks of Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament would be thrown back at them; it was afraid that the people of the West would not accept the political propaganda of this Government and its legislation.
Bill C-l 13 would provide money for the West, but it does so in such a manner that the main purpose is not the development of the West, or the diversification of the West, but the realization of the maximum political benefit for the Progressive Conservative Party. That is the aim in respect of each and every project announced by this Government for western Canada.
To give an example, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the "political" Minister for the Province of Manitoba, made the claim, in Manitoba, that the ideas for western diversification of the then Government of Manitoba, the New Democratic Government, were unworthy; but, in the same breath, he said that some would be approved before the election campaign in Manitoba had concluded. On the one hand, he criticized the projects; on the other hand, he recognized that the western diversification pool of money could be used as a political tool, with money being allocated to Manitoba prior to the Manitoba election campaign being concluded.
That type of thinking is what westerners used to complain about when the Liberals were in power in this country. The criterion was not whether a project was good or bad but whether it had political benefit. We have seen that time after time in this country. Last weekend, we had the Minister of National Health and Welfare travelling to my riding to announce a $88.5 million water and sewage program for native communities. Certainly it is a worthy project. The irony, however, is that the previous Liberal Government, in the opening days of the 1984 election campaign, announced the very same project. That was a project that involved the same communities, though a little less money. The $88.5 million figure no doubt reflects the effect of inflation from 1984 to the present.
What we have here is a worth while project which has been ignored between elections. It was promised during the 1984 election campaign by the Liberals, and now, four years later, during a provincial election, the same project is announced by the federal Progressive Conservative Government.
That is but just one example of what is wrong with the approach taken by this Government. There are good projects being suggested in all of the western provinces. We have community-based groups in the West who know best what can

April 29, 1988
Property Rights
be done within their own communities. We have people with ideas. But, the central political decision-making process, a process which ignores the communities, which ignores the development corporations in the West, creates a problem. We do not want a repeat of the bad old days of the Liberals and the way they did things. We want new ideas.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that it is two o'clock. I will be here on Monday to continue the debate, assuming the Government call for a continuation of the debate at that time.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE PROPERTY RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Reimer:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982, should be amended in order to include property rights and, that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that it reads as follows:
"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
and this House urges that the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces and the Senate pass similar resolutions.
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to enter into this debate on property rights and their future entrenchment in our Constitution. I do not think any one issue has bothered me more, nor have I received more letters on any issue than I have on this one. Almost all of my constituents would like to see property rights entrenched in our Constitution. It amazes them that they are not.
It is a well acknowledged, intrinsic human desire to own property, and one would think that to have ownership protected legally could almost be taken for granted in a democracy such as ours. However, we must not forget that it was not a simple oversight that left property rights out of our Constitution.
The Conservative Party proposed that this fundamental right be included in Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms back in 1981 during the original drafting of the Charter. For a time, this worthy proposal was accepted by the then Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). However, due to political pressures from
the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Government quickly reversed itself and withdrew the property rights amendment.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party is quoted in Hansard of April 29, 1983 at page 25001, as having said in 1981 the following:
There's no way we can accept the constitutional resolution with that amendment in it.
The NDP fears the amendment could not only prevent provincial legislation restricting foreign owners-but could hinder Governments wishing to nationalize industries ...
The Conservative amendment flies in the face of what we're attempting to do in the resource sector-tightening up management control-
Prime Minister Trudeau and the then Liberal Government, by making a deal with the NDP, sacrificed Canadians' constitutional guarantee of this basic human right. Therefore, when the Constitution of Canada was patriated in 1982, only three of the four basic human rights were entrenched.
The terrible consequences of not adequately protecting our right to property in the Constitution have already been clearly demonstrated. Past Governments have repeatedly and needlessly seized land while offering little or no compensation. In recent years, the Liberals did that twice, with the shameless confiscation of the frontier lands for the National Energy Program and with the expropriation of land for Mirabel airport.
While the Liberals should be embarrassed by these violations of property rights, members of the NDP openly plot to violate these very same rights in order to realize their socialist ambitions. They oppose the inclusion of property rights in the Constitution because it would be a serious impediment to their policy of nationalization and economic intervention.
The American people recently celebrated the two-hundredth anniversary of their Constitution. What struck me about that event was the pride exhibited by the American people and their realization that a Constitution is a living document. It enunciates basic principles which are then, over time, further defined, added to and, most important, put into practice.
We do not want a Canadian Constitution that remains flawed, incomplete and so inextricably mired in the status quo that it loses its effectiveness and relevance. The majority of Canadians want property rights entrenched in our Constitution.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), on April 15, 1987, indicated that with the Meech Lake Accord now under way we could begin to look at other constitutional issues such as property rights. He stated then that the successful resolution of the Quebec issue would unlock the constitutional process and allow us to turn our attention to other issues such as property rights in a second round of constitutional discussions.
I would remind Hon. Members that this Government was elected with a mandate for national reconciliation. The Prime Minister stated that a key element of such reconciliation was Quebec's signature on the Constitution. The provincial
April 29, 1988

premiers agreed, and at their Edmonton conference in 1986, stated that Quebec should be the paramount constitutional issue and that other issues, as important as they are, should be dealt with following the resolution of Quebec's concerns.
Given the important and pressing nature of those other constitutional issues such as Senate reform, fisheries, and of course property rights, this decision by the premiers reflected a truly national vision. It was in that spirit that First Ministers succeeded in reaching an agreement with Quebec through the Meech Lake Accord. In recognition of the other constitutional issues, the Accord includes the requirement for an annual conference of First Ministers to examine these matters.
I believe that for the House to proceed with the motion before us at this time would be inconsistent with the Premiers' declaration and the agreed upon process. We must recognize that for this amendment to be adopted consent of a number of provinces will be required, and we should not act in a manner that would make obtaining that support more difficult.
Accordingly I am proposing an amendment to the motion that will send a strong signal of support by the House of Commons for the principle of entrenched property rights but will leave formal adoption until the First Ministers have dealt with the issue. I believe that a demonstration of support for the principle by the House of Commons would provide a strong impetus to those discussions while respecting the process agreed upon by First Ministers.
I would also remind Hon. Members that there are ongoing federal-provincial discussions with respect to this issue. That work will continue and, I hope, will build a consensus for First Ministers to act. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Hardey):
That Motion M-8 be amended by deleting all of the words after "amended", and substituting the following:
"In order to recognize the right to enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, after an assessment of the continuing federal-provincial work on entrenchment of property rights and a future discussion by First Ministers at the Constitutional Conference."
I would like to inform Hon. Members that this amendment is available in both official languages.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will take the amendment under advisement for a few moments. In the meantime, the Chair has received notice of a question of privilege.
Privilege-Mr. Della Noce


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House, because yesterday, my colleague from Thunder Bay- Nipigon (Mr. Epp) raised a question of privilege. I would like to put the record straight, since I am directly involved in this Committee, the Legislative Committee on Bill C-93. My colleague said that:
... I had occasion just over a month ago, on March 22, to raise a question of privilege relating to a denial of the Government, through the House leadership refusing to present a motion authorizing the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism to visit the regions of Canada to hear from persons in the ethnocultural groups and multicultural organizations in response to the report of the committee.
Thursday morning, that is yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a very similar matter arose in the Legislative Committee which is dealing with the Multiculturalism Bill. I will not read Citation 16 of Beauchesne's again, but only emphasize that Members of Parliament who have responsibilities to deal with matters of public policy need to be aware of what the Canadian people think about these matters. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why I personally suggested inviting five groups to appear before the Committee.
Naturally, since it did not come from him, my colleague was startled, he even left the meeting. Perhaps that is why he did not hear all the facts, those recorded on page 14937 of the House of Commons Debates for April 28, 1988, Mr. Speaker. It is totally false. What he says is not true!
He says, "Submissions from five of these six organizations will be denied." Mr. Speaker, I say that is totally false. I said that five of the six would be heard. That is not quite the same thing. I do not know why the NDP Members feel so persecuted now, but five of the six will be heard, because the sixth told us that they probably could not attend since they are from Vancouver. I had even suggested that the committee pay the expenses for these organizations coming from Toronto, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Regina and even Fredericton and Vancouver. 1 believe that this properly represents Canada's duality, but these groups wanted to be heard and I have no problem with doing so.
My colleague who left the meeting before the end ... I even amended my motion, Mr. Speaker, because five groups in two hours is really a bit rushed. But my amendment was very clear. In my amendment, I agreed that each group be given an hour, which is much more than the committees give, that is an hour for someone to read a brief and there is no more time for questions.

April 29, 1988
Property Rights
I say that the Speaker was still very fair and I agree with him when he says that it is a decision for the Committee, and not the Elouse, to make. But the Committee was clear and it is too bad that I have to restate the facts because we will not hear five group in two hours, but five groups in five hours.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon (Mr. Epp) who rose yesterday afternoon on this question of privilege could not be in the House today. I am somewhat curious about your decision to allow this question of privilege to be entertained during Private Members' Business hour.
I should like to deal briefly with the issues raised by the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce). He argues for the fact that a small number of ethno cultural groups will be allowed to appear before the Legislative Committee dealing with Bill C-93. My friend the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon claimed yesterday in the House that his privileges as a Member had been denied by the Government majority which refused to allow an adequate number of sittings for community groups to express their views on this important legislation.
As my hon. friend emphasized, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council was the only non-governmental organization which has been heard so far. There are groups by the dozens which wanted to make representations, review the bill and suggest improvements, which will all be excluded. And to start with the Government refused the Legislative Committee permission to travel in order to hear the views Canadians would like to express on the Bill. Now, the Government has imposed a time limit whereby only five groups will have a chance to testify for a one hour period each.
Here is something totally inadequate, Mr. Speaker, and this is why the Hon. Member rose on a question of privilege, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will sustain every Member's right to a full and adequate consideration of a Bill as important as Bill C-93, instead of an inadequate consideration such as that put forward by Members of the Conservative Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think it is neither necessary nor useful to hear other Members on this question.
The question was raised yesterday by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and it appears on page 14937 of the Official Record of the Debates.
I thank the Hon. Members for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) and Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Cassidy) for their representations today, but I do think that all Hon. Members will understand that the Speaker's decision stands.
So we continue the debate with the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Hardey).


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE PROPERTY RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Reimer:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982, should be
amended in order to include property rights and, that the Governor General
issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that it reads as follows:
"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
and this House urges that the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces and the
Senate pass similar resolutions.
Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place and support the motion placed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), calling for the inclusion of property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, many groups and individual Canadians have lobbied for the entrenchment of property rights in the Canadian Charter, and many provincial bodies and Governments have also expressed to the federal Government their commitment to this goal.
Because the inclusion of property rights involves a constitutional amendment, we should not become discouraged over the complexities involved, but rather keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of Canadians favoured the inclusion of property rights in the Charter at the time of the initial debate. There are many precedents for property rights to be entrenched in the Charter, even going back as far back as 1215 when the Magna Carta referred to it. Many of us in the House have ancestors who came to this country because it was a land of opportunity, and with their own sweat and labour they conquered the wilderness and made Canada what it is today.
A few weeks ago in my riding I discussed this issue with my friend, Mr. Herb Parker, a member of the Political Action Committee of the Chatham-Kent Real Estate Board. He pointed out several local concerns. We generally concluded that it seems to boil down to an over-abundance of laws which restrict or remove property rights placed upon citizens in Ontario by the provincial Government, and many people are unaware of the restrictions.
Most of these laws are necessary and acceptable individually, and they are in place for many good reasons. But when one puts them all together and counts them up, it becomes a little scary. There are 223 public statutes, 61 private statutes, and 86 regulatory passages which allow entry on to your land and mine, Mr. Speaker, without warning.
As individuals we live in a co-operative society. In order to enhance that society and to protect our health, livelihood, well-
April 29, 1988

being, and lifestyles, certain individual rights may be removed or restricted. My friend, Herb Parker, has no argument with that, nor do I. However he argues that the sheer number of such laws, particularly the vast grey area of laws, which on the surface sound good and have excellent intentions, in all practical ways create excessive confusion and the possibility of jeopardizing basic rights.
Entrenchment is not a threat to provincial rights. It will not prevent necessary expropriations for government projects. It will not upset good and orderly government. However, it will stand as a visible and powerful symbol that Canada still represents freedom and will provide individuals with a fair and just hearing before the courts in the case of property right disputes.
I was not a Member of the House when the original Charter was drawn up. I have spent some time reading the speeches made by those who were here at that time. I must say that when I was finished researching this issue I was fairly confused. Reading the lines, and the between the lines, I saw that members of all Parties appeared to support the idea of property rights. However, after endless debate on the subject, we have reached the point at which we are today-going through the exercise again.
A few weeks ago, while sitting in this House, I heard the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) reflecting on the trade-off of issues to get the Charter in place. Yes, the original resolution was debated in this House almost endlessly. In fact, by the time it was all over, debate in the House and in committee had taken well over 150 days. The give and take process between the Government and the Opposition resulted in this very important subject being left out. According to the Hon. Member for York Centre, it was actually traded out in order to get NDP support in 1982. That is a very unfortunate situation.
The right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property is fundamental in a democracy such as Canada. I would like to quote the President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce on the subject. He said, in a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), "Property rights are the most fundamental of individual rights. It is unfortunate that they were not included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a protected right. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce urges the Parliament of Canada and the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces to amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that it reads: 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"'. The President went on to say that the chamber was encouraged by the Prime Minister's undertaking on April 15, 1987 to include this subject in round two of the constitutional discussions with the provinces.
Property Rights
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is not the only organization to support a property rights amendment. This was further indicated by the Canadian Real Estate Association in October of that same year when its President referred to the Gallup poll commissioned by the Association which indicated that 84 per cent of home owners and 74 per cent of renters support a property rights amendment.
The President of the Canadian Real Estate Association said, "The results are a powerful message to Members of Parliament and provincial politicians that Canadians take their property rights seriously and want them in the Constitution". The poll was released on the first day of National Private Property Week sponsored annually by the Association to remind Canadians of the rights and obligations of property ownership.
The right to enjoy property is the only one of the fundamental freedoms that was left out of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights when it was proclaimed in 1982. In the spring of 1983 my Party, which was then the Official Opposition, introduced in Parliament a resolution to entrench property rights that was defeated because of the amendment procedures of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
During the last election campaign my Party again took the position that it supported the entrenchment of property rights in the Charter with due protection for the rights of women under family law regimes. I distinctly recall that subject coming up over and over again in my own campaign.
Canadians, most of whom are property owners, are in favour of property rights. This has been borne out countless times through surveys and polls. People are unable at the present time to challenge alleged infringements against their property rights in the courts on the basis of the Charter. The obvious solution now is an amendment to the Charter as my hon. friend has proposed. The required provincial consent should not pose an insurmountable problem, and some of the provinces have already acted in that regard.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, this motion and its amendment, if I am allowed to address the amendment before you have approved it, is an absolutely essential requirement for society. Perhaps prior to the creation of a Constitution some years ago it was not as important as it is today, but in that Constitution we deprived this House and virtually all legislative bodies of the right to create laws within the guidelines of the power of government which was, of course, delineated by the Act of 1867 that created Canada in the first place. At that particular time it was hoped that in future law would be interpreted by the courts of the land as it had been interpreted, that there would be precedent which would prevail in the judgment, and that specific laws and interpretations, once made, would be respected.
We now find that when a case goes to the Supreme Court, if a defendant or a prosecutor presents to that court a precedent or a particular law which is relevant to the case but may not be

April 29, 1988
Property Rights
identical to the case, the court is inclined to question the legal representation by saying: "What has precedent to do with it; what has this or that to do with it?" As far as Canada is concerned, we have seen the legislative capability of the Supreme Court, particularly as it was expressed with respect to its decision on abortion.
We have resided in this land since the earliest settlers arrived here with the concept that we did in fact own land; that if we had bought and paid for it, it was our possession as much as the clothes on our backs were presumed to be our possession. However, under this Constitution, as I see it, we are now in the position where nothing is finite which is not in the Constitution itself and everything is subject to interpretation.
That was obvious to some of us when the Constitution was presented in the first place. However, it was impossible to get amendments, either to add the right to own land or to give a finite capability to the legislative bodies which exist in our dominion.
While there may have been some reservations about the ownership of land, we have reached a time when the philosophical types of decision we have seen in the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts demand that there be no opportunity for philosophical, sociological, or any other type of decision with respect to the ownership of land. That must be finite in the Constitution. We should not overlook that.
There are literally hundreds of municipal, provincial, and federal rights of passage, rights of access, et cetera, which are applied to land ownership and which do in fact override some of our rights. They are intended to override some of our rights of ownership because our ownership may not be in the best interest of the public domain. Nevertheless, there is the demand that, if the public requires the land or the building which we own, the owner be compensated for infringement, lack of possession, or demolition of the property.
I know that one of the reasons people came to this land initially was that where they had resided at an earlier date, whether in Europe or another place, they did not have clear ownership of land, they did not have private possession. They may have been serfs, share-croppers, or in some other capacity, but they did not own land. That was one of the very objectives of people leaving their homes, relatives, and friends to come to a foreign land, even a wilderness, to settle.
One must ask why we have not established the sacred right to property prior to this time. This question should not be left to the philosophical decision of a judge, but it should be absolutely established in law.
I do not believe this would interfere with the administration of government, whether at the municipal, provincial, or federal level. However, the exclusion of such rights can interfere with the security of the individual.
This question may not have been as significant when the Constitution was being introduced to the House in its broad terms. At that time the property rights proposal was subject to interpretation because it did not spell out its purposes. Now that we have seen the philosophical capability of a judge to make an interpretation which the judge believes is in the best interest of society, the time has come to provide for property rights.
I have always believed that property rights should be a fundamental aspect of our Constitution. To my knowledge, those provincial jurisdictions that oppose land ownership have never explained how this would interfere with the operation of government. When one considers the background of many Canadians, it is beyond my comprehension why anyone would argue against the insertion of land ownership in our Constitution.
I believe this motion directs the Government to take the necessary steps to bring that about, and I compliment the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) for introducing it.
One of the fundamental reasons why our forefathers came to this country was that they could either get a grant of land or purchase land. They were provided with an opportunity which they or their descendants would ever have in their new homeland.
I recall a conversation I had with an immigrant to this country. After an extended trip to his homeland, he talked of the difficulties he had in returning there and spoke of the difficulties facing his relatives. I asked him how he felt upon returning to Canada. He said that he felt just like the astronaut who, upon returning to earth, said he could kiss the ground. This immigrant came from a land where he could not own property. When he returned to Canada he wanted to kiss the ground because of the privileges we enjoy in this country. These principles of property rights should be enshrined in our Constitution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), the Chair will rule on the amendment which was proposed a few minutes ago.
After careful consideration the Chair must rule the amendment out of order on the grounds that the amendment sets forth a proposition dealing with a matter that is foreign to the proposition involving the main motion. Therefore it is not relevant and cannot be moved.
Debate continues with the Hon. Member for Nepean- Carleton.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there any room for discussion or opinion of Members of the House?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I doubt very much whether the Chair would change its mind. However, the Chair would entertain a comment from the Member.
April 29, 1988


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is a small problem with the motion. I believe it is being redrafted and may be re-introduced by another Member. However, I think we should let the debate continue while it is being worked on.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the sentiments expressed by many other colleagues respecting the motion by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer). He brings forward a motion that is fundamentally important not only for Canadians but for people throughout the world.
I want to highlight the importance of land ownership and property rights by citing two graphic examples. The House will recall the classic film Gone with the Wind, a story about the civil war in the United States. I will never forget the closing scene when Scarlet returned to see that her house had been destroyed in the war. She told one of the men who worked on the farm that she was devastated because everything had been taken from her. He bent down, picked up some soil, and said to her: "This will endure forever". The message was that she still had the land.
It is the right of people to keep their land that we want to entrench in the Constitution. The right to ownership of land should belong to everyone, whether an individual or an organization, so that one cannot simply be bulldozed off the property when a transfer of land happens to occur. Someone should not be loosely expropriated from property that has belonged to a family for decades.
Another movie which appeared recently on television depicts the importance of ownership of land. This movie was entitled Stranger on my Land. It was about a man who returned from Vietnam where he remembered expropriating people from their lands and villages because they had been destroyed. The moment which depicted the importance of the right to property occurred in the scene in which an old South Vietnamese man was crying. He said: "I have nowhere else to go". When this soldier returned to the United States, the same thing happened to him with his land and his farm. The military wanted to take over his land in the western United States for use as a testing ground. He opposed it and was taken to court where he had to fight for his land. We do not want that to happen in our country.
I can think of things that have happened even in the National Capital Region. My family roots go back to King-smere. We all remember Mackenzie King who fantasized about running this country. The NCC expropriated land which had been in my family for generations and it expropriated land from farmers, although it gave a fair price. However land is something we cannot possible allow ourselves to lose.
In Third World countries people are shifted from points A to B without their permission. We cannot let that happen here. Why the importance of entrenching property rights in our
Property Rights
Constitution was not realized at the time of the changes to our Constitution I do not know. I was not in the House at the time and I have not read the Debates.
The basic fundamental philosophy of human beings is their land. Without guaranteed access to the land, farmers feel insecure, cottage dwellers feel insecure. This is something which has now become essential, and I hope we all agree on this. Because of my sincere belief in the fact that we must have guaranteed access to property, I am pleased to move:
That Motion M-8 be amended by deleting all of the words after "amended", and substituting the following:
"In order to recognize the right to enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and in keeping with the tradition of the usual federal-provincial consultative process".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The amendment is as follows. It is moved by Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton), seconded by Mr. Towers, that Motion M-8 be amended by deleting all of the words after "amended", and substituting the following: "In order to recognize the right to enjoyment of property, and the right of not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and in keeping with the tradition of the usual federal-provincial consultative process".
The Chair finds the motion to be in order. Debate is on the amendment.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I really find it passing strange that at the fifth hour of debate on the motion of the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) we should find the Conservative Party changing its mind, the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) proposing an amendment which was declared out of order and another amendment being proposed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) which is almost meaningless.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: No, it is not.


Pauline Jewett: It amends the Constitution Act in order to do certain things without saying how it should be amended. It only says that it is to be amended in order to give some protection to the right to enjoy property and that the federal Government and the provinces will work it out in some fashion. That is all it says.
The original motion by the Hon. Member for Kitchener was very explicit on how this House should amend the Constitution Act, 1982, namely, by adding within Section 7 of the Charter the words "enjoyment of property". I find it very strange that the Conservative Party should now be welshing on that very specific proposal.
I can only conclude that the Conservative Party has been listening to the arguments put forward by the New Democratic Party during the course of the previous four hours of debate on this matter and has concluded that the motion originally proposed by the Hon. Member for Kitchener-and the

April 29, 1988
Property Rights
amendment that was proposed in earlier Parliaments, is very inadvisable; that it could indeed lead to very perverse results and might circumscribe the rights of all citizens, including other property owners. It might also make difficult the enjoyment of all freedoms guaranteed in the Charter. The matter needs a good deal more discussion and debate and, ideally, the matter needs to be dropped.
Those who advocate amending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to guarantee the right to enjoy property are, in my view, being either mischievious or naive. When they make this proposal they make it sound as though it was the most simple of adjustments, a statement of the obvious that would be opposed only by someone who wants to deprive people of what is rightfully theirs. That is the subtle implication. Yet, as many associations have pointed out including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, entrenching property rights or the rights to the enjoyment of property can have very perverse results.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton is under the impression that property means land and land only. That is ridiculous. Property in this modern day and age means a great deal more than land, the most important of which is intellectual property. That in itself indicates that property rights are a far less clear-cut concept than other rights already entrenched in the Constitution.
For example, when we speak of the right not to be imprisoned without due process of law or the right to freedom of expression, we know at least in a general sense what is intended. But, what actually is the right to enjoy property? That right needs to be so hedged with restrictions in order to protect the rights of others, and of society as a whole that it is far, far from absolute.
What then would it mean to enshrine in our Constitution as a fundamental and more or less absolute right the enjoyment of property? If it meant only that the right to enjoy property existed to the extent that society through its laws chooses not to limit it-and that in effect is the situation today-then the constitutional guarantee would be virtually meaningless. If it meant more than that, then the still insufficiently explored consequence could be a dismantling of some or even all of the laws that exist to protect us all.
That is why we have suspected for some time that what the promoters of the property amendment really want is a legal opportunity to challenge a vast body of legislation which exists today and which subjects property ownership to a wider community interest, including that of other property owners.
Urban property speculators, for instance, are thirsting to use a property rights clause to short circuit zoning by-laws and community organizations, those organizations having the gall to prevent landowners from doing whatever they please with their property. They do not want to see the freedom-putting freedom in quotes-to build a fast food stand in a quiet neighbourhood abridged. They do not want to have any
limitations on their intention, perhaps, to turn the back 40 into a highly profitable dump for PCBs. If property rights are constitutionally entrenched, how long would it take for a lawyer to draft a brief denouncing rent controls as unconscionable and illegal government meddling?
In its current form the enjoyment of property-and what was a proposed amendment and which now has been somehow taken off the table by the Conservatives-could easily be used to throw into question zoning by-laws, restrictions on land use, rent controls, environmental laws, restrictions on foreign ownership, the right of Governments to expropriate property in the public interest, and who knows what else. It is understandable why most provincial Governments, many of them Conservative-and it is the provinces which have a large voice in property and civil rights under Section 92 of the Constitution-have hitherto said, including the former Premier of Alberta, that the placing of the enjoyment of property in the Constitution should be avoided and must be opposed. That is of course what this Party intends to do.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, in wrapping up the debate, I point out that this is the fifth hour that has been provided under the rules in Private Members' Hour on a votable motion. I want to say that we have had a good debate. Some 31 people have spoken on the motion. Some 21 have spoken in favour of it, while 10 have spoken against it.
I want to say that the spirit of the amendment and the amendment to the amendment that was put today is simply that the spirit of the motion continue. We want to entrench property rights but this will change the procedure. It will now go through the First Ministers as opposed to going directly to the Senate and the provinces.
That is being done because of a commitment made during the Meech Lake process at which all the Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) agreed together that what they would do is try to complete the Meech Lake process first and then deal with such matters as Senate reform, property rights, and changes to the Constitution. That is what we have done.


Pauline Jewett: Why did you not do it long ago?


John Henry Reimer: That is what we have attempted to do today. We have concluded this debate. I call upon my colleagues in the House to vote in favour of the amended motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Carleton (Mr. Turner). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.
April 29, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the recorded division stands deferred until 6 p.m. on Monday, May 2, 1988.
It being 3 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, May 2, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers