1988-05-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixty-first report of the Striking Committee.


BILL C-82-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition today on behalf of a number of constituents, pursuant to Standing Order 106. The constituents are concerned in this case about the comprehensive eligibility list for the northern residents' tax deduction. They indicate that many communities have been left off the list which share identical environments in that they are northern, isolated communities paying increased costs for food, fuel and housing. Whereas this tax deduction was designed to assist in alleviating the added costs of living in northern, isolated communities, they are calling upon Parliament to declare all communities in tier 3 ridings across Canada to be eligible for the northern residents' tax deduction.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present petitions to this House, pursuant to Standing Order 106. These petitions come from residents of Shediac, Cormier Village, St. Paul, St. Charles, Cocagne and Scoudouc in my riding. Mr. Speaker, they come from throughout my constituency. The petitioners humbly state that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada leaves unborn human beings with no legal protection and for these reasons, the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to draft a bill as soon as possible to protect human life.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table petitions signed by residents of Chibougamau, Dolbeau, Sainte-Monique, Roberval, Chapais, Mistassini, Saint-Paul du Nord, Saint-Thomas and Longueuil. These 168 signatures are in addition to the 32,639 signatures that I have already tabled.
The highway safety campaign continues, Mr. Speaker, because the petitioners are aware that since 1974, the federal motor vehicle safety regulations allow drivers of passenger cars to install self-inflating air bags and that this device would reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries.
For these reasons, the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to require, first, the installation of self-inflating air bags in the front of cars and, second, the installation of adjustable seat belts with shoulder straps for back-seat passengers.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 280, 284 and 313.


Mr. Nystrom: May 3, 1988
Order Paper Questions
1.	Has Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL), Eldorado Nuclear Limited or the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (EMR) made any financial commitment to a campaign undertaken by the Canadian Nuclear Association to promote the nuclear industry in Canada and, if so, in each case, in what amounts?
2.	Have any employees of AECL, Eldorado or EMR (a) participated in the development (Z>) undertaken the supervision of any aspect of the campaign and, if so, in each case (/) what positions do they occupy in their department or agency (if) what responsibilities have they assumed in the supervision of the campaign?


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Office of Privatization and Regulatory Affairs as follows:
In so far as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned: 1. No. 2. (a) & (b) No.
In so far as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is concerned:
1.	As a co-sponsor of the Canadian Nuclear Association's public information program, AECL has committed $2.5 million (an amount equal to less than one per cent of AECL's operating expenses) for 1987-88 to the program.
2.	(a) & (b) Yes. (i) Vice President, Corporate Relations, AECL. (ii) Chairman, Canadian Nuclear Association's Public Affairs Steering Committee.
In so far as Eldorado Nuclear Limited is concerned:
1.	Eldorado Nuclear Limited is a co-sponsor of the Canadian Nuclear Association's information program, which is designed to provide Canadians with information about nuclear energy.
For the 1987-88 fiscal year of the program, Eldorado will contribute $50,000 toward this program. The contribution is from revenue earned in the market-place and does not involve public funds.
2.	Eldorado's Director of Corporate Affairs has participated in the development and supervision of the information program, although the company has not and does not intend to second any of its employees to the program.


Mr. Dorin: Since September 4, 1984, has the Department of Public Works awarded contracts, grants or loans to individuals, corporations or non-governmental organizations located in the constituency of Edmonton West and, if so, to which ones and, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: In so
far as Public Works Canada is concerned:
Below is a list of contracts awarded in the constituency of Edmonton West from September 4, 1984 to March 21, 1988. No grants or loans to individuals, corporations or nongovernmental organizations were awarded during this period.
Contracts over $ 10,000* Edmonton West
August 1, 1984-March 21, 1988
Award Date	Project/ Tender No.	Contractor	Description	Amount ($)84/10/04	6000484 6M62-4-2028	Huszar Construction Ltd. 8619-77 Street Edmonton, Alta. T6C 2L9	Edmonton, Alta. Harley Court Building 10045-111 Street T5K 1K4 Renovations to secretary of state and related work	23,129.0087/03/02	6620967 6M62-6-2050	Intercon Acoustics Ltd. 14030-123 Avenue Edmonton, Alta. T5L 2Y3	Edmonton, Alta. RCMP Forensic Laboratory 15707 - 118 Avenue T5V 1H9 Firearms range, sound control treatment	27,600.00
May 3, 1988

Order Paper Questions
85/11/12	6610519 6S62-5-2018	Motor Thick Express Ltd. P.O. Box 429 Edmonton, Alta. T5J 2K1	Edmonton, Alta. RCMP Forensic Laboratory T5V 1B7 Move from 11140- 109 Street to 15707118 Avenue	11,834.0087/10/22	6621181 6C62-7-2016	Papimik Construction Ltd. 12419-83 Street Edmonton, Alta. T5B 3A5	Edmonton, Alta. RCMP "K" Division 11140-109 Street T5G 2T4 RCMP HO Building Comcenter Renovations	182,728.0086/03/17	6620505 6M62-5-2048	Royal Oak Contracting (Western) Ltd. 126 Royal Rd. Edmonton, Alta. T6E 2E7	Edmonton, Alta. Postal Stores Depot 15819-114 Avenue T5M 2Z3 Interior Alterations and related work	16,470.0087/09/21	6769266 6M64-7-4019	Western Asbestos Ltd. P. O. Box 778 Winnipeg, Man. R3C 2L4	Winnipeg, Man. General Post Office 66 Stapon Rd. R3C2M2 Carpet Squares installation	27,526.0084/11/09	6N/A 6M62-4-2042	Willow Spring Construction (Alta.) Ltd. #201,4525-101 Street Edmonton, Alta. T6E 5C6	Edmonton, Alta. Post Office, West Edmonton Mall Unit K-209 260-8770-170 St. Tenant improvements	37,897.00
NUMBER OF CONTRACTS: 7
* The accounting system does not reflect contracts under $10,000 by electoral riding.


Ms. McDonald: To the knowledge of the Government, is Canadian asbestos sold in Thailand and, if so, is information provided to users about the known or potential health effects of asbestos and, if so, what is it?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In 1987, Canada shipped asbestos cloth and fibres to Thailand valued at SI8.8 million. In Thailand, the major end uses of asbestos fibres are asbestos cement sheet/pipe and roofing (80 per cent), brakes and clutches (15 per cent), and vinyl floor tiles (5 per cent). Bags of asbestos fibres entering Thailand are stamped with warning labels in six languages. In accordance with Thai regulations, pallets loaded with bags of asbestos fibres entering Thailand are labelled in Thai with cautionary statements, a practice which started in 1985. Thai regulatory authorities at the Ministry of Industry are well aware of the potential health effects of asbestos. Under their
regulations, only blue asbestos or crocidolite is not permitted entry into Thailand. Import permits are required in Thailand to import other types of asbestos fibres which are issued by the Hazardous Substances Division of the Thai Ministry of Industry. The Canadian Asbestos Institute has conducted seminars in Thailand in August, 1985, and in February, 1988, on the health, safety and handling of asbestos for the Thai regulating agencies and users.
[ Translation]


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 3, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and the motion of Mr. Hawkes:
That this question be now put.
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to contribute to the debate on third reading of Bill C-113. As you know, we rather reluctantly have decided to support the Bill because, of course, the NDP is concerned about the goal of diversification of the economy of western Canada. We sympathize with and support the aim of westerners to ensure that their economy can and will be broadened from its traditional reliance on farming, energy and other resources. However, we are nonetheless unhappy with and have substantial misgivings about the structure being put in place by the Government.
May I say as well that I have some pretty grave misgivings about the fact that a Government which came to power some three and a half years ago is only now getting around to establishing this new vehicle for regional development in western Canada. While I recognize that the Western Diversification Office has been in operation over the course of the last year or so, nonetheless the failure to give legislative support to the initiative indicates a lack of urgency. Or, perhaps it is just an inability on the part of the Progressive Conservatives, despite their numbers, to effectively set priorities and manage the business of this House so that this legislative program gets through.
I have some real problems with that because I have been thinking a bit and my Party has hopes of forming a Government-


Mr. Holtmann:: Where?


Michael Morris Cassidy: -after the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is a very real possibility now. One of the things I believe we have to do is set out a program and put it before Parliament and then set to working with Parliament on an urgent basis to get that program adopted. What we are seeing now is a failure by the Government in determining urgency, setting priorities, determining objectives, and then carrying through. That is one of the reasons why so many
Canadians, including those in western Canada, are disillusioned with the Government and are increasingly questioning whether it should be allowed another term in office.


Mr. Mantha:: Get to the subject matter.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this Bill sets up a kind of hybrid structure of responsibility in the Government for regional development. It sets up a new Department of Industry, Science and Technology which will be responsible for regional development in Ontario and Quebec. Then there will be a Minister responsible for the Atlantic provinces economic development initiative and another responsible for the Western Diversification Office. Therefore, we will have three separate Ministers, each of whom is responsible for promoting regional development in different parts of the country and acting as advocates within cabinet and in relations with other departments. There will not be one department or one branch of Government with over-all responsibility for seeking to ensure fairness between the regions of Canada and fairness for different Canadians in different parts of the country.
I know the situation of my friend from Kamloops-Shuswap where, even after four or five years of economic growth in Canada, the unemployment rate in that part of the interior of British Columbia stays somewhere close to 20 per cent. It just has not come down under the Progressive Conservatives and there is no indication that the Western Diversification Office will have much impact on bringing it down.
What I believe is a real concern or ought to be is the fact that the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology will clearly be the senior ministry of these regional development outfits. In fact, there will not be a ministry in Ottawa directly concerning itself with western diversification. There will be an Assistant Deputy Minister and a liaison office here in Ottawa, but the base of the Western Diversification Office will be in Edmonton with branch offices in Vancouver, Saskatoon and Winnipeg.
In those circumstances I fear that the legitimate concerns of westerners and their desire to try to influence the policies of other Departments are going to prove to be somewhat less effective in implementation. In other words, they will not have the clout they hope to have and which the Government promised when it established legislation for the office. I fear the same thing may happen with respect to the Atlantic region as well.
Let me just read from a government hand-out on the responsibilities of the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology. It says that the creation of the new Department should be seen in the light of a series of initiatives the Government has taken, including creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, responsible for regional economic development programs in Atlantic Canada, and the Western Diversification Office serving four western provinces. This new approach to industrial revitalization can in no way be interpreted, says the Government, as a diminished emphasis on
May 3, 1988

regional development. Quite the contrary, it will support the Government's efforts to promote growth and development in the disadvantaged regions of the country.
Regional development in Ontario and Quebec will be the responsibility of the new Department, managed through a separate organizational component with its own field offices. The Department's responsibility for these regions will involve broad regional economic development policy and program coordination. It will also include advocating the economic development interests of Ontario and Quebec within the federal Government.
What is happening, therefore, is that this big, powerful new Department of Industry, Mines and Technology, with a budget approaching $2 billion per annum, will be responsible for advocating regional development priorities for Ontario and Quebec. In the meantime, a Minister with other responsibilities, who will be speaking on behalf of the Western Diversification Office, will be responsible for speaking up for western Canada and a Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will be responsible for speaking up for Atlantic Canada.
Those two Ministers and the offices for which they are responsible will not be integrated into the structure of the Government here in any way. They will be out in left field in western Canada, if you want to put it that way, and in right field in Atlantic Canada. In the meantime the regional development interests of Ontario and Quebec will be spoken for by a Minister who is one of the two or three most powerful economic Ministers. I fear that we will see a perpetuation of the problem which has bedevilled our economic management of this country for so long, that is, that successive Liberal and Conservative Governments have essentially governed for the economy of central Canada, of Ontario and Quebec, at the expense of the economies of the rest of the country.
We are told that the new Western Diversification Office is going to have responsibility to promote the economic interests of western Canada within the context of the Government of Canada developing national policies. However, when we have tried to raise specific examples of that to find out how it will work, we have found that it is not going to work at all.
My colleague, the Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), asked the responsible Minister if he would be making representations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Bank of Canada in favour of lower interest rates. It is clearly in the interests of western Canada to have the dollar cease its dizzy rise, to bring interest rates down, in order to ensure a development of the oil and gas industry, et cetera.
This morning I sat at a breakfast with some business people and my colleague from Yorkton-Melville who reminded me that the meat packing industry in western Canada has been increasing its exports to the United States but that those
Western Economic Diversification Act
exports are now beginning to stall because of the rise in the Canadian dollar and, as a consequence, because of a decrease in the competitiveness of Canadian-packed meat products being shipped into the United States.
The answer we got from the responsible Minister was a dusty one. He was not prepared to indicate that the Western Diversification Minister was in fact speaking up for lower interest rates in the councils of Cabinet and trying, therefore, to protect the interests of the West. A decrease in interest rates of 1 per cent will have a lot more impact in terms of job creation in western Canada than the $200 million per annum which will be spent through the Western Diversification Office.
I wonder whether the Western Diversification Office would have stood up for western Canada to have kept the CF-18 contract when that was moved to Montreal. I wonder whether the Western Diversification Office is making representations within Cabinet right now with respect to the impending Air Canada contract with Airbus Industries of the Common Market in order to ensure that a fair share of the offset production under that contract will be in Canada in order that not all the value of that contract will go to the aerospace industry in Montreal, as appears to be the case now. Is the Western Diversification Office standing up for western Canada in this matter? We do not know, Mr. Speaker, but I suspect that the answer is no.
As another example, the Department of the Environment is meant to be a co-ordinating ministry. It has been around for a long time and has substantial political clout because of the express concern of Canadians with respect to environmental protection. However, its success in ensuring that Departments such as Fisheries and Forestry follow policies which are environmentally sound has been negligible. It has had a terrible uphill battle in trying to co-ordinate the activities of other line Departments.
I wonder what success the Western Diversification Office, located in Edmonton, will have in trying to co-ordinate the activities of line Departments with economic-based activities in western Canada. If the Department of Energy has initiatives in Alberta, will the Western Diversification Office have a say? If the Western Diversification Office thinks that there are other projects which would have a greater economic impact than major energy projects which are being considered for financing by the Department of Energy, will it be able to prevail, or will its input go ignored and will it find itself out in left field while the big decisions are made by other people in cabinet and cabinet committees from which the representatives of the Western Diversification Office are excluded? Is that what will occur? I fear that that, in fact, will be the case.
Another example of where the Western Diversification Office could be fulfilling its advocate role is in the promotion of the use of western coal at the plants of Ontario Hydro in Ontario. Those coal burning plants currently draw their coal from the eastern United States and in the process, of course,

May 3, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
create a great deal of acid rain pollution which is affecting both Canada and the United States. Just what role would the Western Diversification Office play in ensuring that diversification includes the use of Canadian coal in Ontario Hydro's production of electricity, a project which would benefit both western and eastern Canada as well as helping to protect the environment because of the high quality of western Canadian coal?
A final example is the question of the flow-through shares. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) proposed to reduce or eliminate the tax advantages of flow-through shares. He has provoked almost unanimous opposition in all parts of northern Canada, including from people from northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta, and northern British Columbia. The flow-through share scheme has led to an enormous increase in mining exploration and the opening and development of new mines in every part of northern Canada. It has brought unemployment rates down dramatically in certain parts of northern Canada. Will the Western Diversification Office get involved in that? We do not know.
I am reminded of what happens these days when people go to their Conservative Member of Parliament and ask what he or she is doing about jobs in their particular community. The unemployment rate is up to 12 per cent and is not coming down. The jobs, jobs, jobs about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talked all seem to be in the area of Toronto and Brampton, they are not going out to western Canada. The Member of Parliament says: "Boy, am I ever a tiger in the caucus. I'm speaking up for you all the time." He says, "I have talked to the Minister again and again about your problems. The Minister is doing the job in Cabinet, just trust us". The people of Canada have heard that song for the last three and a half years.
The Hon. Member speaks about what happened in Manitoba. I noticed that the power of the Prime Minister in Manitoba, the magnetism of his appeal, and the force of the Conservative Government's policies, had such a buoyant effect on Mr. Filmon and the provincial Conservatives in Manitoba that the number of their seats came down from the last election. My hon. friend from Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) will remind me. Did the vote for the Conservatives go up or did it go down in Manitoba?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I believe it went down.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I believe it went down. And did the number of seats for the Conservatives go up or go down?


Nelson Andrew Riis: They went down as well.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The seats for the Conservatives went down as well. There is a real vote of confidence on the power of the Progressive Conservative alternatives in Manitoba. It is very interesting. People there punished a government which was in power for 16 of the last 20 years. They decided that it was time to have a change. That happens and as New Democrats we
respect that. As Premier Pawley and Mr. Doer, the new Leader of the New Democrats in Manitoba indicated, some mistakes were made and I think we have learned a few lessons from that. However, I believe that the Conservatives have to learn some lessons as well.
You cannot create a diversification initiative which is just going to send memos from Edmonton to Ottawa and say that that is all that is being done for western diversification. I want Hon. Members opposite to know just how skeptical people are about this kind of initiative. I had a conversation with some business people this morning and was reminded that three years ago the Government brought together a number of leaders in different areas of the economy for a national economic conference at the highest level. That group included people from the voluntary sector, from universities, from research and development. It included spokespeople from different areas of business, both small and big. It included people from the trade union movement. It included some representatives of women and minority groups. Of course, it included members of Cabinet and the present Government.
There was some very useful dialogue over the course of two and one-half days, but the Government failed to carry through with that particular initiative. I believe, as a Canadian as well as a New Democrat, that such an initiative would have been useful had it been carried through. Canadians must learn to talk together more effectively about how we can build this country. That means people in western Canada as well as people in Ontario, Quebec or Atlantic Canada.
In Quebec there have been some useful initiatives in bringing together all of the interests involved in different regions or different industries so they may talk and confront common problems. That is an approach that we New Democrats find extremely positive and productive. However, one does not find that approach in the Western Diversification Office.
As I said, while we support this legislation, it is because it is the only game in town. We believe this initiative is flawed and therefore warn people in western Canada not to put all of their trust in this particular measure. We support it because it is the only game in town.
I want to refer to some comments made by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business on the Western Diversification Office. They submitted a very sincere brief to the Minister responsible for the diversification office and indicated the kind of concern the Government's initiative has provoked among people who ought to be friendly to the Government.
They state that the CFIB is among those excited by the prospects of a fund to aid western diversification, provided that it is spent judiciously, using flexible criteria within a clear and consistent policy framework.
May 3, 1988

Yet, the CFIB says that their enthusiasm has been tempered by growing concern that the western diversification initiative is degenerating into at least one or all of the following: "a political slush fund to support vulnerable constituencies to lure in big business or bail out obsolete industries in hopes of gaining short-term political profile". I do not believe that is what the Government announced as the office's intention. However, when people from the small business sector studied this initiative, they feared that this is what it would become.
They went on to state that it may become: "a bureaucratic slush fund available for other line Departments and Ministers to raid in lieu of other national programs that should have their fair share spent in the West". In other words, they are warning people in western Canada that the $97 million going into this particular initiative for the close of the fiscal year is not so much found money, given the fact that other programs that could and should be used in western Canada will be shortchanged as a consequence.
Their third concern is that it could become: "a narrow and highly centralized approach to diversification with continued emphasis on megaprojects or traditional resource extraction and development" or, finally: "it could turn into 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".
The Federation of Independent Business proposed that given the resources available and the area where jobs are actually being created in the economy today, the Western Diversification Fund should be focused on the areas of community development, risk financing and equity investment in small business, on the promotion and support of a western entrepreneurial culture and on advocacy through all federal agencies on behalf of the West. They expressed grave concern about the need to salvage the credibility of the Western Diversification Office before it had begun to be established.
The fears as they have been expressed by my colleagues are that there will not be genuine diversification beyond the traditional resource industries. I have those same concerns. I was in western Canada on a very interesting tour of the energy sector that was organized by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) in conjunction with the Alberta Government. I thank the Hon. Member for his assistance because as an Ontario resident, albeit a native of British Columbia, I found it extremely useful and helpful.
I learned from that trip that there was this sense of confusion about what the diversification office would actually do. I heard about a number of applications being made and encouraged by the diversification office which did not appear to meet the criteria of diversification. I am not sure whether it was designed to ensure that western Canada would embark upon new areas of industrial development, whether in high tech, international oil servicing or the like, or whether it would simply help the traditional development of the tourist sector. I
Western Economic Diversification Act
understand that $75 million in funding has been given for the cure of soil erosion and that $5 million has been given for potash marketing. This does not appear to be diversification in the traditional sense.
If there is a sense of confusion or lack of focus in the Western Diversification Office before it has even been legislated into being, what will happen in two years, particularly if the Government eventually directs the 1988-89 funding for the first full year of the diversification office into areas that are far more important for political pay-off than for economic development in western Canada?
I hope that we in the New Democratic Party are learning from those concerns. We believe the process should be much more open, with an ongoing dialogue in which the provincial governments, western business, working people in the trade unions, and the voluntary sector are all involved in planning the diversification of the economy of western Canada and implementing those plans in ways in which all governments will serve as a catalyst in helping all sectors work toward the common goal of the diversification and strengthening of the economy of western Canada.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. friend, the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), why the NDP keep referring to the Federation of Independent Business presentation that was made to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) prior to the legislation being introduced to the House. They know full well that it is misleading. I cannot say that it is intentionally misleading because that would be unparliamentary, but one cannot help but question the motives of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.
He knows that when this legislation was sent to committee and studied clause by clause, the NDP and Liberal Members each asked that the Federation of Independent Business be allowed to appear as a witness in front of the committee. The Federation indicated by phone that it did not want to appear before the committee because it was basically satisfied with the legislation. However, it stated that it had received calls asking it to appear and would do so if requested.
In order to accommodate New Democratic and Liberal members of the committee, we called the Federation of Independent Business to appear before the committee. That organization agreed to come, but only at our insistence. Why then does the Hon. Member present his case based on the Federation of Independent Business proposal that was submitted to the cabinet Minister in charge of western diversification prior to the legislation? Why would he do that?
The Member indicates that there is a sense of confusion out there because people are making applications under the Western Diversification Program and the applications are being turned down. Why is the Member talking about this confusion when the legislation which allows the Minister for

May 3, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
western diversification to access the program is not through? His hands are virtually tied because we are being filibustered in this House by Liberals and New Democrats who are holding up this very vital legislation for western Canada.
The Minister can only access those programs already in place. How in God's name can the Member stand up and talk about the sense of confusion which exists because the legislation is not in place and at the same time attempt to filibuster this legislation to the detriment of western Canada? I would ask my friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to answer that question.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have been scratching my head to figure out the Conservative definition of a filibuster. I think I have established that a filibuster, in the eyes of the Hon. Member for Athabasca, is any debate which persists longer than four hours. I believe when I got up to speak this morning there had been approximately five hours of debate on third reading of Bill C-113. I am sure everyone in western Canada would agree that is not an unreasonable amount of time to give to debate on a flawed, but important regional initiative. If the Hon. Member thinks there should be no debate in the House of Commons, if his view is that the House of Commons should be stifled, let him take that view back to his constituents, but I think most Canadians believe this is a democracy and that the House of Commons plays an extremely important role in it.
Second, I would point out that the New Democratic Party is not responsible for the calling of legislation in this House, nor are we responsible for the calendar with which the legislation is put forward. That is the responsibility of the Government. My hon. friend informs me that in fact we were only up to four hours and 54 minutes of debate before I began my speech. If the Government felt that the operations of the Western Diversification Office would be impaired because of the lack of legislative authority, it could have brought this legislation to the floor a lot sooner than now.
As I recall, the Western Diversification Office was actually announced about a year and a half ago, in August of 1987. At that point the Government brought forward its legislation. The office has been making deals. It has been offering money. There was money voted for it in the 1987-88 Budget. If the Government had wanted this legislation through by Christmas, it had the power to do so. It is not the responsibility of the New Democratic Party that the Government chose to go forward with other pieces of legislation at that time.
The Hon. Member speaks of the Federation of Independent Business. I would remind him that the brief submitted to the Minister responsible for the Western Diversification Office, which came from the CFIB, was submitted after the Western Diversification Office had actually been in operation, even if it did not have legislative authority. The Member overlooks one important factor, and I checked this with my colleagues. The Federation stood by the concerns it had aired in its brief to the Minister. Those concerns are not entirely answered in the
legislation as it stands and, unfortunately, it has not been corrected since.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, not long ago we in the House debated the legislation regarding the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, a similar initiative to the Western Diversification Fund. The decision at that time was that the legislative committee should travel throughout Atlantic Canada and hold hearings. A number of people from Atlantic Canada made submissions at those hearings. I am interested in one of the submissions by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. The chairman of the Council indicated to the parliamentary committee that his organization had concerns about the creation of a new Department of Industry, Science and Technology because that new Department was going to be responsible for economic development in Ontario and Quebec. The question the individual asked was if this would give some undue advantage in terms of a new major powerful Department of Government with all the bureaucracy in place, would central Canada be using that as its regional development? What does that mean in terms of the Atlantic Agency today, and we are talking about the Western Diversification Fund.
It seems we have different rules for different parts of Canada, at least that is what this individual was indicating. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) would indicate how he sees this. With this new Department of Industry, Science and Technology being responsible for regional development in Ontario and Quebec, are we not setting up different systems for different parts of Canada? I am not suggesting any particular problem with that, but it does seem, as the person from Atlantic Canada indicated, that it perhaps provides the possibility of Ontario and Quebec having an additional advantage in terms of regional development, being aligned and receiving these development initiatives through this very powerful new Department of the Government.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I did express some concern because I think that is a real problem. The Minister responsible for western Canada is going to be down at the bottom of the pecking order. When you have a cabinet of 40 people and you are the thirty-eighth person to speak, I am not sure you would carry the necessary clout, particularly if you are speaking for regional development interests and are up against the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) who will be number six or number seven in the pecking order after the great Department of Finance, Department of External Affairs and Department of Transport, and so on.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops Shuswap raises a very real problem and I do not think it is adequately answered. The answer, of course, which will come from the Government is that the Prime Minister himself is going to take responsibility for ensuring regional fairness across the country. The Minister responsible for Industry, Science and Technology will report to the Prime Minister, as does the Minister responsible for the
May 3, 1988

Western Diversification Office and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. But the Prime Minister has a lot of other responsibilities and he will get to the point where he cannot keep all of them going on the boil at the same time. Most people cannot keep more than four or five things going at one time and with the present Prime Minister, it is a lot more than that.
Under those circumstances, to fail to have a ministry which has over-all oversight over the question of regional fairness between eastern Canada, western Canada and the less favoured regions of central Canada is, I suspect, a profound mistake and something for which western Canadians will find themselves paying when this legislation is put into place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, has the time ran out for questions and answers for the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy)? I have a question I would like to ask him if it is at all possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has expired. We are resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in the debate on the western diversification legislation which is presently at third reading stage in the House. Those of us who come from western Canada are all concerned with the economic and social developments of our regions. In the last number of years there have been major economic crises which have faced the people of western Canada.
The first and foremost is with respect to the dramatic decline in the prices paid for farm produce, in particular grains, which has led to the bankruptcy of a large number of family farms. It has resulted in a decline of farm value, land value, which threatens in turn many banking institutions such as credit unions. They have loans out on lands which are now not worth the value that they were when they were bought.
As well, in the last number of years we have seen a decline in the price and demand for many of the natural resources that come out of western Canada, in particular the prairie provinces, a decline in both the price and the volume of potash, oil and gas. In turn, that has had an effect throughout the economy of western Canada.
What we find in my home province of Saskatchewan is a declining population, unacceptably high unemployment in many regions of the province and a general sense of despair. There is not a tremendous sense of future and hope, which is odd, coming out of Saskatchewan since one thing that we have always had is a sense of hope. We call ourselves "next year country" because there was always a sense that next year was going to be better.
Western Economic Diversification Act
As I travel throughout my riding, which is in part urban and in part rural, I find a tremendous sense of pessimism and not much hope that next year will be better. It is necessary to develop some strong economic and social strategy to help diversify the economies of the West, in particular the prairie provinces, so that when we see the ups and downs in the prices of our natural products, our grains and our natural resources that they do not carry the whole economy of the West with them. I think it has always been a dream of various federal and provincial Governments, whether they have been Liberal, New Democratic or Conservative, to attempt to develop some alternate strategy so that the economic base in the West can be diversified and as such strengthened in order to withstand the ups and downs of the markets.
I must say that there was a certain amount of hope in the West when in 1984 a Conservative federal Government was elected. For a long time many people in the West felt that the Liberal Government of Mr. Trudeau had ignored the West. His Government did not receive too many seats from western Canada. Its political base was essentially in Quebec and Ontario. It was felt that the economic policies of the Liberal Government reflected its economic base.
There was certainly a tremendous sense of being ignored by western Canadians. Thus, in 1984, many people who voted for the Conservative Party in the West, even though many of them might not have been Conservative, felt that a change in government was needed in order to rebalance the sharing of economic wealth and development between East and West. They saw central Canada being economically healthy whereas western Canada was on an economic decline and being ignored.
I must say that a great many of the folks who voted for the Conservative Party in western Canada are bitterly disappointed. There are the obvious examples of the fighter contract being let to Montreal rather than to Winnipeg, which is a major irritant to western Canadians. We also find that the election of the Conservative Party in 1984 really did not change things very much in western Canada. We recognize that in its Budget of 1985 the Government slashed some $3 billion out of regional economic development, a decrease in the budget of regional and economic development that continued from one Budget to the next. It is estimated that some $9 billion in money could and should have gone to regional economic development. But that was slashed from the Budget-slashed by some $3 billion in three years.
You will recognize as well, Mr. Speaker, despite the record of the Conservative Party to get more procurement in the West, that when you look at the figures from 1984-85 to the present you will see that during those Conservative years there was a steady decline of purchases by the national Government in the West. In 1984-85 the figure was 13.9 per cent of federal expenditures going to purchases from western Canada. In 1985-86 that figure declined to 12.8 per cent. In 1986-87 it further declined to 11.5 per cent. Thus even in the area of procurement, western Canadians have seen their share of

May 3, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
federal expenditures decline in the Conservative years. So much for the hopes of western Canadians.
Western Canadians also recognize that this Government has ignored western Canada agriculture and the crisis that faces the farmers back home.


Mr. Malone:: Oh, oh!


Simon Leendert de Jong: The Hon. Member laughs. Indeed, the Government did come up with $1 billion just before the Saskatchewan election. What it took was the Premier of the Province of Saskatchewan, a friend of mine, phoning up during the midnight hours from a little motel in rural Saskatchewan, in Calvinton, his buddy Brian and saying: "Brian, for gosh sakes, we need something or we are going down to defeat".


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He was pleading.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Pleading, indeed. In fact, the Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan had to fly to Ottawa to make the Conservative Government aware of what was happening in western Canada. He explained the desperation that farm people were finding themselves in and the growing anti-Conservative mood in the West.
Thus the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of the country said: "Well, Grant, you have done me a lot of favours. We are going to have to do one for you, I suppose. Sure, we will allocate $1 billion". Certainly that money was appreciated in western Canada. It came in the nick of time to save some farm families. But what a way to run public policy. Is it going to be just political pressure that creates the farm support programs that are so desperately needed? Is this the type of leadership and intelligence that Canadian farmers can expect from the Conservative Government that claims to be the friend of the West and the friend of prairie farmers?
I suggest that it is a disgrace. Western Canadians know this, and they do not trust the Government. While the intention of the legislation in front of us to develop the Western Diversification Office sounds good, there are some very critical observations that must be made. First, despite the Government's claim that there will be more than $1 billion in new money over five years, over and above the existing money that flows to western Canada, it seems as though everybody has some difficulty pinning this down and demonstrating that indeed this is new money.
The Western Diversification Program takes over from four existing programs, the Industrial and Regional Development Program, the Economic and Regional Development Agreements, ERDAs, the Western Transportation and Industrial Development, and the Small Businesses Loans Act. We cannot find out, and the Government certainly has not been able to tell us, how much of those moneys that presently flow to western Canada will be folded into the Western Diversification Office. The Government has not been able to prove its case
that the Western Diversification Office will mean an extra $1.2 billion flowing into western Canada over and above what presently flows into our region of the country.
There are some other criticisms as to the design of the program. We are concerned that the program is completely private. There are few public and private initiatives. For example, the municipal infrastructure cannot be funded through this program. The needs in the West also include building our municipal infrastructure. The fact that this program ignores this area is a major flaw.
The second item of concern to us in terms of its design is that it is very trade oriented. We understand that some projects that have been approved for funding under the Western Diversification Office had to be examined by External Affairs because of the potential countervail that might be imposed because of government assistance on those programs. We also wonder what effect the free trade agreement will have on the Western Diversification Office, and the ability for western Canada to diversify its economy and to develop a viable economic structure.
The history of the West has been that the only way that we have been able to economically survive is through a strategy that involved public, private, and co-operative endeavours. Western Canadian farmers could not have survived if it was not for the Wheat Board, the wheat pools, the credit unions, and the marketing boards. It is through collective and cooperative action that the farm economy has been able to survive during these years, and made western Canadian farmers one of the most efficient producers and marketers in the world. The American farmers are envious of what we have in western Canada and what we have been able to develop and evolve. We have been able to evolve it not through the reliance on pure market forces, but we have been able to develop our agricultural sector through a combination of public involvement, co-operative and private efforts, a mixed economic approach.
Under the free trade deal negotiated between our Prime Minister and the President of the United States, I suggest that that option will no longer be there for us in western Canada. The option of using a mixed economic approach of the public, co-operative, and the private sectors is no longer available to us as Canadians. This agreement forces us to depend entirely upon a private sector market driven economy. As such, it is dangerous to western Canada. Indeed, it cuts off an option that has been successfully used in the past.
The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) was critical of the NDP House Leader using the example of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and its critique of the Western Diversification Fund. Yet, despite the objections of the Hon. Member for Athabasca, the objections are sound that were contained in the brief presented to the Minister by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and reiterated when a representative of that association appeared before the committee.
May 3, 1988

An article published in the Leader Post on March 18, 1988 stated:
"The small business community isn't going to quietly stand by while Western Canada becomes a pawn for short-term political advantage," Bulloch said in a prepared statement, released simultaneously in several Western Canadian cities.
He said too much money from the federal fund has been used to cater to big business or pick winners or losers.
The fund, estimated at $1.2 billion, was established by the federal Government in August 1987 to promote economic development in Western Canada during the next five years.
I understand Mr. Bulloch's concern. For example, we have seen the Conservative Government pump $4.5 million into the West Edmonton Mall, an outfit that has been doing quite well. Perhaps that $4.5 million could have gone to some other effort to develop some new industry in western Canada. We have seen the type of assistance that the Government has given to its friend, Peter Pocklington. We know when the Government talks about economic development in the West, it is talking about a political slush fund for its political friends.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business knows full well the intention of the Government when it comes to economic development in western Canada. In the brief the Federation was concerned that this money was going to go to the large public and private bureaucracies, and small business would be the losers. If this is to be the case, I warn the Government that it will waste its money unless it includes in an active way the small business community.
It will be the small entrepreneurs in western Canada who are developing new and appropriate technologies, creating small efficient businesses in the West to meet local and community needs, and drawing upon community resources, that will enable economic diversification to occur in the West. It is through a co-operative approach that includes universities, centres of learning, scientific research, the resources of federal, provincial, and municipal Governments, and the resources and the entrepreneurial spirit of small business people in western Canada working together in a co-operative fashion that will enable us in the West to achieve our long sought goal to diversify the economy. In that manner, there can be jobs at home and the sons and daughters of the West need not go to Toronto or to Vancouver in order to find employment. There will be opportunities for off-farm income in order that farm families can continue to survive in this day and age of so much uncertainty in the farm sector.
The hope of western Canadians to develop a strong and diversified economy is a valid one. It is a hope that many in the West thought would start to be fulfilled with the election of the Progressive Conservative Government in 1984. They had to wait for almost four years before this legislation was even introduced, and looking at it, they find that it is merely a cynical attempt at getting some votes in the West.
Western Economic Diversification Act
Bill C-113 has no substance, and offers no real opportunity for those of us living in the West to fulfill our dream of a strong and diversified economy. For those of us living in the West, Bill C-113 is nothing but a farce.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), on questions or comments.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), at the outset of his remarks, made mention of how pessimistic those living in his riding and his province are, calling it "next year country". All I can say is that if I were living in his riding, I, too, would be pessimistic.
The Hon. Member commenced his remarks by saying that the election of the Progressive Conservative Government in 1984 has not changed a thing in so far as the treatment of the West is concerned; that it did not bring about any more help for the West. I wonder how he squares that remark with the fact of the very massive assistance that this Government has provided for the farming community in western Canada. In dollar terms, close to $5 billion has been allocated to assist farmers, including, I am sure, those living in his riding.
Had there been a Liberal Government in Ottawa during this time, that help would not have been forthcoming. Liberal governments in the past provided no such assistance. Also, if the NDP were ever to form the government in Ottawa, it would very quickly go broke, resulting in an inability on the part of such a government to provide assistance to the farming community.
Let me point out one concrete example of where the Western Economic Diversification Program can be of assistance to those living and working in the West.
A small manufacturer has received the rights to a machine that will revolutionalize grain handling. It is a machine that will integrate the grain auger and the grain vacuum into one unit. The individual in question, who operates out of his farmyard at the moment, has prepared a submission to the Western Economic Diversification Office in Edmonton in relation to that invention, and that office is anxious to support that individual in establishing the means by which to manufacture and distribute that piece of equipment. However, because this legislation has not yet been passed by Parliament, its hands are tied. Because Bill C-l 13 has not yet been passed, the Minister does not have the ability to fund the many proposals submitted to him.
In the light of that situation, I would ask why it is that the Liberals and the NDP are holding up this legislation. The only funds that the Minister has today for use through the Western Economic Diversification Office are those already put in place through DREE and through various federal-provincial subagreements in relation to agriculture. There are many projects presently on hold awaiting passage of this legislation.
The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) made the point that the small business sector should be involved. He went on to express the view that, under this legislation, small

May 3, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
business is not going to have a chance, that it is going to be left out in the cold. He is saying that the only way to achieve western economic diversification is to involve the small business sector, on the ground that it is the small business sector in this country that creates jobs-and certainly, that is something with which all Members of this House can agree. In my view, Bill C-113 does exactly that. Through the Western Economic Diversification Office, funding will be funnelled to the small business sector.
Having listened to the remarks of the Hon. Member in this respect, it is obvious to me that he has not read the legislation. Perhaps he could tell the House why it is he feels the small business sector is not going to be involved.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in the history of Canada, a full Department of the federal Government will be located in western Canada. The head office, to be located in Edmonton, Alberta, will house the deputy minister, the assistant deputy ministers, and the administrative infrastructure of the Department. The full departmental infrastructure will be located, not in Ottawa, but in western Canada, the part of the country which will be affected by this legislation and the decisions taken under it. In addition to the head office being located in Edmonton, there will be sub-offices in each of the remaining western provinces.
Clearly, that is a departure from the traditional way in which programs aimed at western Canada have been handled. If locating the head office of this Department in Edmonton, Alberta, with sub-offices in each of the remaining western provinces, is not a step in the right direction, I would ask the Hon. Member for Regina East what he would propose in its stead.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his questions. I laud the decision to have the head office of the Department of Western Economic Diversification established in Edmonton, with sub-offices in each of the prairie provinces. We have yet to see, however, how effective those offices will be, and the degree of decision-making that will in fact take place in those offices.
We know that, with this Government, there is a great deal of smoke and mirrors. It is little wonder that we are concerned. We are not the only ones who are concerned. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in its brief, expressed the same concern.


Jack Wendele Shields: That was a brief that was submitted prior to Bill C-113 being introduced.


Simon Leendert de Jong: That Federation, in its brief, raised a concern about the "narrow and highly centralized approach to diversification, with continued emphasis on megaprojects and traditional resource extraction and development." It also raised a concern about there being a "political slush fund to support vulnerable constituencies to lure in big business, or to bail out obsolete industries, in the hopes of gaining short term political profile". We are left to wonder how much clout these regional offices will have.
One objective of this legislation is that the Western Economic Diversification Office will function as an advocate for
western Canada, to attempt to influence the decision-making by the federal Government, such that the concerns of the West and the impact of economic decisions being made here in Ottawa that will impact upon the West, will be known to the Government.
That is certainly a laudable objective, and one about which I make no criticism whatsoever. But, I certainly hope that that office is now telling the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) of the effects that his high interest rate policy is having on the producers in the West, particularly those in the red meat industry. I certainly hope that the Western Economic Diversification Office is already active in talking to the people in the Department of Finance in terms of the effects and the impact of the current high interest rate policy on western Canada.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Athabasca can make it his business to ensure that that office is in fact talking to the Minister of Finance about the impact of high interest rates on the farming community in western Canada.
The Hon. Member has expressed the view that this debate is preventing various applications under the Western Economic Diversification Program from being acted upon. He cited the example of a small business person who has devised a new piece of equipment for the handling of grain, a piece of equipment that the small business person wishes to manufacture and market in western Canada.
From the description given by the Hon. Member, certainly that sounds like the kind of entreprenurial effort that the Western Economic Diversification Program should be supporting. Here we have a small business person, a person with mechanical experience and know-how, who has brought about an improvement on existing equipment, and certainly he should be supported in developing a market for that piece of equipment.
There are farmers like that in my own constituency. When I go to the farmyards and look in their garages, 1 see that they have tinkered and improved upon existing equipment. I know that if it were left to the big equipment producers, that technological innovation would never occur. It is the small scale entrepreneurs who will ensure that those new improvements and technologies will indeed be actualized.
The reason given to this individual that his application had not been approved was that the legislation has not been passed. I wonder if this person is not really being given the runaround. The lack of passage of this legislation has not stopped the diversification office from committing some $75 million to a soil erosion program or from granting some $5 million to potash marketing. It has not stopped the diversification office from granting some $9.5 million to a Japanese pulp mill nor for making some commitments to B. F. Goodrich for a petrochemical plant. Perhaps it is the big guys who have already found their way into this fund, but it is the small guys like the one the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has pointed out who are still standing at the door being given the runaround.
May 3, 1988

1 wonder if the Hon. Member could explain why it is possible that this office can give $9.5 million to a Japanese pulp mill but it cannot approve the application of the person to whom he referred. I am not quite certain what the Hon. Member's first question was. I think it dealt generally with the type of optimism or pessimism that exists in western Canada today.


Jack Wendele Shields: The support that this Government has given to-


Simon Leendert de Jong: And the support of this Government. I am somewhat surprised that this Hon. Member has not recognized that this Government is in trouble out there from both the left and the right. It almost lost a by-election in Alberta, which is considered to be the heartland of the Tory Party.
I attended the founding convention of the Western Reform Party in Vancouver. There were a number of Conservatives and the odd Liberal present. They were having problems with the federal Government and were recognizing that nothing has changed. In many aspects-


Jack Wendele Shields: Did you join?


Simon Leendert de Jong: No, I did not join. In many ways, I disagreed with what that Party stands for, but I certainly saw that Conservatives from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba feel a deep-seated frustration with this Conservative Government. Those Conservatives believe that this Government has not delivered, and on that I agree with them.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-113, introduced on the initiative of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification.
What is important here, Mr. Speaker, is that we are now at the third reading stage of this Bill. We have spent five or six hours on third reading, and our colleagues in the New Democratic Party, who have been demanding equitable regional development across Canada, are filibustering to prevent us from adopting this Bill.
These are the same Members who believed in regional equality and nevertheless voted against Bill C-22, which would enable the pharmaceutical industry to expand in the Montreal region and across Canada.
These are the same Members, of the same Party, who voted against the sale of Canadair to Bombardier which would bring more technology and more development to Quebec.
So in fact, the New Democratic Party's aim is not to promote equitable regional development programs but to
Western Economic Diversification Act
systematically prevent this Government from creating such programs.

Therefore, I move:
That the House continue to sit through the lunch hour for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of Western Canada, to establish a Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will those Hon. Member who object to the motion please rise in their places?
And fewer than 15 Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Fewer than 15 Members having risen, the motion is adopted.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend and to the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) before him. I notice that we have debated the Bill on western diversification for about five hours. I am curious that members of the Government would consider a five hour debate to be excessive, too much, a filibuster, wrong-headed and inappropriate. I wonder if Canadians who are watching us on their television sets and from the gallery would consider five hours of debate on a major western economic initiative to be an excessive amount of debate.
I want to remind my hon. friend opposite that a democracy is not the most efficient system of government. The most efficient system of government is that which is found in totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships where they do not have to bother with Parliament and where members of the Government do not have to bother with members of the Opposition. Government members can ignore the people of Canada and their concerns. That is the most efficient system of government, but we do not have that system in Canada.
The Conservatives are attempting in devious ways to turn this into a totalitarian form of government where there is no debate in the House of Commons. My hon. friend was not here at that time, so I certainly do not hold him responsible for the behaviour of his colleagues before him, but I remember the day in this House when the Members of Parliament, duly elected by the people of Canada, were presented with the spectacle of a whole group of Conservative Members of Parliament rushing the Speaker's chair, brandishing their fists in his face and saying that they would bring Parliament to its knees.
I remember that day. I must say that it was one of the saddest days of my life. I was saddened to think that people who were elected to represent their views had decided that it

May 3, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
was appropriate to stop Parliament from functioning. Day after day after day, the bells rang. Parliament was muzzled. The heavy jackboots of the Conservative Party had been brought down on the necks of parliamentarians. There was no opportunity to debate, there was no opportunity to ask questions.
I know that this is a touchy issue for some Conservative Members, and I recognize that most Members here were not there at that time, but that is the kind of Government we are now beginning to see take form. After five hours of debate on third reading of the Western Diversification Bill, Members are saying that this is excessive, that Members of Parliament should not debate this for more than a few minutes.
There are 282 Members of Parliament here. Not all Members of Parliament will speak on a piece of legislation, but there are four or five Members from the New Democratic Party, four or five Members from the Liberal Party and four or five Members from the Conservative Party who want to express their views. However, the Government is saying that it will muzzle those Members. It does not want to hear the views of those who represent the people of Canada.
I just want to say that every time the Government attempts to muzzle Parliament, to choke off the voice of the people, we are going to remind people of what is going on. That is what is going on now. The Government is trying to bring to a premature end the thoughtful, positive debate on the Western Diversification Fund. I want to say very clearly that we support the Bill. We are going to vote in favour of it. We will probably vote unanimously in favour of the initiative because we think at least the principle is a good one. However, we have many concerns which have been raised by my hon. colleagues such as whether the best way to spend taxpayers' money through this fund is by giving $9.5 million to one of the largest pulp and paper consortiums in the world. Would it not go ahead without that money? Other smaller businesses are being denied funds. Those are the questions we want to pose at the close of this debate.
Again, I want to remind the people of Canada that we have seen some dictatorial tactics and antics by the Conservative Party in the past and we are seeing them again. They have a complete disregard for what democracy is. They have a complete disregard for the traditions of Parliament. We will always oppose dictatorial practices by the Conservative Government whenever and wherever they take place.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond briefly to what was said by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), and especially his comments on democracy. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we did. We moved to extend the debate for another hour so that more Members would be able to speak to the Bill, and then the spokesman for the New Democratic Party rose, together with the Liberal Whip, to vote
against the motion. They rose to object to an extension of this debate that would allow Members to speak to this important Bill. And then they have the nerve to accuse the Progressive Conservative Government of violating the principles of our democratic system in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I heard another Member of the New Democratic Party.. .


An Hon. Member:: The socialists!


Richard Grisé: . . . the socialists, of course. The Hon. Member said that as usual, the federal Government was questioning the capability of public servants to manage a department if they did not happen to be on the Hill or in the Ottawa region. I think it is unconscionable that anyone should make that kind of judgment regarding the federal Public Service.

I want to respond to the Hon. Member when he tells people sitting in front of their television sets that he is talking about what is important, that is democracy. I tell him and all the NDP Members that what is important for the people of Canada, particularly the people of western Canada sitting in front of their TV sets right now, is that this Government approved the Bill as soon as possible so the Minister responsible can apply the new policies and help western farmers and the western business community. That is what is important and that is what democracy is all about.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about democracy. I want to remind him once again that I have been in this House almost 20 years and this is one of the more important debates we have had. It seems to me very strange that the Conservative Party is complaining about this debate going on too long when it has lasted about five and a half or six hours. That is absolutely incredible for a debate about a major economic initiative affecting an important region like western Canada. I have seen many debates over many issues much smaller and much less relevant than this go on for days in the House of Commons without complaint by the Conservative Party. Why would they complain about five or six hours debating western issues? The west is very important to this country.
Another point I want to make is that the Parliamentary Secretary was waxing eloquent about an extra three or four hours of debate. If he is so concerned about that, why did the Government take months and months to introduce the Bill? The agency was announced in August of 1987 and here we are now nine months later only just at third reading. Why did the Bill not come forward back in September for second reading, then into committee hearings, and third reading before Christmas? I do not know why the Hon. Member is complaining because we want to spend a few extra hours debating very important western initiatives.
May 3, 1988



It is important, not just for people in Western Canada but for all Canadians across this country to have a debate on matters that are of vital importance to the West, because we now make up 30 per cent of the population of this country, and I would like to have several days' debate on the major economic issues in our region.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, the socialists are talking about democracy and about the Government muzzling Hon. Members. We are starting on hour six of this debate on third reading, Mr. Speaker, and we have just moved a motion to continue sitting during the lunch hour, and the NDP voted against the motion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I did not!


Richard Grisé: We had the debate on second reading, Mr. Speaker. That debate is finished, and we did not muzzle anyone. There were no Members of the socialist party left to speak to the Bill.
After second reading, the Bill was referred to a legislative committee, and no amendments were introduced by the New Democratic Party.
We have now reached the third reading stage, and the most important thing now, Mr. Speaker, is to have this Bill adopted, and while it is particularly important to Canadians in Western Canada, it is also important for regional equality. Whenever a Bill is introduced, the socialists are always against it. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that they voted against Bill C-22, the bill on drug patents. They also voted against the Bill to sell Canadair to Bombardier. They voted against all these Bills, while claiming they were in favour of regional equality in Canada. Mr. Speaker, this does not make sense because, and I would like to conclude at this point, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party have had every opportunity to discuss this Bill on second reading and in committee.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter this debate on western diversification by telling my hon. friend opposite that he makes the point that what is important is that we get going on the western development initiative and pass this Bill quickly. Let me point out to him as a Member from western Canada, which I have been for nine years now, that what we need is to do the job properly. We need to get on with diversification, but we have to do it properly. We have had too many failures in the past and western Canadians know that.
I will give him an example. One of the policies that got Peter Lougheed, the former Premier of Alberta, elected in the early 1970s was that he was for diversification of the Alberta economy. He was going to use the oil and gas revenues of Alberta to diversify that economy. Indeed, I believe the Heritage Fund was developed to put some of that money aside for a rainy day and also to help diversify the Alberta economy.
Western Economic Diversification Act
The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has been speaking in this debate. He is from the oil sands area of northern Alberta. He knows about the problems of bankruptcy and economic difficulties that developed when the oil industry went into a downturn.
We have the same old pattern of boom and bust in Alberta, even after the efforts of diversification of the Lougheed Government provincially. We have the same situation in Saskatchewan, in spite of great struggles in the past by Governments on both the left and the right. NDP Governments used Crown corporations for public policy purposes to try to diversify and develop the potash industry and so on. Governments to the right used different methods of bringing in foreign capital and so on as they saw fit to develop that economy. Yet, what happens when world wheat prices go down? Saskatchewan farmers and other farmers in western Canada suffer.
A few minutes ago a government Member asked whether the $5 billion that the Government gave to the wheat farmers was not aid to western Canada, whether that will not make the people happy. It was aid to western Canada but it was bail-out aid. It was not to diversify the economy but, in fact, to save some farmers in western Canada from almost certain bankruptcy. That bail-out was necessitated by the fact that the western economies are still not diversified and are still in a boom and bust situation.
The forest industry in my own Province of British Columbia is another example. When they are building houses in the United States, when that market is active, our industry is booming. When that goes down our industry is in a bust situation, people are laid off, and we have a stagnant economy in British Columbia.
It is the same in mining and in fisheries in the Province of British Columbia. Western Canada exports these resource products, often in raw form. A wonderful example of the lack of diversification is that the Province of British Columbia exports raw logs to Japan where they are cut up into lumber. A country with that kind of economy will always be subject to boom and bust.
There is a great feeling in western Canada that we must have diversification. However, we do not want phoney diversification. We know that it will not be easy. I will give you another example. I live in Vancouver. The Vancouver airport is in a suburb of Vancouver called Richmond from where you take the bridge to Vancouver. Between the airport bridge, the Oak Street bridge, and the Knight Street bridge there is a store called Ikea. It is a Swedish store to which young families go to buy wooden furniture. The furniture is fairly cheap and you assemble it yourself. It is very popular and beautifully designed.
Outside that store you can smell the Canadian wood. You can smell the log booms in the Fraser River and the odour of

May 3, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
the mills near the Fraser River which are cutting up Canadian lumber. They either export the raw logs or cut up the lumber and export it. However, the young Canadian family goes into the store and buys Swedish-manufactured goods made from Swedish lumber. That is an incredible example of the lack of diversification of an economy in western Canada.
The same situation exists in Alberta with oil and gas, although there have been attempts to diversify in terms of having a petrochemical industry by using the cheap resources like the natural gas to manufacture different products from oil and gas rather than just exporting it south of the border. The same situation exists in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That is why we want to take time to debate how good this diversification is. People are very suspicious about it.
I particularly enjoyed the speech of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) who said that he had spent some time-and I give him credit for this because it is not easy for a New Democrat-listening to the right wing movement in western Canada, the Reform Party. That Party is not challenging the New Democratic Party in western Canada. It will challenge the Conservative base in western Canada because it is a right-wing Conservative group. As my colleague from Regina pointed out, that group is very alienated from the Conservative Party. That group thought that with the Trudeau Government gone, which western Canada perceived had given it the finger, and with a new, fresh wind of conservatism blowing in from western Canada, there would be a change. They feel, however, that there has not been a change.
We must ask ourselves why there has not been a change. It is partly because the Conservative Government has not been listening to western Canada. It is because it is inherent in the nature of this House of Commons and where the population is located in Canada that Quebec and Ontario will control this House of Commons and in fact control Canada. The genius in governing in Canada is that a federal Government must try to balance all the different regional concerns and deal with all the different regional interests.
One of the criticisms of former Prime Minister Trudeau was that while he did work amazingly in Quebec, while he fought the separatists in Quebec and showed a great understanding of Quebec and was rewarded with 74 out of 75 seats there, he sort of wrote off western Canada. That was the failure of the Trudeau years.
The reason there is alienation in western Canada is because of some of the actions of the Trudeau Government and also because of the failure to have diversification in western Canada, and I am not blaming any particular Party or group of people for that. That is why we must take some time to debate this Bill.
I do not want to get into a shouting match with the Government. I have tried to take a higher road on western diversification. However, the Government does have 211 Members, it does control the legislative timetable of this House. It must know that it has put so many Bills before the House and
mismanaged the time of the House so that everything is now inevitably crowded into the last part of the four year legislative session. That is why we want to take some time to debate the Bill.
We also have some concerns with the Bill. I have a report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which is not a support group for the New Democratic Party. If anything, this group is more conservative, populist if you like. That does not mean that we in the New Democratic Party cannot work with them or do not listen to them. Indeed we do and they often have some very interesting things to say.
In the executive summary of the report which they prepared for the Minister responsible for western diversification, they say that their enthusiasm has been tempered toward the initiatives that the Government is bringing forward on western diversification by growing concern that the western diversification initiative is degenerating into a political slush fund to support vulnerable constituencies, lure in big business, or bail out obsolete industries in hopes of gaining short-term political profile. That is the way the Liberal Government of Pierre Trudeau treated western Canada. They say that it could be a bureaucratic slush fund available for other line Departments and Ministers to raid in lieu of other national programs that should have their fair share spent in the West. They state that it could be a narrow and highly centralized approach to diversification, with continued emphasis on megaprojects or traditional resource extraction and development.
The Federation of Independent Business shows some wisdom in questioning the megaprojects because the traditional panacea for development in western Canada that has been offered by western and national politicians has been the great megaprojects like the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, tarsands development and other projects like the coal project in northern British Columbia. These megaprojects provided lots of money and short-term jobs, but not much diversification.
The former Premier of British Columbia, Dave Barrett, said it very well when he talked about the development of Northeast Coal in British Columbia. Now, it is almost being sold at subsidized prices to the Japanese. He said, referring to the Japanese: "They got the coal and we got the hole".
Finally, the Federation of Independent Business states that this could be a confusing black box lacking clear criteria or policy direction and on a collision course with a myriad of client groups which are inevitably going to see thousands of applications rejected and thousands of hopes dashed.
That is a searing criticism, but to be fair, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business goes on to suggest ways of dealing with this and letting diversification really work in western Canada.
It is important that this debate continue so that we may air these concerns. Canada has always been an exporter of raw
May 3, 1988

goods. Harold Innis, a great historian and economist, spoke about Canada as a colony that served as a traditional resource base for the French, the British, and now the Americans. It is difficult to change that tradition. Indeed, that is a cause for concern in western Canada about the so-called free trade deal.
We already have free trade in western Canada. The Mulroney-Reagan trade deal is not offering us very much more in western Canada. In spite of having free trade, we have seen the Americans impose tariffs on our shakes and shingles, impose countervailing duties on our lumber, put more restrictions on our fish exports and threaten our gas and potash exports. The free trade deal will not change that.
It does not guarantee secure access for western Canadian goods to American markets, which is what we were really seeking. The American Congress can still take countervailing actions and, in return, we gave up control of our energy industry. We agreed to share our oil and gas with the United States on a non-discriminatory basis. This means that we cannot help a plant or mill in the West diversify by allowing cheaper energy prices than we charge the Americans because it would break the free trade deal. We would be giving Canadians a better deal with Canadian resources than we would be giving the Americans.
That is the flaw in the free trade deal, and that is why so-called western diversification will not work. It cannot work if the resources of the nation are not available to encourage diversification of industries in the regions of Canada. Western Canadians are concerned about the so-called free trade deal because it does not provide the federal Government with that authority. In our opinion, the $1.2 billion over five years promised by the Government comes from existing programs and arrangements. It is essentially playing a shell game and not using new money.
What are the long-term chances for diversification? I want to refer to a seminar of the Academy of Sciences from Sweden and Canada. I want to conclude by referring to the comments of the President of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences. He said that knowledge is the fundamental element of competitiveness. Their recommendations include an increase in the appropriations to education and research, improved salaries for teachers in technical colleges and universities, improved money for fundamental research. That is being cut back in western Canada by the Vander Zalms and the Gettys.
The President of the Royal Swedish Academy went on to say that the Government plays an important role as a purchaser of complex technical systems for energy supply, telecommunications, transportation and defence. He concluded by saying: "The sometimes painful restructuring of parts of the manufacturing industry necessary in order to cope with major changes in the international market have most often been supported not only by the government but also by the labour unions".
Western Economic Diversification Act
He went on to say: "In principle, the labour unions accept that changes must occur in vulnerable industrial sectors and will take an active part in the restructuring process or at least not raise obstacles". He said: "We cannot expect to be on top everywhere because it is simply too expensive. What we have to do is identify a few centres of excellence which we should support wholeheartedly". He says that we must be open-minded and prepared to adapt to change.
I believe that is the way to the future both in the world and in western Canada. There should be an emphasis on science and research, and on the education of our young people so that they will have these skills. We should encourage labour and business to work together, and should define centres of excellence to study the future for the fish sector, forest sector and mining sector. These centres of excellence could develop mining and oil and gas technology, rather than concentrate on the export of raw resources. That is the key to diversification in western Canada. That is why we want to debate this Bill and will study closely whether this will simply be a slush fund or another failed attempt at western diversification. I hope that we can elect a New Democrat Government so that we can make a real attempt at western diversification. Give us a chance and we will diversify western Canada.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I certainly enjoyed the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), particularly the point he made in his summation of the need for a joint co-operative approach, an approach which involves labour, business and the public sector on municipal, provincial and federal levels. It is a cooperative approach that is needed to get all the factors and elements involved co-ordinated and focused on several areas that need development where we can become winners regionally, nationally and internationally. The Member made the point that the Vander Zalms, the Gettys and the Devines in western Canada have done a lot to put elements against each other, particularly capital and labour, as opposed to bringing them together in a co-operative way. I think he also made the point that only through a joint co-operative approach can we begin to tackle the problems of the 21st century, not just in western Canada but as a nation as a whole. It is important to have a joint co-operative approach.
The question I would like to ask concerns energy and the trade agreement negotiated between our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States. I remember when the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau first introduced his constitutional changes. There were many people in western Canada, myself included, who were quite concerned that the constitutional changes were really an attempt by the central Government to grab control of the resources of western Canada.
Prior to that, in the 1970s, Mr. Blakeney, then Premier of the Province of Saskatchewan, had to fight hard with the Hon. Otto Lang and the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau because

May 3, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
of an attempt by the federal Government to grab control of the marketing and developing of our potash. Yet it seems to me that in this deal negotiated between our Prime Minister and the President of the United States, not only the provinces but the federal Government, the country as a whole, will lose all ability to plan and develop our gas and oil resources, as well as our other natural resources, including potash. How these resources get developed, the rate at which they are developed, the prices we can charge, and how much we can export, are all given away in this agreement.
For a long time we in western Canada thought we could use our resources, such as our oil and gas, to overcome our disadvantages. The disadvantages are that we are far from major centres of population, so we have the extra expense of transporting. We generally have harsh winters so we have the extra expense of heating plants and equipment which our competitors south of the border in states like Alabama, Nevada and Arizona do not have. We have always attempted to use our advantages to offset our disadvantages, but in this trade agreement all of our advantages are taken away from us. We cannot use the advantages we have, the abundance of energy, for example, to overcome our disadvantages. What people like Mr. Blakeney and Mr. Lougheed fought for, we now lose.
I cannot understand the Conservatives from western Canada here in Parliament who support this agreement. 1 wonder if my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, (Mr. Waddell) can comment on that observation?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, that is a very important observation, especially when the Member says we should use our resources in western Canada, which we have in abundance, to overcome the disadvantages we have, such as our distance from markets and so on. Before I answer, I would like to point out something the Hon. Member said earlier about the cooperative approach. A lot of people in eastern Canada, when they look at the West, think it is the kind of Alberta hard-rock Conservatism which is western Canada. There are two elements of western Canada, two traditions. There is the kind of buccaneer free enterprising system, but there is also the cooperative tradition in western Canada.
When Tommy Douglas went into Saskatchewan, there was a drought and a depression. The place was a disaster. They rolled up their sleeves and worked together in a co-operative approach with Government and private enterprise. Western Canada is now the largest exporter of minerals in Canada, the largest exporter of lumber in the world, mainly through my Province of British Columbia, and the second largest exporter of wheat in the world, mainly through the efforts of the prairies. That was quite a job we did in western Canada since those years of the Depression.
We have to now look to the future. The Hon. Member made reference to oil. A lot of Conservatives do not want to see the national energy policy ever again, so they put it in the free trade deal that that cannot happen again. So Ottawa will not
be able to take any of these measures to have any government control over energy. I find that incredibly short-sighted. Who is going to control energy? We are told the free market. One has to be a fool to believe that the free market controls world energy prices. They are controlled by OPEC, the middle eastern nations, or the seven sisters, the big oil companies, or a combination of both. Even the most right wing commentator in the United States will tell you that. Instead of allowing Ottawa to have some say in the control over the resource, they are going to let Saudi Arabia, New York or Washington have control over our energy resources. That is incredibly naive.
When I saw some of the evidence before the free trade committee, I could not believe it. As the Member opposite knows, I am not advocating total Ottawa control over the resource. I had the privilege, together with my Leader, to bring in a constitutional amendment that was accepted by the Trudeau Government and the country.


Jack Wendele Shields: Was that the ownership, property rights?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, it was the ownership of energy resources in the province. The Member from Regina said that what is really important is that we have these energy resources in western Canada and we have to use them to diversify our economy. We should not give them away either totally to the federal Government or to the Americans or to the Saudi Arabians. We should not give that control away. That is the flaw in the free trade deal.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask if this is relevant to the western diversification Bill before the House. We have heard this rhetoric before and we will hear it again, but I would like to suggest that he get back to the Bill at hand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Cossitt):: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is responding to a question and comment as a result of debate he has given previously.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I do not want to monopolize the time if Hon. Members want to ask questions. Of course, I am responding to the Bill. The Hon. Member knows that. You must have some control if you want to diversify. Who is going to have the control-Ottawa, the West, a combination of both, or the Americans? You figure it out.


Jack Wendele Shields: The owners of the resource, like Alberta, like Saskatchewan, like British Columbia. You don't like that, do you?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps the Hon. Member has another question.


Jack Wendele Shields: I won't ask him anymore.


Mr. Greenaway:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member probably does not know, and it is not his fault, but last night in
May 3, 1988

Vancouver there was a program announced by the Western Diversification Office. It has contributed $171,000 to COFI and the IWA. The plan is to send IWA members to Europe, to Asia and to the United States to look at the lumber markets there and to come back to report what they have seen to the IWA workers right across the province.
The Hon. Member was talking a few moments ago about cooperation and diversification. I thought that he might like to hear something positive. It was announced last night and he probably did not have a chance to see the press release. It is a program involving $171,000, a co-operative effort between COFI and the IWA. It is a bench-mark, a very positive initiative. I am pleased about it. I think everybody is happy with it. It should bring some real benefits to the B.C. industry.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I could not agree more with the Hon. Member. I am very pleased to hear that. That is a very good example of co-operation. We want to hang together, both in business and in labour in western Canada, or we will hang separately. We are in competition with the whole Asia Pacific, the fastest growing economy in the world. That is why I quoted some of the Swedish engineers. I think they have got their thing together in terms of specializing in co-operation and looking into education, science and research. That is the future. I am pleased to hear that.
I thought my speech was quite positive. I am glad to end on a positive note.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate, or is the House ready for the question? On debate, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to once again participate in the debate on the Bill that, hopefully, will be the beginning of diversifying the western economy. As a westerner I want to say that we have waited a long time for an initiative that would be a major effort-


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I may be mistaken but I would have thought that the Hon. Member had spoken in debate at third reading and therefore cannot speak again. Perhaps the Table could check.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member did speak at third reading but did not speak on the motion which is now before the House, that the question be now put. Therefore the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap may speak, of course.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy to participate in the debate today on the western diversification initiative. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is my second speech that I have given on this important issue. As far as I am concerned in terms of diversifying the western economy I would like to make many, many more speeches on ways and means of enhancing the economy of western Canada and
Western Economic Diversification Act
participating in any initiative that would result in expanded economic activity.
I wish to speak today on behalf of a group within our western communities for whom I have a great deal of respect. I refer to the small and medium-size business sector represented by men and women who are the engines of growth in our western economy. It is interesting to recognize that there are 20,000 small businesses in western Canada that are represented by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. This is a business organization that is the largest small and medium-size business organization in Canada, with membership across the country. It represents the voice in a formal way of small business, along with its sister organization, the Canadian Organization of Small Business.
It has provided us with some interesting analyses of the recent intiative taken by the Government. Just to set the record straight right at the beginning, I want to indicate where it stands. This is in no way to criticize what the Government is attempting to do, at least in principle. Mr. John Bulloch, who is the spokesperson for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, called the western diversification initiative a political slush fund. I hope it does not become that. I know that that is a fear that others have indicated. I hope that the Govenrment does not use it as a political slush fund, to paraphrase the words of John Bulloch, to support vulnerable constituencies, lure in big business or bail out obsolete industries in hopes of gaining short-term political profile, presumably for the local Member of Parliament. I hope that that is not true.
The organization raises another concern. It is the concern that this initiative might be a bureaucratic slush fund available for other line Departments and Ministries to raid in lieu of other national programs that should have their fair share spent in the West.
There is some good reason for this concern. I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the very important initiative that was taken some months ago in the creation of South Moresby Park. It is pristine, world renowned parkland on the Queen Charlotte Islands which was set aside for a national park. That cost money, of course. It cost $75 million to the federal Government. From where did it get its money? Did it get its money from the Parks Canada envelope? No. Did it get its money from the other programs from which parks are normally purchased? No. It took the money out of the Western Diversification Fund.
Anybody in government would say that if we have budgets for parks and we have western diversification funds, the two are quite separate. We also saw that the Government wanted to put some money into salmonoid enhancement in British Columbia. Did it take the money from the fisheries envelope? No. Did it take its money from various budgets within the fisheries ministry? No. It took the money out of the Western Diversification Fund.

May 3, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
We cannot go on like this. We cannot go on and use western diversification funds for all the work that regular government Departments should be funding. If that is what the fund is used for, then it is a scam. It is misleading to call it a western diversification fund for that reason.
There is another reason that I am concerned about because one of the first drains on the fund was the Daishowa pulp mill to be built in northern Alberta. This pulp and paper consortium is one of the largest in the world. First, it received $150,000 from the Western Diversification Office to do a feasibility study. I really wonder if one of the largest pulp and paper consortiums in the world needs to dip into the western development fund in order to conduct a feasibility study. It has the world's capital markets at its disposal. Does it really need to use this precious western diversification fund?
Also, in early 1988 the Western Diversification Office announced that it would give $9.5 million to this pulp mill. Does it really need this kind of money? Does this really diversify the economy of western Canada?
These are questions that many of us are asking. We ask them in a certain context. I am personally aware of a number of small and medium-sized businesses in British Columbia that have made modest requests to the Western Diversification Office. The one that springs first to mind is a request by the Thompson Nicola Manufacturers Association which requested $40,000 to enable it to provide an infrastructure to assist the 500 manufacturers in the Kamloops region of British Columbia. Was it successful in obtaining $40,000? I am afraid to say that it was not.
I am also aware of a whole list of small businesses that have made requests for $5,000, $25,000, $35,000 and $37,000. All those requests were rejected. One gets somewhat cynical and frustrated when one considers that an international pulp consortium receives $9.5 million but a small manufacturer in central British Columbia cannot even receive $37,000.
I could go on in terms of a number of the questions raised. I do want to say that the intent of this is to diversify the economy of western Canada and to assist those entrepreneurs who are interested in expanding into new areas beyond the resource-based economy of western Canada. That is not to say that we do not wish to assist in developing the resource-based economy, but this is to diversify.
I notice with interest that there have been moneys from the Western Diversification Office for soil erosion studies. Those studies will not do much to diversify the economy of western Canada. There is also money for assistance in marketing potash. We do not say that that is not a good idea, but will marketing more potash diversify the economy of Saskatchewan? I suppose one could find some indirect way to justify that, but what are the terms of reference of this particular office?
On this issue, I have to return to our friends in the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They point out that one of the major problems of the Western Diversification Office is that it lacks a business plan. No one is certain what the framework is for its operation; no one is quite certain of what type of projects will be supported. Therefore, it has led the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and others to believe that perhaps it is used as a slush fund. If one has the right political connections, or is a large multinational, one may receive some money. If one has some good friends in the office, or good political contacts, some financing can be arranged for a business. That is not what we need in western Canada, and I would like to think that this is not the manner in which the Western Diversification Office will operate.
I wish to return to the point I made earlier regarding those people who are the engines of growth in western Canada and who make the economy work, that is, the small and medium sized businesses. When one studies the role played by small and medium-sized business in western Canada, their successes and contributions are quite amazing.
In the West the number of small businesses is growing expediently as the resource sector becomes less secure, experiences slower growth, and creates fewer jobs. The Economic Council of Canada recently reported that three-quarters of all the new jobs over the last 20 years have emerged out of the service sector, which in turn is dominated by small business.
It is a little known fact that over the 54 year span from 1926 to 1980 manufacturing output per capita in Ontario and Quebec was actually outstripped by per capita growth in manufacturing in western Canada. That is absolutely astonishing. During the period from 1978 to 1984, including the boom by the large resource industries in the late 1970s and early 1980s, businesses with less than 20 employees were responsible for 80 per cent of all net job creation in western Canada. In 1985, the most recent period for which information is available, this strong performance continued. The job growth in small firms, meaning less than 20 employees, was 64 per cent of the total new jobs in Manitoba, 66 per cent in Alberta, 76 per cent in Saskatchewan, and 100 per cent in British Columbia. This corresponds with the much smaller contributions by large industry. For example, in 1985 in British Columbia there was a 6.6 net loss of jobs by big businesses compared to the previous year.
These impressive economic achievements are driven by the entrepreneurial spirit for flexibility and change. Researchers have noted that small firms with less than 20 employees take 27 per cent less time to complete the full research and development cycle from concept to market-place. They create two and a half times as many innovations per employee.
Surveys prepared by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has found that in typical three year cycles, three out of ten of their members changed their clientele and markets, and one out of every four businesses make major
May 3, 1988

changes in their methods of production, promotion, and distribution.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the small business sector is able to dodge and weave, to take advantage of market opportunities, and to meet market niches in a rapid and creative manner. Studies have indicated that half the businesses in western Canada were actively searching for new technologies to improve the competitiveness of their business on a regular basis. In other words, at any point in time half the businesses in western Canada are involved in new initiatives to search for appropriate technologies and to find ways and means of becoming more competitive in the market-place.
These statistics clearly indicate that small business owners are the unsung heroes of western Canada, measured in terms of job creation, economic stability, competitiveness, and innovation. Yet for years this crucial sector has been lost in the shadows of public policy as one Government after another has devoted its attention to funding megaprojects and providing big businesses with major grants. Although the grass roots has been patient, frustration has mounted with the traditional regional development approach. I do not think that there has been anything more frustrating than seeing year after year the support that successive federal Governments have given to large multinationals that have the ability to easily obtain capital on international money markets. Yet the struggling small business or the struggling entrepreneur who is attempting to develop a regionally sensitive business for either the domestic or international market is largely by-passed.
That is why on August 7, 1987 many of us from western Canada viewed the establishment of the Western Diversification Office as a fresh start. I must say that the initial support that many of us had for the principle is rapidly turning into confusion due to the absence of any clear guidelines or a business plan for the management of the $1.2 billion over the next five year period.
Always in the back of the minds of those of us who are not Liberals is the great Western Development Fund. That fund originally started at $4 billion, it eventually fell to $2 billion and then evaporated. One of the major jokes circulating at the time was about this evaporating Western Development Fund that the Liberals brought in, but no one ever saw or heard about other than the original announcement by the then Minister of Finance.
When one looks at the expenditures to date coming out of the Western Diversification Office, the best way to describe them is sporadic. Another way to describe them would be relatively limited. No clear pattern has emerged from these early actions. While many groups have criticized this lack of policy direction and apparent inertia, there does appear to be a critical window of opportunity now to establish policy for the Western Diversification Office at this embryonic stage. I would like to take a few moments to do just that. While we are determining the terms of reference and establishing a clear
Western Economic Diversification Act
mandate for the Western Diversification Office, perhaps I could make some suggestions as to what might be considered.
First, in each year in western Canada literally of tens of thousands of people start new businesses or expand existing firms. This is the heart of diversification; opportunities identified, resources gathered, and market niches established. The financial resources of the Western Diversification Office ought to be directed, in large part, to reinforcing this entrepreneurial activity by small businesses in order to be an efficient catalyst to broad sustainable market driven change.
When one looks at the various options available, one of the things we have to recognize is that the major problem faced by western entrepreneurs is having access to proper financing. If the Western Diversification Office can help the financing needs of many western Canadian small and medium-sized businesses, it will have made a major contribution to diversifying the western economy. Small business is financed by personal capital, reinvested earnings, debt financing, and equity investments. Bank lending practices, government taxes and programs, under-capitalization, and inadequate management preparation all combine to put a financial strait-jacket on the entrepreneurs within every western community. Measures that leverage greater access for small business through established private sector markets have greater credibility and business respect.
The IFIB brief went on to point out that the relationship between the financial institution and the entrepreneur has changed substantially; that various business organizations have documented problems, including tight lending policies that are insensitive to individual circumstances, extreme collateral/ security requirements, high cash-flow requirements, the arbitrary alteration of lending and administration practices, and the inadequate expertise of lending officials.
It goes on to state, however, that, regardless of these complaints, bank financing is the predominant element in local economic development and must be addressed that government initiatives, whether through the Small Business Loans Act, or interest shielding in Saskatchewan, or the Alberta Term Assistance Plan, "have met mixed success, but give some indication of how it can be better handled".
It points out that the Western Economic Diversification Office should undertake to have the Business Development Loans Program under the Small Business Loans Act revised and refinanced "to better encourage financing of small business entrepreneurs by financial institutions".
We might consider putting in place a regime whereby guarantees could only be available on loans made at interest rates that reflect significant risk, in other words loans made at prime plus one and one-half per cent. As well, interest rates should not be kept at a level that has the effect of interest shielding. Combining efforts to leverage risk financing with interest shielding will discourage banks from considering risk

May 3, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
loans and encourage use of the guarantees in respect of lower-risk loans that do not require additional incentives. The single purpose of the guarantee provision must be to maximize the leveraging of these resources to higher risk initiatives, initiatives that would otherwise not proceed. The interest rate charged by the lender should be allowed to reflect that risk.
The Federation makes the point that loan guarantees should also apply to working capital, pointing out that the growth potential "is increasing in sectors where physical capital requirements are much less than working capital requirements". It goes on to state that the Alberta Term Assistance Plan "offers a good example where loans for working capital were leveraged with partial guarantees", with 35 per cent of the loan being government guaranteed, to recognize the lesser collateral value of the assets involved.
There is a great deal more to suggest in respect of the Western Diversification Office, a great deal more that should be done. In closing, I simply want to say that, while we intend to support this initiative in principle, we do hope that it does not turn into a slush fund, whether political or bureaucratic, and that it really does lead to major gains in diversifying the economy of western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: The Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) on questions or comments.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speech of the Hon. Member, and it is the same one that he gave the other day.
Is the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) aware that the Western Diversification office in British Columbia is willing to send out officials from that Office to conduct one day seminars on western economic diversification? It may be that the Hon. Member would be interested in arranging for such a seminar to be held in Kamloops.
I had occasion to visit the Thompson Nicola Valley Manufacturers Trade Fair held in Kamloops last fall, and I can readily agree that it is a good organization. I am at a loss as to why the Western Diversification Office has not funded that organization.
I am wondering what the Hon. Member has done to bring about a positive decision on funding. Has he visited the Western Diversification Office in Vancouver to lobby on behalf of that organization; has he talked to the various Ministers involved?
I stand ready to offer any assistance I can provide in terms of getting funding for that organization. Certainly, it is a worth-while organization and should be one which is representative of what is required by the WDO.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, let me first point out to the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) that the speech I made yesterday outlined all of the areas where the federal Government has failed in terms of delivering a fair deal
to western Canada. In that speech, I was specific, citing Supply and Service contracts, CIDA contracts, Regional Development grants, Employment and Immigration programs, and so forth. Being of the view that the Hon. Member opposite had heard enough of that, I had no desire to repeat it today.
The short answer to his first question is that, yes, I am aware of the opportunity to introduce people to the Western Diversification Office and what that office can do.
I, too, share the concern that the request for funding by the Thompson Nickel Manufacturers Association was rejected. I listened with interest when he asked whether I had talked to the Minister, whether I had talked to the Western Diversification Office. While I did in fact get involved, I would like to think that political intervention would not be necessary. I should like to think that Members of Parliament need not go to bat for every single initiative.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Why was the request turned down?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The reason given was that there was another community doing something similar. One is left wondering whether that is a criterion. If an initiative is being undertaken in one community, does that mean that it cannot be done in another?
These are some of the questions we need answered. I do not want to cast aspersions on this initiative. It is not my view that it is a bad initiative. My point is that we ought to have clear terms of reference as to what will be funded and what will not. We need some clear direction. I agree with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that we ought to have a business plan. In trying to get information on the terms of reference, I have been in touch with the offices in Vancouver and Edmonton, as well as with the Minister, but to no avail. What I am told each and every time is that the application should be submitted. Well, do we submit an application for tourism, for soil erosion studies?
When I learned that a study aimed at finding new ways to a market potash had been funded, I wondered how that would assist in diversifying the economy of western Canada. Will the selling of more potash abroad result in a more diversified economy for western Canada? While that may in fact be the case, it is not clear to me how it will come about.
As well, a request for funding for a soil erosion study was approved. While there is no doubt that we need to learn more about soil erosion, one wonders how such a study is going to result in a diversified economy for western Canada. Again, it is not clear.
As Members of Parliament, each of us will go to all reasonable lengths to assist local organizations, local businesses in getting their fair share of a government program; but, if that means that one has to use one's political influence in order to make the program work, that is something I do not want to be a part of.
May 3, 1988

In making that comment, I am not suggesting that the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin was saying that one has to use political influence in order to obtain financial support through the Western Diversification Office. I believe the principle of western diversification is a good one. It is one that we need to develop and expand upon in the future. I want to be a part of any process that will develop a business plan for western Canada for use by the Western Diversification Office.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), on questions or comments.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity to put some questions to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), who quoted extensively from the submission of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I should point out, however, that that submission was made to the Minister responsible for western diversification prior to Bill C-113 being tabled in the House of Commons.


An Hon. Member:: Come on, Jack! How can you stand there and not blush!


Jack Wendele Shields: The NDP continually refer to that submission, and certainly the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was expressing concerns that it might have with the legislation, though it did so prior to the legislation being printed and tabled in the House.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has some question in relation to the funding provided for a potash market study, a soil erosion study, as well as funding for a pulp mill.
In answer, I point out to the Hon. Member-and it is something, I am sure, he already knows-that that funding took place under programs in existence prior to the western economic diversification legislation being tabled. The Minister gathered, under the Department of Western Economic Diversification, those programs that were available to him, and it was under those programs that that funding took place.
The Hon. Member was pointing out that there was no plan in the terms of reference of the Bill. Perhaps he has a copy of the legislation before him. If he does not, I could probably get one of the Pages to bring him a copy so that he could read it with me.
Clause 6(1) reads:
6. The Minister may
(a)	formulate plans and integrate strategies to support development and diversification of the economy of Western Canada;
(b)	oversee the implementation of programs and projects in pursuance of plans and strategies referred to in paragraph (a) and, where those programs and projects will not be undertaken by another Minister or department or agency of the Government of Canada, initiate or implement those programs and projects;
Western Economic Diversification Act
(c)	plan, direct, manage and implement programs and projects intended to contribute directly or indirectly to
(i) the establishment, development, support and promotion of enterprises, and more particularly, small and medium-sized enterprises, in Western Canada-
It goes on and on to outline the kind of points to which the Hon. Member referred dealing with clear directions. My caviar socialist from Kamloops-Shuswap is only making political hay in an attempt to delay this legislation, and that is all.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have studied the legislation carefully. As a matter of fact, I have almost committed it to memory by now. That is why I am so perplexed about why the request of the Thompson Nicola Manufacturers Association was rejected.
Since my hon. friend from Athabasca has obviously taken such an interest in this fund, perhaps I could ask him as a representative of the Government to look into the matter and to explain why this request for $40,000 was rejected. I am asking these kinds of questions because I know of other initiatives that were funded.


Jack Wendele Shields: Because it doesn't fit any program until this legislation is passed. Is that clear?


Nelson Andrew Riis: If he will let me speak, I want to tell my honest friend that in August of 1987, the Government announced that it planned to introduce the Western Diversification Office. This is now 10 months later. Where was the legislation for month after month?
If the Government really did care about doing something for the diversification of the western economy, it could have done something in the previous 10 months. I do not want to sit here and take flack from an individual who says that we are holding up the legislation. I have said that we support the legislation.
The Government sat on its hands for nearly a year after it announced this legislation. If it were serious about the diversification of the western economy, it would have acted on this months ago. To tell the Opposition that to take an extra few hours of debate will somehow hold up the legislation is absolutely silly.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) keeps asking the same question even though it has been answered several times. He claims that a small firm in Edmonton had made an application which had been turned down because this legislation has not been passed. Yet we have put on the record this morning various examples of projects that have been given the okay including that of a big Japanese firm which wants to build a pulp mill. The millions are there for them, but small business is being told that it cannot get any because the legislation has not passed. What sort of nonsense is this? I sure hope that the Hon. Member for Athabasca will stand in his place and for once be honest with the people of Canada and particularly the people of western Canada.

May 3, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
I know that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has been concerned about the high interest rates that exist in Canada, and I know that it affects western Canada detrimentally. Yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has told us that we cannot have a lower interest rate because of inflation.
Is it not true that the reason there is a 4 per cent inflation rate in Canada today is because of the sales taxes that the Conservative Government has introduced? If those sales taxes had not been introduced, our effective inflation rate would be around 2 per cent rather than at 4 per cent, is that not correct?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, once again, that was an incredibly thoughtful intervention made by my hon. friend. He is quite right that that the monetary and fiscal policies of the Government of Canada discriminate against western Canada. Yes, the Government's own programs have resulted in interest rate practices which are discriminatory to western Canada.
Perhaps I will use this as an opportunity, if I can get your attention, Mr. Speaker, to ask if there is a quorum in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We do have a quorum.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is encouraging. I was just worried that-


Jack Wendele Shields: That's the only way you can get somebody to listen to that garbage.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I thought that some Hon. Members had missed the comments of my hon. friend from Regina. Now that they are back in town-


An Hon. Member:: You're wasting the time of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I can hardly be wasting the time of the House when the House does not normally sit at this time of day.
As usual, the intervention of my friend from Regina was thoughtful and most perceptive. A lot of westerners are asking why interest rates are so high here and why they have to be so much higher than they are in the United States. The Minister of Finance always reminds us that we must have high interest rates because of the inflation in Ontario and Quebec. Let us think about that just for a moment.
Because of the relatively strong economy in parts of Ontario and small parts of Quebec, the rest of Canada is held at interest rate ransom. The fear of pockets of inflation in some parts of central Canada has resulted in the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) keeping interest rates excessively high. That mitigates against efforts by western, eastern and northern entrepreneurs to develop regional economies.
Quite frankly, it is a policy that discriminates against western Canada. It discriminates against other regions of Canada as well, but today we are talking about western
Canada. It discriminates against western Canadian consumers, entrepreneurs, farmers and fishermen.
It is time that the Government recognize that, and, in recognizing it, take extra steps to compensate. If it is to discriminate against western Canada through its interest rate policy, then for goodness sake, it should do something to counter that discriminatory initiative.
The Government has only offered us the Western Diversification Office. We feel that that is inadequate and that it falls far short of the mark. Therefore, my colleagues in the New Democratic Party are trying to put forward positive alternatives, encouraging and thoughtful suggestions, as to how we can better assist those people in western Canada who are very keen on diversifying the economy through expanding into new products and markets.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few more words on this Bill. A government has been asking us for co-operation in passing the Bill, and we have been attempting to give it, though we find ourselves filling in time during the noon hour so that Members from our Party who have been scheduled to speak may be able to do so later on in the debate. Forcing debate at times when it is difficult for Members to be here is rather a queer way of trying to get the co-operation of the Opposition.
There are a number of alterations we would like to see the Government make to this Bill. The Government has not suggested, through the western diversification legislation, the Atlantic opportunities legislation or the northern Ontario diversification legislation that there are a lot of things that need to be done.
Last November a federal-provincial task force made a fairly broad and comprehensive statement suggesting that there are a lot of areas where the western diversification fund could be used to develop the economy of those regions feeling the pinch these days. It was pointed out, for example, that over the past 25 years less than 3 per cent of federal economic expenditures have gone to specific regional development. In other words, past legislation of this kind has not done the job it was supposed to do in diversifying expenditures into various regions. Although the legislation was in place, it did not make the impact it should have. This particular legislation is no more likely to do so. In fact, maybe even less so because one of its main features is advocacy and co-ordination.
We in the West know from experience, as people do in the Atlantic provinces, that there is a need for more than a fledging group of bureaucrats to co-ordinate the work of large line departments such as the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Transport and so on. Those departments have their own well-established bureaucracies and are not about to let a fledging department such as
May 3, 1988

that being set up here to direct them in the expenditure of their money.
If we need proof of that, we just have to look at the so-called increase in procurement in the last couple of years across the country after the Government made a specific promise that it would increase its expenditures in the western provinces. As I am sure you have been told many times in this House, in 198485 government expenditures in the West amounted to 13.9 per cent of procurement. Over the years, with a certain amount of pushing by the Government to increase those expenditures, it went down to 11.5 per cent in 1986-87.
Obviously the attempt by the Government to increase expenditures on economic development in those regions will not happen as a result of this legislation, particularly when the money being given to the Department is meagre compared to that spent in the regions by other Departments. Even members of the Conservative caucus who have some concern about the West have indicated that $1.2 billion over five years will not have a major impact upon economic development in the West. The Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) said that it sounds like a lot of money but in the over-all scheme of things it is not that great. A Member from an Edmonton riding, speaking to a downtown Rotary Club said that the announced strategy, though inadequate in its funding, is certainly a modest step in the right direction. A Financial Post editorial suggested that there is no doubt whatever that the potential contribution to Ottawa's western initiative is truly piddling. Some $50 million per year per province will not diversify very much.
It would appear, and this is the kind of change the Government needs to make, that there needs to be a differentiation in policy and programs between the various areas of the country in order to establish a major opportunity for the development of effective and relevant economic structures. We know, for example, because we have brought it up in this House before on many occasions, that in the 1960s and 1970s, when a great deal of money was spent on infrastructure, it had a real impact on regional economic activity. The infrastructure requirements for cities, and rural areas to a certain extent, of the 1980s and 1990s are broader and more necessary than those put in place in the 1960s and 1970s. The services, training and technology required for this kind of development is very closely related to the economic development of an area, so that, even as a rider to this legislation, if the Government brought in a policy of infrastructure development in the cities, particularly those in the regions that are suffering most from a lack of development, there would be a valuable increase in the effectiveness of the program.
As well, the federal-provincial task force suggested that the three Departments concerned with defence, energy, and transportation could, by diversifying their expenditures, create
much more economic development than is going to be the case with, as The Financial Post suggested, a piddling investment by the Government to look for some entrepreneurship which will develop future businesses in those areas.
If we look at the areas of defence, transportation, and energy, while some of those contracts should go to areas where there is need for development, more could be done in this area for regional development than this legislation calls for. As I and others have mentioned before, there is a danger in depending upon the development of resources as the basis of regional development. Regional development does not necessarily increase the amount of activity in those areas producing resources. Second, if you have an area with meagre resources to start with and you take any amount of money and say you are going to develop a particular region by processing the resources in that region, you are not going to increase a poor resource base a great deal by spending a lot of money and putting in place the kind of structure that might in some other place be worth while. Consequently, it appears that we should not do that kind of resource development without knowing exactly the direction we are going to take.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will have eight minutes left when this matter is brought up again.
Statements by Members.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked to learn today that the British Columbia Government has authorized Diamond Resources to begin drilling and exploration for minerals in the Salmon River watershed, a pristine wilderness within the South Moresby National Park reserve currently being negotiated.
The Haida people plan to oppose mineral exploration and drilling in the proposed national park reserve in the same manner they oppose logging on Lyell Island.
Mining exploration and drilling on South Moresby must be stopped. The Haida people need the support of all Canadians who believe that South Moresby is a national treasure worth saving for future generations without encroachments on land and sea.

May 3, 1988



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, today Poles throughout the world are observing the anniversary of one of Poland's most important days, the signing and ratification of the Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791. For workers in present-day Poland, May 3 is a day of struggle for the fundamental rights embodied in the Constitution of 1791, freedom of expression and association.
The current strikes and demonstrations serve as a reminder that the Polish nation will not endure the present government suppression or the atrocious economic conditions. Meaningful and serious dialogue must be initiated between the Church, Solidarity, and Government in order to alleviate the deteriorating state of affairs.
I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Government of Canada to press Polish government officials to relegalize the independent trade union Solidarnosc and to respect the inalienable rights of all Poles contained in the Constitution of 1791.



FORESTS


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, this week, May 1 to 7, we are celebrating National Forestry Week throughout the country on the theme "Forests-Wealth for All."
Need I remind you of the vital role the forest industry plays in Canada and Quebec? Forestry provides jobs for more than 750,000 Canadians and brings in over $37 billion to our economy.
Quebec alone accounts for 14 per cent of world pulp and paper production and 35 per cent of Canadian production. More than 85 per cent of Quebec forest products are exported outside the province and 65 per cent are exported outside the country.
In 1985, forest products accounted for 22 per cent of Quebec exports. In that year, the federal Government invested $150 million in a $300-million subsidiary agreement for forestry development with Quebec.
In my riding of Temiscamingue only, more than $5 million has been allocated under this agreement and 5,000 weeks of work have been provided.
In conclusion, let me pay tribute to all business people and workers in the forest industry, who with their knowledge and ability play a large part in the Canadian economy.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) has finally taken action to reverse his decision to grant four offshore lobster licences in Nova Scotia. Previously he ignored advice, and as a result caused the resignation of all but one member of the Southwest Nova Lobster Advisory Board by granting the licences. He has brought into disrepute the whole process of granting fishing licences in Canada.
It required enormous pressure to get him to change his position. The Maritimes Fishermen's Union, the Eastern Fishermen's Federation, inshore fishermen throughout Nova Scotia, provincial and federal New Democrats, the Nova Scotia Government, and eventually even Conservative Members of Parliament, have all publicly opposed his decision. By his action he has confirmed that his original decision was wrong.
The granting of licences in the fishery confers enormous economic advantage or opportunity. The process should be public, open, subject to agreed upon guidelines and, above all, fair. The Minister failed this test.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, on April 6 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) announced his intention to seek cabinet approval of a framework for negotiations on Indian child welfare and family services. He wants cabinet approval by the summer. He is allowing less than one month for consultation with Indian people on this very important issue.
On April 21, here in Ottawa, at a conference organized by the Assembly of First Nations of Indian child welfare directors, participants denounced the Minister's plans. In a statement delivered at the conference by elder Angus Swan from Manitoba, the reasons for the rejection were outlined: the process and principles have been unilaterally developed by the Department; the time frame is unrealistic; existing mechanisms for negotiation are being ignored; and the right of Indian First Nations to make decisions about the lives of their children is not being respected.
The process is an insult to the recognized right of Indian self-government in Canada.

May 3, 1988



MENTAL HEALTH


Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Mental Health Association has been co-ordinating activities to make Canadians aware of this difficult area for 30 years in Canada, in an effort to reduce the stigma associated with mental illness and to encourage the community to accept those who need mental health services.
Having a Mongoloid little sister, Monique, whose birthday was yesterday, I was happy to participate with the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Canadian Mental Health Association in this worth-while effort to draw attention to the importance of all these issues.
The slogan for Mental Health Week this year is, "Mental health, it's up to me!" We therefore ask all Canadians to give their full support to the activities planned by the local offices of the Canadian Mental Health Association in their various communities, and in particular in LaSalle and Ville-Emard, for this Mental Health Week.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, 14 years ago on April 25 the Portuguese people threw out Salazar's fascist Government by a peaceful revolution. The signal was a certain popular song about farming people. When it was heard on the radio on a certain day, civilians and members of the armed forces, in a co-ordinated plan, simply took over government firmly but without bloodshed.
Human rights were restored, including the rights of women, workers, and trade unions. Democratic elections were set for a constitutional convention, and then for a Legislature and President. Since then the Portuguese people have maintained their freedom and their respect for each other's rights in a vigorous political debate.
The Portuguese, by hard work and quiet mutual respect, have set a heartwarming and noble example to all the world of a people throwing off the burden of tyranny peacefully. I am sure every Member of this House would join me in wishing them well in their democratic future.



S'. O. 21 FISHERIES ATLANTIC LICENSING APPEAL BOARD-EXPANSION OF MANDATE ADVOCATED

Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge that greater authority be conferred upon the Atlantic Licensing Appeal Board. This Board was established as a forum for fishermen to appeal decisions on licensing made over the years by departmental officials. Fishermen in Atlantic Canada welcomed this Board, as did I, Mr. Speaker.
The result has been many equitable decisions. There are, however, a lot of appeals that are not being successful because the Board's mandate is too narrow. I believe the Board must be able to make decisions based on all the circumstances being considered. Presently it seems restricted to narrow principles. The Board reflects a good direction, but its powers and procedures must be expanded.



SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES TRIBUTE TO ENTREPRENEURS

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, this week is Small Business Week. It is a fact that small businesses contain the most dynamic, innovative and entrepreneurial elements of our Canadian business community.
In the favourable economic climate created by this Government, small businesses have been responsible for 17 per cent of the 1.3 million jobs created since 1984. Out of 43,000 small businesses who answered a questionnaire on free trade, 87 per cent were in favour.
Mr. Speaker, when we pay tribute to our small business entrepreneurs, we are paying tribute to the driving force of our dynamic free enterprise system.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the drought in western Canada worsens daily. In fact western Canada has received the least amount of moisture and rainfall in 99 years, since 1889. Tumbleweeds and sand storms are shown on television screens across the country. Dug-outs are dry. Seeding will not be possible in some areas because there is not enough moisture for germination. Community pastures are not accepting livestock because there is not enough grass.

May 3, 1988
The Government must make a commitment to transport cattle and to help move feed into the drought area. Emergency funds are needed now for new dug-outs, new wells, and emergency water systems. I call on the Government to make a commitment now to the Prairies to assist in this worst of natural disasters in western Canada.



NATIONAL FOREST WEEK


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Forest Week. Although Saskatchewan is recognized for its agricultural production, it is easy to overlook the fact that half of our province is covered by forests. These forests have played a key role in Saskatchewan's development, providing the economic and industrial base for more than 30 communities. These towns owe their livelihood to the commercial and recreational use of the forest.
Maintaining this resource through forest renewal and intensive management is vitally important. In recognition of this the Government of Canada is spending over $1.1 billion with the provincial Governments to enhance forest management.
In Saskatchewan we know how important a role forestry plays. All Canadians should make every effort to learn more about our forests and their prominent place in Canadian life.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, today the people of Poland are celebrating the May 3 Constitution of 1791, which was the first recognition of fundamental rights in an age of despotic rule in Europe. The legacy of this centuries-old struggle for human rights continues to unfold in Poland today.
In 1980 the world saw the birth of the independent trade union Solidarity in response to a deteriorating economic crisis which was mismanaged by the Government. Despite martial law, Solidarity inspired a broad social movement on human rights. Today, Polish workers are again exercising the right to strike, guaranteed by international conventions to which Poland is a signatory, in the face of sky rocketing price increases and no prospect of managerial reform within a rigidly hierarchial party system.
Instead of taking the opportunity to negotiate a social accord as persistently offered by Lech Walesa, the Polish
Government has launched widescale arrests of Solidarity leaders and provocation of workers demonstrating peacefully for real economic reforms.
The New Democratic Party considers both outside interference in Polish affairs and the desperate attempt by the Polish Government to impose a temporary solution through internal force as unacceptable. Canada should make it clear to the Polish Government that only a peaceful solution leading to real economic reform with the support of a broad range of social and trade union organizations, can expect approval from Canadians.



INTER-UNION MEMBERSHIP RAIDS

Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, on May 9 the Canadian labour movement will be holding a convention in Vancouver. Their get-together promises to produce more fireworks than the Liberal Party.
Consider the following. One of the main points of tension is the present vicious in-fighting between unions raiding each other's memberships.
The leader of the 23,000 members of the United Food and Commercial Workers arranged secretly with the CAW to take its members. The rank and file were not even notified and the raider is none other than Bob White, who prefers to call his action an "opportunity for change in unions". Here is the same Bob White who screams, whenever there is a corporate takeover, that rights are being ignored. It seems that "solidarity forever" and "a democracy in the union movement" are just shallow rhetoric.



PENSIONS


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that Canadians between the ages of 40 and 60 are very disappointed in the Tories.
When we look at these people who are nearing retirement, less than 50 per cent have a private pension plan, three million Canadian women are not eligible for the Quebec and Canada Pension plans, and 95 per cent of the private pension plans that do exist are not indexed.
Mr. Speaker, I am therefore relieved that the Liberals have agreed to improved access to private pension plans, portability, gradual retirement, participation of homemakers in the
May 3, 1988

Quebec and Canada Pension plans, a form of indexation for private pension plans and also to respect the right of the elderly to a decent standard of living.



NATIONAL FOREST WEEK


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) claimed that Canadians have much to celebrate during National Forest Week. They also have a lot to worry about.
Lands not sufficiently restocked increase annually by the size of Prince Edward Island. We are rapidly running out of first growth timber. Professional foresters are out of work.
Exports are up, but employment is down. In 1979 employees in the forest industry totalled 307,000. Five years later this number was almost 38,000 lower. In 1985 it went down again.
Last year a study of forest graduates from UBC showed that of 290 graduates less than 50 per cent found jobs as forestry professionals. Twenty-one per cent were unemployed.
When we are losing employment and sufficiently restocked lands it is clear that, although short-term gains may be reflected in increased exports, the long-term prospects for Canada's forest industry are not good.
Four years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised to create a full-fledged Ministry of Forests. It is completely unacceptable that this important sector has been relegated to a junior Minister under the Department of Agriculture.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to bring good news to the House.
Last week the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was in Washington. I want to quote a statement by Senator George Mitchell of Maine who said:
In his eloquent address to the Joint Meeting of Congress, and in private meetings as well, Prime Minister Mulroney made a forceful, effective and persuasive presentation on the need for acid rain controls. I know firsthand that he made a powerful impression on many members of Congress. I was heartened to learn that, as a result of his efforts, the President has designated Secretary of State George Shultz as the administration official responsible for
Oral Questions
handling the negotiations for a U.S.-Canadian treaty on acid rain and that he will be meeting with the Canadian Foreign Minister in that regard.
Clearly, this is more positive evidence of the success of the visit of our Prime Minister to Washington.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in the House of Commons, the Minister said and reiterated that 24 per cent of the increase in income tax paid by Canadians was the result of economic growth. Later, he said that 80 per cent of this increase as the result of economic growth. The contradiction between the two replies he gave here in the House yesterday afternoon represents nearly $18 billion per year.
Didn't the Minister of Finance increase sales tax in Canada, not once, not twice but three times? Isn't it true that since he became a Minister in this Government, Canadians are now paying $4 billion more in sales tax as a result of the increases introduced by the Minister? And didn't the Minister of Finance increase the excise tax on gasoline, not once, not twice, not three times but four times since this Government came to power, from 1.5 cents per litre to 6 cents per litre, Mr. Speaker? Are Canadians now paying 3 per cent more in taxes on gas, that is, $2 billion more per year, than in 1984? Is that the truth, Mr. Speaker?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I know that today, 1,200,000 more people have jobs compared to the situation at the beginning of our mandate. I think that is very important, and that is also why most Canadians are now paying more in taxes.

I am very pleased that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has brought attention to the error I made in my answer yesterday. I am pleased that he gives me this opportunity to say that fully 80 per cent of the increased amount of taxes that Canadians are paying is because of the increase in economic activity. More people are working, and the people who have jobs are earning more money, and their personal disposable income is up. It is a direct result of the fact that Canada has been leading the G-7 countries in economic activity in the last three-and-one-half years. That is why tax revenues are increasing.


John Napier Turner: We will have to persist here because Canadians have been taxed more under this Government than in any time in our history, including two Great Wars. That is the increase in taxes we are talking about.

May 3, 1988
Oral Questions


INTRODUCTION OF NEW TAXES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as of 1988 is there not a brand new 10 per cent tax on long distance telephone calls and a brand new tax on cable television? Do not those amounts add another $1 billion a year in new taxes?
Did the Minister not put a new tax on pet food, soft drinks and snacks? Is that not another $500 million a year in new taxes? And did he not partially deindex the system, and that means an extra $ 1 billion in new taxes this year and more next year and every year thereafter? I ask the Minister, did he not impose these new taxes? And did this Minister and this Government not say during the last election campaign that there would be no increases in taxes?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition put his foot in the glue when he said we are being taxed more than at any time in history. If he will go back to the time he was the Minister of Finance in the early part of the 1970s, he will find that something like 17.5 per cent to 17.9 per cent of national income was represented in federal government revenues. Today that amount is less than 17 per cent. I have the amount here which I will check while he is posing his next question, but I believe the comparison is 17.9 per cent when he was in office against about 16.7 per cent this year.


EFFECT OF NEW TAXES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister has time to look at his figures, he will find that I was last Minister of Finance who brought a surplus down in this House of Commons, and not the $30 billion deficit the present Minister is bringing down. The average deficit over my four years was $710 million, not the $30 billion range this Minister is talking about.
I have only just begun with this Minister, Mr. Speaker. Did the Minister of Finance not slap a 3 per cent surtax on taxpayers, which means a loss of disposable income for Canadians of over $2 billion a year? Is that not new? Did he not put new taxes on airline tickets? Did he not put a new tax on paint and wallpaper and raise it by 50 per cent? Did he not give wealthy Canadians a capital gains exemption, all of which means that, as a result of four years of this Minister, 99 per cent of Canadians pay more in total taxes than they did in 1984, and only 1 per cent of Canadians, those earning more than $117,000 a year, pay less in taxes? Isn't that the fact?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This may be the last time the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition raises these questions in the House. If you will give me some time, Mr. Speaker, in 1974-75 revenues as a percent of gross national product were 19.2 per cent. In 1986-87 they were 16.8 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: More!


An Hon. Member:: He had the last surplus.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, he had the last surplus, but he then put it quickly into deficit and the deficit increased from 1.6 per cent of national income to 3.3 per cent.


Mr. Gauthier:: Answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He doubled it in his very short term in office. Revenues increased by 91 per cent during his time in office. That is a lot of tax. Personal income tax revenues increased by 76 per cent. Here is the reason why it increased. During that time, total spending rose by 107 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I do not even have to look at the briefing note here because it is indelibly printed on my mind. In his last year as Minister of Finance spending went up 29 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: More, John!


FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the anticipated tough Canadian film Bill intended to curb American dominance of film, TV, and video distribution here in Canada was raised once again at the Mulroney-Reagan love-in. The Toronto Star reporter, Sid Adelman, quotes from a memo from the Canadian representative of the American major film distributor to his American bosses indicating that a deal has been reached to soften the long promised tough legislation.
My question is directed to the Minister of Communications? What is that understanding? What is this great collaboration. And what deal was just reached in Washington?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the Hon. Member who seems to rely so much on American sources-
Mr. Broad bent: The Toronto Star\


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is still Canadian!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Americans being quoted in the Toronto Star\ Who else would the Toronto Star quote but Americans?
May I say that the story is both inaccurate and misleading.
May 3, 1988


Ms. Copps:: But not false.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to tell the Hon. Member and Members of the House that there are two issues with respect to the film industry, production and distribution. In the field of production, this Government has added $165 million to production, set up a feature film fund, and set up a dubbing fund.
We are now moving to the issue of distribution. We have said that we will bring in, by legislation, the means to establish a separate market here in Canada for Canadian film distribution rights. We have said there will be other measures for Canadian film distributors. We have said we would do that, and we will do it.


NEW LEGISLATION-EFFECT ON INDUSTRY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the last time I looked, I think the Toronto Star still belonged to Canadians. I think Mr. Sidney Adelman is a rather well respected reporter, and I think Mr. Millard Roth is still the head of the Canadian Film Distribution Association even if he speaks for the Americans.
Is it not true that the Minister is planning a giant loophole through which, by regulation, the Americans will still come out the winners and win all the major films that are coming in here? Does the Minister not realize she is just setting up another shell game so the Americans can maintain their status quo, and the interests of the Canadian film distributors and manufacturers will not be met with her new Bill?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, Millard Roth, who the Member cites with such ease, is the Canadian representative of the American film industry. That is the person she is shilling for in the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's what she just said.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I just want to say to the Hon. Member that the Liberal Government had three Ministers that I know about, Mr. Faulkner, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Fox, all of whom promised legislation. After 40 years, much of that occupied by a Liberal Government, there is no legislation. Nothing has been done for the Canadian film industry in this respect.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Our legislation will not address the needs of the American industry. It will address the needs of the Canadian film industry, as I have said right along.


RIGHTS OF AMERICAN DISTRIBUTORS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. According to this report which came out today, the Canadian Government-


Charles Joseph Clark: Just a pale echo of the Grits.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Joe is twitching again. Just calm down, Joe. It's all right.


Jack Wendele Shields: Welcome back, Shirley Carr.


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


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister. The same report that refers to the collaboration of the Minister's Department, even in writing the regulations with this group that is speaking for the American industry, has made the contention that the Minister has backed down completely. One way the Minister has of avoiding that accusation would be to assure the House today that the essence of what she promised in the old Bill, that never did appear, will be repeated, namely, the commitment that she made, and, if I understand correctly, the Prime Minister is also on the record as making that commitment, that American distributors of films in Canada would be restricted in their rights to films they had actually financed, or to films to which they had a world copyright. The net effect would have been to leave to Canadians some 15 per cent of the market.
Will the Minister guarantee that the Bill she has promised to introduce will essentially maintain these provisions?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have said throughout from day one that what we will be doing here is taking the necessary step that has not been taken before. We will be setting up a separate market for distribution in Canada.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party may not think that that is necessary, but that is the first and most important step to take, and we will be doing it.
We will be bringing in regulations so that it is a workable scheme. We will also be introducing measures to assist Canadian distributors. We are gearing this toward Canada, not toward the United States.


DRAFTING OF REGULATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, Canadians who have been producing films from British Columbia to Newfoundland, and who want to have access to see Canadian films, will have heard what the Minister has said, which is not to confirm that she will stand by her rather tough legislation of before but, in fact, confirms that she has backed down once again to American pressure.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If she has not done so, we will give her a chance to answer the question again.
Will she retain the very tough minded points that she and the Prime Minister addressed before in her legislation? While she is answering that question, will she also reply to what I

May 3, 1988
Oral Questions
regard as an accusation that her Department has already agreed-and these words are in the memo, they are not mine-to collaborate with the American industry in writing the regulations for a Canadian Bill? Is it not the ultimate humiliation for the Tory Government to get the American industry to help draft our Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that is utter nonsense. I am finding more and more that that is all the Leader of the New Democratic Party is capable of-utter nonsense.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, he talks about collaboration. May I just say, because this is common knowledge, that I had one well publicized meeting with Mr. Valenti here in Ottawa some 14 months ago. At that time Mr. Valenti put forward a number of proposals. They included no legislation and no separate market for Canadian rights. He proposed that moneys be raised by putting a tax on Canadian film-goers at the box office. Those were the proposals that were put forward.
I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that none of them were acceptable, and none of them will be introduced.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we now know that the Minister has said she will produce legislation, and the American industry is being urged to pretend it is opposed to it to appease Canadian nationalist feelings. That is the whole thrust of the memo that the Minister is denying.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I have a copy here in my hand of the original Bill that had the tough provisions that said that the Americans would be restricted, in a reasonable way, to the movies they financed, and to the movies on which they have a world copyright. Why will the Minister not say that her Bill will do that and that, for once, she will encourage real distribution, real access to Canadian markets, of Canadian produced films?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the Hon. Member, who is relying on a memorandum from American sources, that I have seen that memorandum and it is wrong. He may not accept that, but I can tell him it is wrong.
I also want to assure him that the work that we have done on this Bill and on the regulations has been done in this city, in this country, and by Canadians.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad situation when the contents of the Bill are known by Americans before they are known by Members of the House of Commons.
In the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as well as of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I would like to address my question to the Prime Minister.
The whole country knows that freon is destroying our environment by killing off the ozone layer. We have now learned that not only is it killing our environment, it also has the potential of killing young children, children who as schoolboys or schoolgirls thrill sniff cooking oil, freon-based Pam. Why is it that freon is illegal in hair sprays, it is illegal in aerosol deodorants, but it is still legal in cooking oil in Canada?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is not in the House today, I point out that the Government, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, have given unprecedented attention to the problem of chlorofluorocarbons and the pervasive effect they are having on our atmosphere in all their forms. Canada has taken world leadership in establishing initiatives to deal with the proliferation of various chemicals based on chlorofluorocarbons, including freon. All its health effects are being examined thoroughly by the Government at this time.


PAM-REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM SHELVES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, three young people in the Ottawa area alone have died in the last four months. I would like to ask the Prime Minister again, given that his Minister of National Health and Welfare is unprepared to act for the health and safety of Canadians, give the leadership and follow the example that was taken with hair sprays and deodorants, will he demand that freon-based Pam be immediately pulled from cooking shelves across Canada so no more young Canadian children have to die?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that we regret when deaths occur whatever the circumstances. What has to be underlined here is that those deaths related to Pam use are related to Pam misuse. When products such as Pam are used as instructed they do not cause any hazard for the consumer.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
May 3, 1988


FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Minister of Communications. I want to quote a line from the memo that is in issue from the basically American industry, as the Minister said. It states: "We do have an understanding with the Department of Communications that quiet collaboration is available on the wording of supporting regulation". Is the Minister saying that that is false?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that it is false.


CONTENT OF MEMORANDUM
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, also in the memo the American industry-


Jack Wendele Shields: She said it was false, you clown.


Nelson Andrew Riis: How do you think of those catchy lines, Jack?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people do not think that selling the whole film industry to the Americans is very funny.
I want to ask the Minister this. It also states in the memo:
It is important that we will be clearly perceived as being opposed to this
approach, so as not to dislodge support from either the Canadian cultural
milieu or the opposition parties.
Is it any wonder the Canadian people do not trust this Government in the sense that here is an American industry saying that it has a deal with the Canadian Government? Not only has it got a deal, but it will turn around and enter a pro forma protest.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have said before to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that I base my responses on Canadian documents, not on American documents. If the NDP wants to use American documents, I am sure that there are many openings, many avenues. The Hon. Member can go to the American Embassy. He can go to any number of places to get them.
When we are dealing with Canadian industries we should be basing it on Canadian facts, figures, and statistics. Nothing is more important-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Show us the Bill!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -than the fact that this year the Canadian film industry, with the help of Telefilm financing, has been winning prize after prize in national and international film festivals. That is the kind of work that we have been supporting as a Government.
Oral Questions
Un Zoo la Nuit won top prizes, as did I've Heard the Mermaids Singing. These are the kinds of films into which we have been putting our money.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-DELIVERY OF REASONABLY PRICED ELECTRICITY
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Several weeks ago I raised the issue of the long-standing concern of Prince Edward Islanders, namely, a secure, long term, reasonably priced supply of electrical energy. I know that negotiations have been ongoing between Quebec, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island regarding this issue.
Can the Minister inform the House and the residents of P.E.I. what progress has been made for the delivery of reasonably priced electricity to P.E.I.?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, monitoring very carefully the negotiations that are now taking place between Hydro-Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. The solution to the problem of electric power rates in Prince Edward Island lies, first and foremost, in long-term contracts that would stabilize prices, and that is why the present negotiations are so important. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa is not directly involved in these negotiations, since they are taking place between the utilities, the parties concerned. However, we are keeping a very close watch on the situation, and we have the firm conviction that with the co-operation of all involved, the people of Prince Edward Island will finally have a long-term solution that is in their best interests.


POSITION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. What efforts has the federal Government made on behalf of P.E.I. to ensure that Quebec and New Brunswick can come to a negotiated compromise and therefore deliver reasonably priced electricity to P.E.I.?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, we have urged the utilities to negotiate amongst themselves because that is the level at which the decisions are made. Second, as the Minister responsible for Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa, I have had several meetings with my colleagues in Quebec and

May 3, 1988
Oral Questions
Prince Edward Island, and I intend to continue those meetings, which will also include my colleagues in New Brunswick.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The British Columbia Government has just authorized Diamond Resources to begin drilling and exploration for minerals in the Salmon River watershed, a pristine wilderness within the South Moresby National Park Reserve presently under negotiation.
What is the Government doing to stop this insane decision and to protect South Moresby?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to respond to this question on behalf of the Minister of the Environment.
If the Hon. Member would look at the Memorandum of Understanding which was entered into between Canada and British Columbia in July of last year, it clearly indicates that areas which are presently the subject of existing mining claims, which have not been under development, are excluded from the area designated as a national park reserve.
This Government is proud of the decision to recognize in perpetuity the precious values that South Moresby Island represents by declaring a national park. We have taken provisions in concert with the Government of the Province of British Columbia to preserve that area in that fashion.
I repeat, the areas where this particular mining claim is being pursued, are not contained within the area designated as park reserve at this time.


POSITION OF HAIDA PEOPLE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure I would be as proud as the Minister for having arrived at an agreement which excludes mineral rights and exploration. It is a shame that they did. The agreement should have excluded such rights in a manner such as to protect the integrity of this pristine area.
Since the Haida people are quoted as having decided to put their lives on the line to stop the mining, what will the Government of Canada do to match this type of commitment?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, to hear the Hon. Member speak, one might expect that he would wish all of British Columbia or all of Canada to be placed in a national park reserve.
In fact the two Governments were very conscious of the existence of pre-existing mining claims in the area of South Moresby Island. For that reason, in May of last year the Government of British Columbia placed a moratorium on the issuance of any further claims. The number of mining claims on the Queen Charlottes has dropped from 25 per cent to 8 per cent in the last several years. These areas are excluded from the area designated as a national park reserve. Any activity on those lands will be subject to provincial and federal environmental legislation.


NATIONAL PARK RESERVE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who was vitally involved in the negotiations to establish the national park reserve at South Moresby. Canadians cheered when that happened thinking that the land was going to be saved from logging. People think that perhaps they cheered too soon, if that same land is now going to be wrecked by mining.
Does the Prime Minister not agree that mining is totally inconsistent with a national park reserve, that it is necessary to bring these other areas under the terms of that, that the Memorandum of Understanding very clearly states that British Columbia will hand over all of these rights, that the compensation will be paid indeed, but that we need to have the national park reserve as one which really is a national park reserve and is not a place where mining is going to take place, with or without that type of gerrymandering?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the arrangement worked out between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia represented a very significant advance in the area of environmental protection. 1 think that it was quite properly encouraged and celebrated by all Members of the House.
The terms and provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding, and I believe that very distinguished representatives of the New Democratic Party were there and I was grateful for their presence at that time, were widely known and appreciated. We have insisted vigorously upon the enforcement of each and every one of those provisions. We shall continue to do so.
The Government of Canada's position was very clear from the beginning, and remains that way today. We are unaware of anything that has taken place inconsistent with the fundamental provisions of the undertaking that we signed.


NATIONAL PARKS POLICY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would comment on the national parks policy which very clearly states: "Commercial exploration, extraction or development of natural resources which exists prior to the establishment of a new national park will be terminated before..." the establishment.

May 3, 1988

The other provision in the national parks policy is: "The Government of Canada will own all land and resources within national parks".
Is it not an absurd situation where the boundaries are simply changed a little to allow for mining within a national park? In effect, is this not doing the same thing as the British Columbia Government is doing in Strathcona Park? Is this not entirely contrary to the the spirit of having a national park system? Will he agree to that and act on it?


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the Minister of Fisheries, has responded on behalf of the Government. I have already indicated to my hon. friend that we viewed the South Moresby agreement as a most important one. It is a very significant milestone in the evolution of Canada's policy in this important area.
We gave very serious and costly undertakings to the Government of British Columbia to ensure that this be achieved. We insist upon the integral respect of that agreement. We are unaware of anything at variance with the fundamental provisions of that agreement.
Given the importance of this, I will be happy to look at the question my hon. friend raises, examine it very carefully to ensure that there is nothing inconsistent with government policy, and report back to her and to the House, because this has been a matter of great national interest.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the Members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Honourable James R. Thompson, Governor of the State of Illinois.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism and Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Oral Questions
I have in my hand a telegram which 1 received from Chief Joe Mathias of British Columbia, Vice-Chief, Assembly of First Nations. In the telegram, Chief Mathias states:
On April 20, 1988 the Minister of Indian Affairs signed a 5 year master
tuition agreement between the federal Government and the Province of British
Columbia. This was done despite the clear and explicit objections of the Indian
people in B.C.
I would ask the Minister of State for Indian Affairs to explain to the House, as clearly and precisely as possible, why the Minister of Indian Affairs signed such an agreement, an agreement that is to be in effect for a full five years, contrary to the strongly stated wishes of the Indian people of British Columbia.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that, historically, the federal Government has accepted financial responsibility for Indian students attending off-reserve schools.
The current federal-B.C. agreement on education provides, for the first time, for the development of local level tuition agreements between Indian bands and provincial school districts, something which was not available under the predecessor agreement. The existence of this provision, which itself is an outcome of the consultation that took place with Indian leaders in B.C., supports Indian control of Indian education, and as such is a step in the right direction.


LOCAL CONTROL OF INDIAN EDUCATION-GOVERNMENT POLICY
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the junior Minister that he does not know what he is talking about. If he looks at Sections 6 and 12 of that agreement, he will know that such a locally controlled agreement is only possible where the local trustees agree and where Canada and B.C. agree, and he will also know that they may or may not accept such an agreement.
Mr. Speaker, local Indian control of Indian education has been the policy of the federal Government since 1973. It has now been shattered.
I would ask this Minister to stand in this House and admit, once and for all, that the promises of self-government, a policy which this Government claims to follow, is nothing but a sham and an empty pretence.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, given the record of past Liberal Governments when it comes to self-government for the Indian people, certainly when members of the Liberal Party talk about a "sham" they know what they are talking about.
The Hon. Member is talking about Indian students who attend provincial schools, and in that respect there is an

May 3, 1988
Oral Questions
agreement as between the federal Government and the provinces whereby the federal Government reimburses to the province the per capita costs in relation to the education of such students.
The objective of the agreement in question is to shift more control in that respect to the local Indian band.


AIDS DISEASE-COST OF AZT DRUG-SITUATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister aware that while people across the country are dying from AIDS, British Columbia is the only province that refuses to pay the total cost of AZT, which is the only drug available to treat those suffering from this dreadful disease?
Given the fact that all other provinces have agreed to provide this drug free of charge to those suffering from AIDS, and given the fact that one year ago in this House the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that AZT should be covered under our universal health care system, I would ask that the Prime Minister personally contact the Premier of B.C. to request that AZT be made available free of charge to AIDS patients in that province.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is out of the country at the moment. Certainly I shall get in touch with him on an urgent basis to inquire into this matter.
The Hon. Member raises a very important matter, one that requires a compassionate response, and as such I will be happy to look into it immediately and advise her.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East, on a supplementary.


FUNDING OF FEDERAL CENTRE FOR AIDS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his response and for his assistance on this urgent matter. Hopefully, he will make inquiries of the Premier of British Columbia in this regard.
I would also ask the Prime Minister to inform the House as to when the Federal Centre for AIDS, which is being starved for funds, will receive the $139 million which was requested of Cabinet. It is funding which is urgently needed for this essential service.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of any obstacle to the normal progression of that request through the approval process. The very
important commitment made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, both in terms of research and care in this important area, will be respected fully. We view this as a most important societal problem, and one deserving of urgent action and the urgent devotion of national resources.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has made significant statements and commitments in this respect in the House of Commons, and I can say, on behalf of the Government, that all such statements and commitments will be respected.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the answer the Minister of Labour gave to my colleague regarding the use of freon in Pam. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the policy he described of not insisting that freon be removed from Pam.
We know already that three young children have died from the effects of inhaling freon.
The Minister has given the Government's rationale for its policy of not insisting on its removal, that being that the product is not dangerous when used as it should be.
Well, children do not know that, obviously. They see it in the kitchen, and they assume that it can be used without mortal danger, in a way that the product label describes- which many of them, of course, cannot read.


An Hon. Member:: Even soap suds are dangerous when not used properly!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We have seen the results of the present policy. Surely the Minister realizes that it is a policy that has failed. In the light of what has happened, I would again ask the Minister to reconsider the policy in respect of the use of freon in Pam.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the point has to be made that the deaths in question came about as a result of the misuse of a product which, when used properly, would not necessarily cause harm to the user.


An Hon. Member:: It kills the ozone layer.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Educational programs emphasizing the danger of misuse and abuse of this product will be encouraged.


YOUNG CHILDREN-MINISTER'S POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, although the United States is not as advanced as we are in this respect, it is their policy to remove freon from Pam. Doesn't the Minister

*HHHIHHHIHHHmH
May 3, 1988

realize that the program he is suggesting will not work with young children like those who were killed by this product?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I think we should remember that the accident in this case was caused by misuse of a product-if the Hon. Member would care to listen, I will finish my sentence- and if the product is used according to the instructions on the container, there should be no risk of harm for the consumer. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we will start a campaign to increase public awareness, and we hope that parents will help by telling their children about the dangers involved, as they generally do as responsible parents.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it has to do with the increased concern on the part of a number of Canadians with respect to the situation in Ethiopia and the feeling that the Canadian Government has come to the point where it needs to review the uncritical attitude which it appears to have toward the Ethiopian Government and some of the measures that Government has taken recently.
Is the policy of the Government of Canada with respect to the Government of Ethiopia under any kind of review, and does the Minister have anything to tell the House at this time in that regard?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for raising these concerns about the deplorable situation existing in Ethiopia at the present time.
We have indicated on several occasions that the war in Ethiopia makes it extremely difficult to deliver food to the people behind rebel lines.
We have actively endorsed certain steps taken by donor countries and the mission undertaken by the Assistant Secretary-General of United Nations to ask the Ethiopian government to allow international organizations to return to the areas in question and deliver food to the people who are in need.
We are now looking at other possibilities as well, and I can assure the Hon. Member that we are very much concerned about the present situation and that we are considering various options for getting food to the people who need it.
Oral Questions


NEED FOR FOOD TO REACH STARVING PEOPLE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to say to the House, and through this House to the Government of Ethiopia and to others that are concerned, that there is a place where Canada will draw the line, where Canada will say that the humanitarian need for food to get to starving people, regardless of the political circumstances, is paramount in Canadian policy. I would like to know where that line is.
A great many Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about the apparently uncritical relationship between Canadian government policy and the actions of the regime in Ethiopia.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has answered the substance of the question with regard to Ethiopia. There is not an uncritical approach on the part of the Government of Canada. We are very much concerned about developments in that country.
The Hon. Member is the spokesperson for his Party on foreign policy. If there are specific changes that he would want to recommend to me or to my colleague with respect to policy affecting Ethiopia, I hope he would do that.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question of Question Period, a single question from the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Layton, the main contractor for the TRUMP Program, has given the Minister the bids submitted by Marine Industries on the contracts for the destroyers Athabaska and Huron.
Could the Minister inform the House whether Marine Industries has been awarded the contract for the refit, as the Prime Minister promised when he said that Quebec shipyards would have their fair share?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, this issue is currently under evaluation. As the Hon. Member will know, we are in the process of opening up even

May 3, 1988
Time Allocation
further the procurement process in Supply and Services in such a way that Canadians, and particularly Canadian businesses and suppliers, will know ahead of time of the process within Supply and Services. As soon as this process is dealt with, the announcement will be made in due course.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate that since an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 115 and 116 with respect to an allocation of time for the third reading of Bill C-l 13,1 therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 117, give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allocating a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the third reading stage of the said Bill.
To be fair, I want to point out that this filibuster against western Canada is being carried out by the NDP and not by the Liberals. We had hoped to send the western diversification Bill to the Senate today for speedy passage. Under those circumstances, we will now be calling Bill C-89, an Act to compensate victims of crime.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that after seven hours of debate at third reading stage, I feel we are not prolonging debate. We have two or three more speakers and are quite prepared to wrap this up expeditiously. I do not think it is necessary for the Government to prolong the debate on western diversification by having time allocation and a portion of the day set aside for discussion of that. I would like to think that we could perhaps wrap this up later today and get on with the other business of the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I was consulted by the Government House Leader. I told him we had no speakers and were willing to have the vote now and that we would support the legislation. I am happy that he brought to the attention of the House the fact that indeed we are not obstructing this Bill.
I find it somewhat unusual, however, that the Minister would invoke that Standing Order, because for my part I think there is co-operation on all sides.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in this session of Parliament and in the last session of Parliament, the only Bill that took more time at third reading was Bill C-22, the amendments to the Patent Act. I do not understand, nor do the rest of my
colleagues, why the New Democratic Party is blocking this legislation which will benefit western Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps while the House deals with Bill C-89, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) could get together.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think what concerns us and why we felt it appropriate to have some debate was that after the Government cut out $3 billion annually from the regional development programs, it is important that the initiative on the diversification of the western economy receive thorough debate in order to make it the best piece of legislation possible. That is what we are committed to and that is what we want to see done. That is why I say that we should wrap this up expeditiously later on today so that we may get on with other important pieces of legislation.

[ Translation]


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime), be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is once again an honour to rise in this House to consider legislation which addresses the needs of those Canadians who are often the forgotten persons in our criminal justice system-victims of crime.
The legislative proposals presented in Bill C-89 represent concrete measures sought by and on behalf of crime victims. They will enhance the capacity of the criminal justice system to fairly respond to the special circumstances of victims of crime.

Since second reading of this Bill, I am pleased to advise the Members of the House that, in furtherance of the spirit of federal-provincial co-operation, a statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime which will serve to promote access to justice, fair treatment and provision of assistance to victims of crime has been adopted by federal, provincial and territorial Ministers responsible for criminal justice.
The legislative committee reviewing Bill C-89 has now considered these proposals and presented its report to the House. I would like to thank the members of the committee for the due diligence and utmost dispatch they have displayed in reviewing this important piece of legislation.
In summary, the amendments to the Criminal Code presented in the Bill will create a victim fine surcharge, will allow input by the victim at the time of sentencing through the
May 3, 1988

use of victim impact statements, will allow the use of photographs and affidavit evidence to provide for the early and prompt return of recovered property to the victim, will require the court to consider restitution in all appropriate cases and will extend the ban on publication of the identity of victims and witnesses of sexual and extortion offences.
I would like to highlight one particular amendment to the Bill which was adopted by the legislative committee. Victims have long expressed the view that the impact of a crime upon them should be taken into consideration by the court at the time of sentencing. In certain cases, however, the victim of an offence is unable to present a victim impact statement; if the victim is deceased or, by reason of age or infirmity, incapable of providing such a statement.
For this reason, the legislative committee added a definition of "victim" to the victim impact statement provisions of the Bill to ensure that such statements can be made by family members and others where the direct victim is dead, ill, or otherwise incapable of making a statement. This will enable the introduction of victim impact statements by those closely connected to and affected by the commission of the offence, for example, families of homicide victims, child victims, and disabled victims.
The proposals presented in Bill C-89 enhance and strengthen the current restitution provisions in the Criminal Code. Victims of crime have stressed the need to increase the opportunities for a victim to receive financial reparation for the losses resulting from the criminal activity. In addition, the committee adopted a number of amendments to the Bill relating to enforcement of the proposed restitution provisions. These amendments will further serve to ensure that restitution orders are satisfied by the offender.
Finally, I would like to refer to one additional amendment adopted by the committee. That amendment will add the offence of robbery to the procedures dealing with photographic evidence outlined in Section 446.3, so that these victims may also have the benefit of prompt return of property. In this way, they will be subject to less inconvenience before and during any court proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am most heartened by the support that has been voiced for the principles presented in this Bill-by victims' groups, the Canadian public, Members of all parties, the various witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee and the committee Members themselves.
I believe that we have a common goal-to make the criminal trial and sentencing process more responsive and sensitive to the special needs of victims of crime, so that no further victimization is suffered through their involvement with the criminal justice system.
Criminal Code
To this end, I urge the Members of this House to allow the passage of Bill C-89 so that we may move closer to ensuring that justice for victims of crime becomes a reality.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this important Bill adopted on third reading because it really is a step forward for victims in Canada. I would also like to say that I was very pleased with our work done in committee that the Minister just mentioned. I had many amendments. I suggested eight, nine or ten amendments and finally some were adopted. I accept them with an open mind; the work we do in committee is much more important.

We did a lot in the committee, and I think at least four or five of my amendments were adopted. In fact, the difficult amendment we voted on last night was a result of my French being not as good as I thought it was and the necessity to correct at report stage what I thought was a pretty good translation of one of my amendments. I want to apologize to the Minister for not putting forward the French text in my amendment in better form.

Every amendment we make here in the House is said to cost $4,500. That shows that if as much had been spent on my French training, the cost of this amendment might have been saved. But in any case, the Committee was really moved by a desire to improve the legislation.

Regrettably, I cannot say this is an entirely good news Bill because there is a lot more that could have been done for victims. If I can reminisce, I remember that the plight of the victim, the injustice to the victim in the criminal justice system, was very little recognized until recently. I had the honour of being the first Minister of the Government of Canada to call a conference to look at the question of victims' rights in the criminal justice system, way back in 1981. The meeting was held at the Park Plaza Hotel in Toronto. I am a lawyer, my experience was in the courts with people who had grievances against the criminal justice system, and all of us who attended that conference had our eyes opened with respect to a system that we knew very well from a point of view that, until that time, it seems, had never been fully appreciated.
We were told how the victim, having suffered from the crime, can then suffer from the criminal justice system itself, in some cases worse than at the hands of the criminal. I am thinking of the delay in getting property back while a trial carries on for a year or, in some cases, more than two years. I am thinking about the problems of coming to court to testify, only to find that the case has been remanded without notice. People have taken time off work, gotten babysitters, made other arrangements and so on, and then were not given notice of the situation.
These grievances poured forth by the hour at the meeting, and since then a number of steps have been taken to make the

May 3, 1988
Criminal Code
criminal justice system more responsive. What 1 regret is that the Government had the opportunity to do a great deal more for victims but did not do it.
First, we have to recognize that the remedies for victims that are found in this Bill only apply in cases where an accused is found and convicted. We know that the vast majority of attackers are never caught and convicted. Yet the losses suffered by the victims are real. They are victims of crime and even with this Bill the criminal justice system does nothing for them.
I visualized and would have liked to see a foresighted Government coming up with some type of system like workmen's compensation or unemployment insurance or some of the other grand visions we have had in our country in the past which have worked to compensate the victim. Whether the criminal is ever apprehended or convicted, we need a larger vision of the loss and the way in which all of us as a society can be insurers of that loss.
Often if the criminal is caught under this system there will only be compensation where the criminal can afford to pay. This is another remarkable thing. These measures are welcome and I support them, but if the accused when convicted does not have any money-and I think if someone examines a crosssection of criminals who are convicted, not many of them are people of means-then the victim is not compensated. Again, I would have liked to have seen a larger system that provided for some type of balancing so that there would be compensation in court cases where the court ordered it, whether or not the accused was able to pay.
It is also a limitation of this legislation that we keep narrowing the amount of relief that we are getting out of it. When you narrow it down to the accused who are caught and convicted and can afford to pay, there is an even greater narrowing of the relief available to victims who, if I can put it this way, are lucky enough to have found themselves in that situation through the criminal justice system that they are compensated for readily ascertainable damages such as loss of income or property. However, they are not compensated for pain and suffering which may have resulted from the crime.
Pain and suffering is a ground upon which compensation can be achieved by a victim, but in such a case the victim must start a private civil action against the convicted person for compensation for pain and suffering. Why not roll it into the criminal procedure? There are lots of ways to do this. In committee I and other Members suggested ways in which we could do better by victims through the criminal justice system than the measly and very tight solutions being proposed by the Conservative Government.
Further, most crime victims will still have to resort to provincial compensation boards. There are, in almost every province, boards set up which provide relief for victims who cannot get compensation directly from the criminal. However,
the amounts paid in each province for exactly the same type of loss differ widely. In this legislation the Government provides a new source of funds for the provincial compensation boards, and that is the tax that will be levied on fines and paid to provinces.
However, I object-I objected in committee, and the Official Opposition objects-to not having a national standard applied. We would hope that a province would be bound to use the money it receives under this program from the federal Government to compensate victims. However, there is no such limitation contained in the legislation. A province is free to take the money but is not compelled to use it for compensating victims.
This would have been a perfect opportunity to establish a new important national standard with money provided by the federal Government out of this limited but very real source of funds for compensating victims. In his intervention the Minister indicated a little bit of progress, and I want to note that. He said that a federal-provincial conference has been held and that some voluntary national standards have been developed. That is fine by me, I do not say that it has to be legislated or contractual. However, how effective will it be? The standards contained in that statement are general.
I would have liked to have seen the federal Government committed to trying to improve compensation for victims, the number of victims who receive compensation, and the types of losses for which compensation is available. All of this could have been done and I regret very much that it was not.
I want to refer to the amendment which the Minister signalled in particular in his remarks. I proposed an amendment in committee to deal with the problem of a victim impact statement under the preceding law. There was a case in British Columbia which was brought to the attention of my leader, the Member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Turner), by the Jacobson family which was the family concerned.
In that particular case the court refused a victim impact statement for the ironic reason that the victim had been killed and was not, therefore, able to put in a statement. The court felt unable to accept a victim impact statement from another member of the family even though other members of the family suffered from that particular crime.
I proposed an amendment which would cover that situation and permit the court to receive a victim impact statement, from a sponsoring relative. When I moved that statement a funny thing happened in the committee. I see the Parliamentary Secretary here and he will remember this because he was involved in it. Suddenly, from a briefcase behind the witness table, a form of amendment was produced which would cover this situation. On behalf of the Government an amendment was proposed to deal with this situation.
I resent such a way of achieving a reform. The Parliamentary Secretary is here and he can set the record straight if he disagrees with me, but the Government was sitting there with
May 3, 1988

this improvement on the status of victims in the briefcase. If some opposition Member raised it, a government amendment on the subject would be brought forward, but if no opposition Member raised it the amendment would not be brought forward and this particular improvement to the legislation would not have been made.
I wonder what else there is in the Government's briefcase. I wonder whether, if we had been able to spend more time and effort, the Government would have done even more for victims than it did. The Government is not taking a reformist approach. It is very conservative, with a small c, to be dragged into bringing forward a reform like this which, in the City of Vancouver, in the constituency of my leader, means something. It covers a wrong which was revealed in an actual criminal procedure.
Since I talked about the research, I want to express my gratitude to the tremendous number of groups that came forward with amendments. They appeared before the committee and made very good suggestions. Allan Kaufman of my office, who is a lawyer called to the bar of Manitoba, was able to draft a lot of the amendments which are brought forward, many of which were accepted. I want to signal his efforts which were very much appreciated. He is heading, in the next two days, to Manitoba to seek a Liberal nomination in the Winnipeg area. The work which he did on this legislation in itself demonstrates a very considerable ability which I hope will commend itself to people in Winnipeg.
In conclusion, I regret the fact that three of the amendments in particular which I proposed and are on the committee record were not accepted. I think the Government recognizes that they would have been very significant improvements in the situation of victims in the criminal justice system. They were rejected without very much in the way of a solid explanation by the Government.
I hope there will be another day on this Bill. I commend it to our colleagues in the Senate. I hope that they will look at some or all of the amendments proposed by us in committee. I look forward to seeing the Bill come into force. I expect that some of the shortcomings of the legislation will be demonstrated as the legislation comes in.

Thus we will have the benefits and the reforms of the legislation and we will see what still needs to be done and what further improvements need to be made. It is regrettable that with the Conservatives, improvements come very slowly and only after pressure from the people, interest groups and the two Opposition parties. But I still hope that we will be able to review the situation of victims in the very near future in order to improve it further.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak on third reading of this Bill. The
Criminal Code
legislation was introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on November 5, 1987; got second reading in this House on November 19, 1987; was in committee from December until March; and was reported back to the House with amendments on March 30, 1988. Therefore, the Bill has moved along.
The New Democratic Party supports this Bill in principle. Indeed, we have tried to facilitate its speedy passage to committee with only one speaker per Party in second reading. Because of the Government's failure to consult with the Opposition before scheduling debate on Bill C-89 on Friday, April 29, we did not give unanimous consent to proceed directly from report stage to third reading. However, we are most certainly co-operating now in the speedy consideration of the Bill at third reading stage.
I believe there are a few of my caucus colleagues who wish to speak to the Bill because it is not often that we have the opportunity to consider in the House a Bill such as this, which deals with the victims of crime.
I want to pay tribute to Roland Penner, the former Attorney General of Manitoba who lost his seat in the recent election. He pioneered this kind of legislation when, in 1986, the Manitoba Government was one of the leaders of Governments in the world that were prepared to assist the victims of crime. It takes a lot of courage to pioneer such a Bill, but he had enough courage to put it through the Manitoba Legislature. He had enough courage to put through the sexual orientation Bill which Quebec and Ontario have also passed but the federal Government so far has been afraid to touch. I want to pay special tribute to Mr. Penner for his Bill on victims of crime.
Each year in Canada some 700 families are victimized by murder; 2,500 people lose a family member due to a drunk driver, and over 100,000 people suffer some emotional trauma from crime. Victims of crime often suffer twice: first from the crime, then they suffer from a lack of assistance and support in getting their property returned quickly.
It has been said in the House that victims suffer from crime and then suffer from the criminal justice system. I am a former Crown attorney from Vancouver and was a defence counsel for a few years. I value our criminal justice system and believe that it is one of the best in the world. However, I wish we had done more for the victims of crime. I think of witnesses who had to suffer through court cases and victims to whom not much attention or respect was paid.
If I have any regret, I suppose it is that we did not give enough respect and assistance to the victims. I am pleased that this Bill will change that.
We must also concentrate on the prevention of crime. I am pleased to see the advent of such things as Neighbourhood Watch programs, community and urban planning to ensure the

May 3, 1988
Criminal Code
sense of community responsibility that can reduce crime, as well as alcohol and drug program funding, which is so important, especially with respect to programs dealing with impaired driving. There is funding for programs to assist mentally ill and those with learning disabilities.
We must also concentrate on ways to attack the root causes of crime, including poverty, homelessness and unemployment. I regret that in a society as rich as ours there are still homeless people even in Metropolitan Toronto, which is booming.
We have assisted victims of physical and sexual abuse. We are teaching how to deal with violence, including violence in the media. We are moving toward stronger gun control. I believe all these measures will help to reduce crime.
While Canada has a relatively low crime rate, it still exists and there is much to do to attack it. There are serious inadequacies in our legal aid system, which should also be addressed.
I believe we should have a different definition for crime. In this respect, let me refer to a speech by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), the NDP justice critic. During his speech at second reading of this Bill in the House on November 19, 1987, he gave a very interesting definition of victims of crime. He said, as reported at page 10981 of Hansard:
I want to note that the definition of victims of crime is far too narrow. I suggest that we examine the nature of victimization in our society today. When we do that examination, we will see that there are many victims who are left uncompensated by this Bill. What are some of the examples of that, Madam Speaker? The victims of corporate crime and white collar crime are not compensated by this legislation. The victims of a corporation that pollutes and destroys the environment, that poisons a lake or river and victimizes people in a community, receive no assistance from this legislation. The victims of a corporation which in its greed for profit produces unsafe and hazardous goods resulting in injury or death receive no compensation whatsoever.
A corporation or a mine, which is not prepared to take the basic steps to protect the health and safety of men and women who work in a mine who, as a result, experience injury or death, will not be required to pay any restitution under the terms of this legislation. The crimes of multinational corporations in the Third World and elsewhere are not dealt with by this legislation. Racially motivated crimes and other organizational crime is left untouched. I hope the Government will recognize that there are victims in this area as well.
Maybe that broader definition can be used in future legislation. After the second reading debate on the principle of this Bill, it proceeded to committee consideration where the real action takes place. Several witnesses appeared before the legislative committee dealing with this Bill, and the committee received many written representations.
The submissions to the committee focused on three principle areas, all of which the NDP responded to by amendments that were defeated by the Conservative members of the committee. I would like to outline briefly the three key areas in which the NDP proposed amendments. Perhaps the Government will consider these amendments in the future.
The first area is victim-offender reconciliation programs. This was a major area of concern for witnesses who appeared before the committee and groups who submitted briefs. It was proposed that judges should have the option of accepting as the
basis of restitution to a victim of crime an amount arrived at following mediation between the victim and the offender. This amendment had very strong support from those who made the submissions to the committee. The Government should be criticized for rejecting this suggestion.
Some of the groups which provided written submissions include Victims of Violence from Edmonton, Alberta, and one group from the Minister's own riding in Saskatchewan.
Amendments were also moved to ensure that funds raised by victims' surcharge would be directed to new programs and would not simply go into general revenues. We believe that these funds should not be used to supplant existing victims' programs in the provinces or indeed used in other areas. There is concern that the Bill as it is presently worded allows the province to take federal money and spend it without any assurance that new programs for victims of crimes will be created. For example, it could go into existing criminal injuries compensation programs which come under provincial jurisdiction.
Professor Irvin Waller is a leading expert on victims in Canada and a Professor of Criminology at the University of Ottawa. He raised strong concerns about this point. Let me explain, because we are very familiar with this in British Columbia. The federal Government gives money to the province, and the province blacktops a road or puts it into a coal project in northern British Columbia. It may not be quite so gross as in those cases, but the province could take the money and put it into existing programs for aid to victims of crime, and there is very limited aid in a province. What would happen, of course, is that the good works in this Bill, the idea in this Bill to compensate victims, would be virtually dissipated. That is why we proposed these amendments to restrict the provinces and we are sorry the Government did not accept them.
The third area is that funds should be dispersed consistent with the federal-provincial statement of principles. At present there are very uneven standards for programs for victims of crime across Canada. This is understandable because it is a fairly new concept of the Government helping the victims. The normal concept in common law was that the victim sued privately. Often, of course, it is very hard to get money out of those people who perpetuate a crime. We proposed an amendment to ensure that funds raised by the fine surcharge in this Bill should be dispersed in accordance with the statement of principles for victims of crime, which was agreed upon in March, 1988 between the federal and provincial Ministers of Justice. Again, I regret to say, the committee rejected this amendment.
I just want to put the principles on record in my remaining time, so that the Hon. Minister of Justice will make it an even better Bill the next time since he agreed to them with his provincial Attorneys General. I hope they will find some way
May 3, 1988

of getting these principles up front. Funds should be dispersed in a manner consistent with the following principles: First, victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and with respect for their dignity and privacy and should suffer the minimum of necessary inconvenience from their involvement with the criminal justice system. I have already told Members about my experience as a Crown Attorney and as a defence counsel. Looking back, I think that while we had a fair system, we could have improved the way in which we treated victims and witnesses. That is the "people" part of the justice system, and it is something worth looking at.
Second, victims should receive, through formal and informal procedures, prompt and fair redress for the harm which they have suffered.
Third, information regarding remedies and the mechanisms to obtain them should be made available to victims promptly. It is useless to have this legislation if no one knows about it or how to take advantage of it. Fourth, information should be made available to victims about their participation in criminal proceedings and the scheduling, progress and ultimate disposition of the proceedings. Many people who are victims or witnesses will ask what happened. They are told the Crown stayed the charge or the accused pleaded guilty and the original charge was dropped and they were charged with another charge. Victims would not even know about that. They are not even considered important in the system.
Fifth, the views and concerns of victims should be ascertained and the appropriate assistance provided throughout the criminal process. If the Crown would just consult with the victim where the accused intends to plead guilty and there will be a sentence, that is a help to a victim of a crime, because they will feel they are part of the justice process and are receiving justice for the wrong done to them.
Sixth, where the personal interests of the victim are affected, the views and concerns of the victim should be brought to the attention of the court, where appropriate and consistent with criminal law and procedure. In other words, it should not be just the judge and prosecutor. If possible, the victim should get a chance to express his or her opinion to the judge before sentencing.
Seventh, measures should be taken, when necessary, to ensure the safety of victims and their families and to protect them from intimidation and retaliation. I think that speaks for itself.
Eighth, enhanced training should be made available to sensitize criminal justice personnel to the needs and concerns of victims, and guidelines developed, where appropriate, for this purpose. Again, that is humanizing the system of justice.
Ninth, victims should be informed of the availability of health and social services and other relevant assistance so that they might continue to receive the necessary medical, psychological and social assistance through existing programs and
Criminal Code
services. I recall the programs for women who have suffered violent assault such as rapes.
Ten, victims should report the crime and co-operate with law enforcement authorities. So there is an obligation on behalf of the victim.
Those are some important amendments that could have been included in the Bill. By and large, as I said, we in the New Democratic Party support the Bill. We have said that on a number of occasions. I will just conclude by saying that some two thousand and five years ago, the great Athenian, the Greek legislator Solon, said that there can be no justice until those of us who are unaffected by crime become as indignant as those who are. For too long victims have been forgotten by those in the criminal justice system. This has to stop. This legislation is long overdue and I am pleased to support it in principle.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is also with pleasure that I rise to speak in support of this legislation. As the preceding speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), I have experience in the criminal justice system, not as a Crown prosecutor, but as a defence counsel, for a number of years. One thing, I suppose, is obvious to anyone involved in the criminal justice system, and that is that in the course of events there are essentially two players or two sides. On the one hand there is the Crown prosecutor and the law officers of the Crown who represent Her Majesty the Queen and whose purpose is to prosecute offences. The concerns of the Crown attorney are to ensure that the proof is available, that he or she has sufficient evidence to present to the court so that it is aware of all the legal implications, and that witnesses are available at a particular time.
All of those things go together in ensuring that all of the evidence is put before the court in such a way as to convince the court beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed and it has been committed by the person against whom the charge is laid.
Quite often in a very busy court system, although this is less true at the higher levels of courts, but certainly at the provincial court level where 95 per cent or more of the crimes in this country are tried, there is a very great crush in terms of numbers of offences, numbers of accused and numbers of witnesses involved. I think it is clear to anyone who has practised law that the prosecution side of the justice system is taken by someone not representing the victim, but the justice system, Her Majesty the Queen. On the other side of the equation is the accused and the representative of the accused. The job of the representative is to ensure that the individual who is accused is given a proper defence. A person ought not be be convicted of any crime unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that it was committed by that particular accused. That is the adversarial system that has grown up over the last 700 or 800 years from the British justice system we inherited, and I hope improved on, in this country.

May 3, 1988
Criminal Code
What is obvious, as I mentioned, to those who have been in the practice of law is that in the adversarial system there is no one set up to represent the victim, the victim's family or the witnesses. Indeed, one can rightfully say that there is no victim until there is in fact a conviction. That side of the justice system has to continue unaltered, in a sense, because one cannot assume that, because an allegation has been made, there is indeed a victim from the beginning of the trial process. What there is, I suppose, is a complaint from the beginning. Once a conviction is entered there is a person who is a criminal and a person who is a victim.
While we all have compassion for the victims of crime, we have to understand that the process takes place in the context of a trial, a process which attempts to discover whether indeed a crime has been committed and whether the person charged with the crime is the person who is guilty of it. Inevitably, that process has left out complainants, the ones who are the victims of crimes proven to have been committed. We see them every day as witnesses in courts. We see them being told, quite often after the fact, why it is that they have to come back another day, or why it is that the trial has not gone ahead on the particular day on which they have been called, often without explanation as to what is going on. Frankly, it is often difficult to explain in detail why a particular trial has to be postponed, or why a trial cannot continue to its completion on a particular day. However, that effort has to be made. It is important that there be a concentration of effort by, in particular, Crown counsel to ensure that the victims of crime, the witnesses who are called before the courts, are aware of the role that they play and of their importance in co-operating with the authorities.
Prior to my election I saw an awareness by the courts and by the judges of that concern. They took the time to explain to witnesses and to complainants how the court system works and the importance of their co-operation. They are told about the fact that sometimes it is an inconvenience to come back and forth. They suffer the loss of property which may be used in evidence for a period of time. These are difficult matters to explain to someone who does not know the intricacies of proof and the requirements of proof in a criminal case.
1 welcome the streamlining of some of the activities contained in this Bill. For example, with respect to a theft, if someone broke into your home, Mr. Speaker, and stole a stereo, a TV set or a VCR, there is no reason why that item ought to remain in police custody for six months or longer to prove that, yes, it is the VCR that was stolen from your house. However, that has been a factor in numerous cases in which property was stolen and the evidence happens to be or has to be kept by the justice system in order to be used as evidence to prove that in fact it was stolen.
The ability in this legislation to streamline that process and to allow the return of those goods makes the process more reasonable. It is now possible for a photograph to be taken of
the goods and to allow that photograph to be used in evidence. All these matters streamline the process and make it more reasonable and practical. Yet it still preserves the rights of an accused person to be able to know what evidence there is against him. That has not been lost in this particular provision of the Bill.
Further, there are provisions for the taking of affidavits to verify ownership and requirements for reasonable notice to be given to an accused or to the counsel of the accused with respect to the contents of an affidavit. For example, if a victim of a break-in loses a video tape recorder and wants to make wild claims that he also lost a TV set, a valuable diamond watch and some other things, particularly if he wants to claim compensation for them under other parts of the Bill, then that can be brought to the attention of an accused person. Further, that person can be brought before the court, be cross-examined and be required to prove in the ordinary way that the goods as indicated were stolen. Again, I am commenting on some favourable aspects of the Bill.
With respect to determining restitution, the Bill requires that there be an ability to pay on behalf of an accused. If someone in the Chamber wanted to go out to commit a crime for the sake of committing a crime, for the sake of stealing something to which they were not entitled, for example, they could quite properly be considered to be a pure criminal. They can be treated with the type of serious and unequivocal breach of the law that would require them to compensate totally what they had stolen. Anyone who has practised criminal law in Canada knows that many of the people who perpetrate and commit crimes, particularly petty property crimes, break-ins and thefts, are themselves somehow victims of society. On quite a number of occasions it is not possible for them to make any form of restitution at all.
I give one example of a 12 or 13 year old boy who was a client of mine and who was charged and convicted of stealing a bicycle. The bicycle was stolen from a well-to-do family. The young boy eventually pleaded guilty in youth court. As part of the sentencing process the boy was required to make restitution. The criminal justice system, in this case under the Young Offenders Act, was used to require a young boy, who had no money and who came from a broken home, a single-parent family, who, along with a couple of other lads had been lured into grabbing kids' bikes, to make restitution. As a result of being convicted of his crime he was required, as part of the court restitution, to pay money which he did not have to this wealthy family who lived several blocks away across a street that separated their two neighbourhoods.
One can argue in many ways about this matter. However, to me it seems that this boy, who himself was a victim of a broken home, perhaps a victim of inadequate parental guidance and inadequate support from the school system, was somehow failed by us as well. To say to him that he should compensate someone to whom the loss was not particularly great and who was perhaps covered by insurance is not necessarily the route that we have to go. This is not of course the case in all cases.
May 3, 1988

Quite often there are people who perpetrate crimes and as a result of those crimes or other crimes have plenty of money or the wherewithal to make restitution and repay. It is quite proper that this Bill require that payment to take place.
We do see a major step forward in recognizing that those who commit crimes have a responsibility, not only to society, because society can exact its penalty by putting someone in jail, by depriving them of their liberty, or by forcing a fine to be paid to Her Majesty the Queen, but they also have a responsibility to the victim. It is an important step forward in this legislation that the justice system not only berates, punishes, or seeks retribution from an individual towards society, but that there is recognition that the victim of that crime is entitled to restitution. The victim mediation program mentioned by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the victim criminal reconciliation program can be effective, not in all cases, but in some cases to bring about some type of understanding on the part of the criminal as to what effect his or her acts have upon the victim. Not all people who are convicted of offences are aware of the consequences of their action.
In the same vein, the victim impact statements can provide the basis for that type of understanding. When considering sentencing matters, the courts have always taken into account the effect or the consequences of a particular crime. If one looks at charges such as assault causing bodily harm, certainly the extent of the bodily harm, whether the victim ended up in hospital, whether the victim lost time from work as a result of a particular assault and hospitalization, and to what extent the injuries were caused and aggravated by the nature of the assault, have always been taken into consideration by a court when imposing sentence. They are important consequences of the crime and give an idea of the seriousness of it. Under this new Bill the provisions institutionalize that in a manner that is perhaps more acceptable.
One has to be careful that we do not allow victims of crime to get carried away with personal retribution or revenge, to exaggerate or overblow the consequences of a particular incident, which may well be horrendous to an individual, but has to be recognized in a balanced way by the court.
I have not seen the types of procedures that might be established in the various provinces for the preparation of these victim impact statements. I would hope that great care is taken to ensure that the victims of crime who are making victim impact statements are encouraged to elaborate on the factual circumstances and the emotional reaction in a measured way, and not in a way that may be designed by them personally to seek revenge against the individual who has perpetrated the crime.
It is unfortunate that more attention and consideration was not given to the suggestions made in committee and that the victim/criminal mediation services were not considered more
Criminal Code
seriously as a first step to bringing the criminal and the victim face to face. Again, this would not be appropriate in all circumstances. In some circumstances it would be totally inappropriate for that to happen and would not be wished by the victim in any manner whatsoever. But it may be appropriate in certain circumstances. We must recognize that the most important point in our justice system is that there be justice, and that recognition of the rights of the victim do not prevent justice from being done to those who are accused of crimes and who may not be guilty or fully cognizant of what it is that they have done.
I say that as a defence counsel who practised for many years and have seen that we have a very good justice system. We do not have a perfect justice system, and we cannot be complacent. I have seen instances where the treatment of individuals as victims prior to any conviction being registered has affected the handling of a particular case. I would not want to see our justice system swing the other way and pay too much attention to victims during the course of a trial. The most important thing is that we have a system of justice that is just. For too long the victims have been ignored. Finally, we are giving recognition to them in this Bill. I welcome it, but I urge caution and balance. I look forward to seeing the implementation of this Bill in a proper and balanced manner.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his speech which was very thoughtful, and I learned a lot from it. I wish to pursue the question of victim/offender reconciliation programs mentioned by the Hon. Member. I know that our colleague, the justice critic, the Hon. Member for Burnaby raised this matter in the legislative committee and proposed amendments in this area.
Could the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) comment on some of the representations made to the legislative committee in the area of victim/offender reconciliation?


Jack Harris: I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The Hon. Member for Burnaby did indeed propose several amendments in that area in the legislative committee. Unfortunately, all of the amendments were defeated by the Tory majority.
On the specific question of victim/offender mediation and reconciliation services, I wish to point out that there are many groups that made representations in this area both to the committee and to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). It is an important point, and I briefly referred to it in my speech. Perhaps I could quote from a letter sent to the Minister of Justice from a group in the Minister's own riding in Saskatoon. The letter is from Carol Riekman, the Executive Director of the Saskatoon Community Mediation Services, and she states:
On behalf of the board and staff of Saskatoon Community Mediation Services (SCMS), I would like to congratulate you on your work with Bill C-89. As an organization that works with victims of crime, we are pleased with the changes that this amendment promises for victims. However, it is our opinion that the proposed Bill C-89 as presently written falls short of its potential and, therefore, request your consideration of an additional amendment.

May 3, 1988
Criminal Code
It has been the experience of our program and others like it that in selected cases, victims benefit from the experience of meeting with the offender as such a program allows the victim the opportunity to be personally involved in a safe and controlled process. Mediation programs that provide this option to victims and offenders of crime have become increasingly recognized over the past two decades as a legitimate option for police departments and crown attorneys in dealing with cases.
Studies in both Canada and the United States have indicated high rates of victim satisfaction with such programs because they meet the needs of victims to confront the offender ...
This is an important point. Confronting the offender is something that one often hears victims talk about.
The letter continues:
... to reconcile with the offender (especially in those situations where there is a pre-existing relationship) and to personally set a payment schedule for compensation. A secondary benefit of mediation diversion programs is the relief of pressure on already overloaded court systems.
Although we are aware that Bill C-89 is well on its way to being adopted, we request that an additional change be included that recognizes victim/offender mediation programming. We offer ourselves as a resource to your committee should you require further comments or information.
Sincerely,
Carol Riekman Executive Director
It is an important point that this organization is sponsored jointly by the Mennonite Central Committee in Saskatchewan and also the John Howard Society of Saskatchewan. It specifically calls itself an organization that works with victims of crime. It is proposing here, and it proposed to the committee, this very valuable tool of reconciling victims and offenders, providing for payment schedules and victim and offender involvement through properly set up mediation services. This is a valuable tool, not in all cases, but obviously in certain cases.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on a question or comment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is my understanding that a number of new fines will result from the passage of this legislation. It is also my understanding that the moneys so generated are intended to assist in new victim assistance programs. Fines levied against those found guilty of a crime are to be used in the funding of new victim assistance programs.
In my speech on this measure, I raised a concern about provincial Governments spending such funds on new programs. I would ask the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) to comment on the need for such programs and, more important, on the need to ensure that any moneys generated as a result of the fine schedule set out under this legislation and the Criminal Code in general, are in fact used to fund new programs in respect of victims of crimes.


Jack Harris: I thank my colleague for his question. While the Criminal Code is a federal statute, the administration of justice is carried out by the provinces, and any fines to be paid under this legislation will become part of the general revenue
fund of the province in which that fine is levied. Victim assistance programs will be innovative and, as such, will be expensive to develop, and provincial Governments that are hard strapped, such as my own Province of Newfoundland, often have difficulty in raising funds for such innovative programs.
Under Bill C-89, the federal Government will put in place a regime that will result in increased revenues for the provinces, and certainly it should insist that any funds so generated be used in establishing mediation services, victim-offender reconciliation, where possible, and other such innovative programs in the criminal justice area. Certainly, it should be looked upon as a forward step in the criminal justice system in this country; it should be looked upon as a step to involve victims in the process. Once a conviction has been achieved, the victim is to be given a role in the process.
This is a new step in the criminal justice system in Canada, and any funds generated as a result of the surcharges to be levied against offenders in respect of certain crimes should be allocated to those programs which help this whole process become more effective, as opposed to going into the general revenues of the provinces for use in other areas.
Certainly, the provinces face very great demands in terms of educational funding, highway maintenance and construction, and so forth. Funds should be raised specifically for those purposes. Any moneys flowing into the coffers of the Crown in right of a province as a result of fines levied under the Criminal Code should not be used for such general purposes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards) There is sufficient time for one brief question or comment, and response.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No.


Richard Grisé: On debate, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, on debate.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on Bill C-89, and I would also like to take this opportunity to thank colleagues from the other Parties and Members of the Committee, some of whom proposed amendments and who all did their share to have this Bill adopted as quickly as possible. It is an excellent piece of legislation, introduced by our excellent Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and it will provide victims of crime with better protection than is now the case.
May 3, 1988

I would like to give a short summary of the amendments to the Criminal Code contained in this Bill. They provide, among other things, for a victim fine surcharge; the victim's participation in determining the sentence through the court's use of a victim impact statement; the use of photographs and affidavits as evidence in order to accelerate the return of recovered property to the victim; a requirement for the judge to consider restitution in all cases where appropriate; and finally, an extension of the authority to ban publication of the identity of victims and witnesses in cases involving sexual offences and extortion offences.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and explain in more detail the principles of Bill C-89. However, it was my understanding that there was an all-Party agreement that there be one speaker per Party. Certainly, that was something that was agreed to by the Liberal Party. As far as I can tell, the NDP does not seem to be in agreement. Therefore, in order to permit the members of the socialist Party to speak on Bill C-89,1 move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment, for the purpose of continuing consideration of third reading of
Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: It is moved by Mr. Grise, seconded by Mr. Vincent, that the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, for the purpose of continuing consideration of third reading of Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime).
Will those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And fewer than 15 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: Fewer than 15 Members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(b), the motion is adopted.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Cochrane Superior (Mr. Penner)- Finance-Northern tax allowances-Geographical delineation of affected communities/Request that regulations be amended; the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley)-Excise Tax Act-Farm fuel rebate-Alleged delay in passing Bill C-117; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Energy-Low sulphur western coal- Proposed use by Ontario Hydro.
Criminal Code



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime), be read the third time and passed.
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-89. When the federal Department of Justice, in the early 1980s, instituted a study on the question of victims of crime, I carried out the Yukon section of that national study. Given that history, it is an area in which I have a particular personal interest.
We in the NDP consider Bill C-89 to be an important piece of legislation, and certainly we support it in principle. In fact, we agreed, on second reading, to put forward one speaker only, thus enabling the Bill to be quickly referred to committee for detailed consideration and amendment.
The issues today in respect of victims of crime are not much different from those I encountered when participating in the national study conducted in the early 1980s. It is the view now, as it was then, that the lack of enforcement of restitution provisions among others, tended to undermine the community's confidence in the criminal justice system. A large area of concern centred around the treatment of victims, both as a result of the crime itself and the criminal justice process. Whether they were victims of property offences or of bodily offences, many of the people to whom I spoke were very concerned that they had not really received respect from the system nor the kind of support from the system that a Canadian citizen should expect.
We have in Canada, quite justly so, I feel, having been involved in this field myself, put a lot of emphasis on the rights of the prisoner, on improving the correctional system, though not to the extent some of us would like to see it improved. However, it has been improved substantially. It is certainly long overdue that we give very special recognition in law to the rights of victims of crime. Much of the credit for this must go not to politicians but to those people and their families who have been victims of crime and have lobbied long and hard for justice.
I would like to talk about a couple of parts of this legislation that I think are very good and about several that I hope will be worked on in the future in order to improve the legislation. The first is the issue of restitution.
I found out one thing when interviewing some 400 people in the Yukon about their experiences as victims of crime. The majority of the offences involved, of course, in any jurisdiction, are property offences and not personal offences. The recommendation people consistently made was not to send everyone

May 3, 1988
Criminal Code
to jail, and in a way, this surprised me. I thought we might hear from the victims a very hard-line attitude: "Let's put everybody in jail". However, they did say that they simply wanted their property back or some compensation for it. They feel that the perpetrator of the crime should have a responsibility to rectify the situation with the victim.
There have been many programs in Canada which have worked on the principle of the criminal making restitution in some form to the victim for what has happened. There are clauses in the Bill which will, I hope, enhance and develop more services for the provision of restitution.
What has happened over and over again, not just in my jurisdiction of the Yukon but in others, as I found because this was part of a national study, is that the people would go to court, would make their cases, and an amount would be awarded for property damages, however, they would never see a thing. In many cases, the person who had perpetrated the damage was ordered to pay restitution, everyone would leave the courtroom, the victim would feel that at last there is some justice, the criminal will have to pay, but would never see a cent of it, not one cent.
This kind of thing sadly undermines the confidence in the justice system. It makes people very cynical about the process. I would say, therefore, that the restitution provision is a very important one and I hope we will address this issue. In probably about 60 per cent of the cases studied in which restitution was ordered, the people involved never saw a cent, and that is not a fair and equitable justice system.
People are generally very fair-minded. I found that they are willing to accept that justice has been done if there is redress. It was heartening to learn that.
In talking to many victims of crime, one of the things that was mentioned consistently was the trauma that is felt when going to court. It is an extremely difficult thing for many people to do. I think lawyers, Crown attorneys, social workers and others who are involved in the process every day really forget what a traumatic experience it is for someone to have to go to court. Therefore, victims groups have placed a great emphasis on providing assistance to people who have to go to court.
One thing which is not included in this legislation which would have been very important, and my colleague from Burnaby made this recommendation which unfortunately was not accepted by the committee, is a victim reconciliation program. I have some considerable familiarity with such programs. Marvellous work is being done by the Mennonite Central Committee which, in about 1974, began programs like this in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. These programs were very, very effective.
We now see a great emphasis on the part of the current Department of Justice on mediation. This has grown out of the victim reconciliation programs. Mediation programs are very prevalent throughout Canada. These programs attempt to get
the victim and the criminal together in a negotiating process outside the court in order to resolve the issues in a way that will be fruitful for the victim.
Through these victim reconciliation programs and the mediation programs, the criminal is actually faced and has to sit down in a room with the victim. This has a great impact. It is very different from being in court where victims and criminals are separated by lawyers. Under these programs, they sit down in a room and work out solutions.
Having seen this done with juvenile delinquents as well as with adults, I have found that it has an impact far beyond that of simply resolving the issue. It has a personal impact on the victim who perhaps comes to understand some of the things which led the criminal to commit the crime, but, more important from a criminal's perspective, he or she has to deal face to face with the person from whom he or she has stolen or whom he or she has assaulted. It is very unfortunate that such a program has not been included in this legislation.
The issue of personal assaults is probably the most difficult one. People have the most concerns about the court procedure when personal assaults are involved. Certainly, studies have shown that both the elderly and women feel extremely threatened in society. Studies have indicated as well, however, that statistically, women and the elderly do not constitute the largest number of victims of assaults. It seems that their fear is somewhat disproportionate to the actual number of offences committed against those particular groups. However, in certain areas, and particularly in domestic violence, women are over-represented.
Certainly the statistics on this are very frightening. I remember when I first came to Ottawa last fall, I was walking down the street at night and I saw a group of women marching with banners. I could not understand what this was all about, and someone told me it is something that groups of women do in many urban areas and it is called taking back the streets. Women march to show solidarity in that they can walk the streets at night. It is a very sad comment on society that it is felt that this is necessary. Many of these groups have fought long and hard for victims' assistance.
Certainly, the statistics indicate as well that there are about 17,000 sexual assaults in Canada every year, and that about 90 per cent of those are on women. We see also that women as victims are over-represented in family-related assaults, some 77 per cent. In assaults between spouses it is 90 per cent. In assaults between ex-spouses it is 80 per cent. Generally speaking, women in the justice system are under-represented. However, I understand that the number of women lawyers registering in law school has increased considerably. Many more women are going into law, but the justice system is seen by many female victims as a very male and sometimes unsupportive system.
May 3, 1988

There have been many programs and organizations which have been helpful. Victims of Violence, for example, is a very good organization which I understand receives some funding from the federal Government. It is extremely vocal and has done some good work in bringing to the attention of Members of Parliament and the public generally the personal experiences of individuals. It is very easy to think or talk about victims of crime, but it is very different when you have to go through it yourself. Going on the stand and being interrogated about your personal life or lifestyle is an extremely difficult thing to have to go through. Many voluntary groups such as the Salvation Army have very good programs for assisting a victim to deal with both the administrative matters that come up involving the court, how to present evidence and that kind of thing.
Let me say just as an aside that of all the victims of crime that I interviewed as well as those interviewed by my colleagues involved in the study, the thing people were most surprised about was that they thought, when they went to court as the victim, that the Crown attorney was their lawyer. We know that in our justice system the Crown attorney is the prosecutor for the state. People had a tremendous problem with this because they felt that the criminal's lawyer is out there fighting for him or her and their lawyer, whom they saw as the Crown attorney, is not doing that much for them in representing their interests. People felt that somehow that their personal interests were not being represented. That is not to say that is entirely the case, but that was the perception people had.
This legislation is particularly important in that respect because it indicates that the state has a particular interest in the victim, and many of the sections in this legislation will support the victim and tell him or her that we are giving them specific support. Yes, the Crown attorney represents the state in our system of justice, but here are extra supports that we give to the victim, acknowledging that they have already been traumatized by the crime itself and we will assist them to deal with the process so that they are not traumatized a second time.
I mentioned the efforts of a number of organizations such as the Mennonite Central Committee, Victims of Violence, and the Salvation Army. They have brought the concerns of victims to the fore. The families of victims have of course been extremely important. The emphasis on drinking and driving that we have seen over the last several years was the result of the efforts of either victims of that offence or their families.
I think this legislation will greatly enhance two things, respect for the justice system and acknowledgement that the victim is deserving of special consideration and concern. I know these are federal-provincial or federal-territorial agreements so they will be largely administered by the territorial and provincial Governments, and I hope the kind of services that are really needed will be implemented through
Criminal Code
this legislation. Certainly the other jurisdictions will have a large say in how they do that, but it is extremely important that the principles embodied in this legislation are reflected in the actual service.
I can certainly say from my own experience in speaking with many victims of crime that there is a tremendous and traumatic effect on people even in coming home to find that their residence has been robbed. The invasion of the personal security of a person cannot be measured simply through the court process. Again, those groups I mentioned earlier, the elderly and women who feel particularly vulnerable, feel that trauma even more. In a just and equitable society we have to make sure that our citizens feel secure and that they can see that justice is being done.
In principle we support this legislation. There are several points which, we feel, would have made it somewhat stronger and better, but in principle it will begin to acknowledge the rights of victims of crime.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: Questions and comments.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin). When I spoke it was from my own experience as a defence counsel, and you have to perform your job as defence counsel to the best of your ability. The Hon. Member spoke from her vast experience in dealing with victims of crime.
As she quite properly acknowledged, the Crown attorney is not the victim's lawyer but the state's lawyer. There ought to be some institutionalized system which provides counselling, advice, and understanding for the victim as to what the process is and what might happen, not necessarily to act as an advocate in the trial process but to make perfectly clear to the victim of crime what support services are available, what is going on and what it will be like. I know we have rape crisis centres, which are supported sometimes for other reasons, but we do not have any general system like this. Perhaps the Hon. Member would care to comment on the desirability of an institutionalized system through either legal aid or the various provincial justice systems separate from the police. They have a role in the prosecution, collecting evidence and so on, and are in a sense involved in one aspect only of the justice system.
We have a role for the Crown attorney and police to play in investigating and prosecuting the crime. We have a role for the defence counsel to play in legal aid in making sure that justice is done for those accused of a crime. However, we do not appear to have any institutionalized system which will make certain that those who are truly defenceless and truly vulnerable are not ignored by the system. Would the Hon. Member care to comment on that?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from St. John's East has hit upon a very important point. There have

May 3, 1988
Criminal Code
been such programs as he mentioned, including crisis centres. I know that the Province of Manitoba had, and may still have, a good victims' assistance program. In the Yukon we have had a victims' assistance program separate from the courts.
In my study, 80 per cent of victims of crime saw the police in a favourable light. People felt that the police had been helpful. However, as my colleague mentions, the police can go only so far. My colleague is quite right that there is a need for a second organization which provides assistance, even in such basic things as helping those people to find their way around the court-house. In some instances the Crown may help out with that, but in the larger courts they do not. Even in the smaller court systems in my own constituency there is simply not the time to do that.
Victims' assistance would show that the state does care. It need not be expensive. It could include things like telephone hot lines to which people can call to ask for advice about what they should do and where counselling is available. Studies have indicated that even victims of property theft, which may not seem as serious to some of us, can be very traumatic, especially if it has been in your own home. They may be afraid for years every time they walk over the doorstep. I have heard people say many times that that is a very traumatic experience.
We could provide assistance in resolving the emotional effect on them personally, with administration, and with the technical details of how they go through the system and what information they are allowed to have. People just do not know these things and many prosecutors do not have the time to spend a number of hours with them. That is where an imbalance comes in. The defence lawyer is being paid by his or her client and can take the time to explain all the procedures and exactly what is going to happen. The experience of many victims has been that no one has been able to take the time to explain to them what is happening.
In the victims' assistance programs which I have seen, whether run by governmental organizations such as in the Province of Manitoba and in the Yukon Territory, or by voluntary organizations like the Salvation Army and others, they have tried to do this. It has had a tremendously beneficial effect on individuals. Being so removed from it it is probably hard to comprehend how beneficial this is. Unless victims of crime feel that they are being treated fairly in our justice system they will have no respect for the system and, in my view, the system then begins to break down.
Therefore, I would certainly agree that victims' assistance programs which offer concrete counselling and assistance with the process must be in place, not only before the court trial but after the trial as well, because there are often things arising from the trial in which they need to be involved. We are dealing with a group of people who have, through no fault of their own, been involved in a crime.
In addition to the victims' assistance programs, which my colleague mentioned, there is the area of prevention about which I did not have the opportunity to speak. It goes hand in
hand with victims' assistance because, obviously, we want to prevent more crimes. In my discussions with the police I learned that they are often able to counsel people briefly-and I think a victims' assistance group could do it more fully-on how to prevent a crime. Many crimes are repeat crimes and many victims have been the victims of many crimes. Counselling services in transition homes for battered women and in rape crisis centres often focus very much on that kind of counselling.
I am sure we would all agree that crime prevention is important and should be a major focus. Every year there is a Crime Prevention Week during which all police departments emphasize crime prevention. However, it must be done all through the year, and I think that working with victims can facilitate that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. I enjoyed the Hon. Member's comments made from a different perspective. They were very interesting. Could she comment on the area of adult victims of child sex abuse? Can they get help which may stop them from committing similar types of crimes?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, this is also an area in which I have had considerable experience. This is a large area, and 10 to 15 years ago the issue of adult victims of sexual abuse and child victims of sexual abuse was not a topic that was even discussed. There is now a move by many adult victims to start self-help groups. There is certainly a need for funding to assist them to do that and to get professional counselling. It has a profound and long-lasting effect, as my colleague says, not only on them but on those with whom they deal in their own families and others.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: I regret that the time for questions and comments has expired. Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) on debate.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be able to speak on a Bill of significant importance to my constituency and to millions of people across the country. We as a Party have supported this legislation from its introduction in the House in November, 1987. It has been given a fairly thorough going over in committee. Various amendments were made to it before it was brought back to the House at the end of March. We certainly intend to support the Bill.
However, those of us who come from parts of the country which have experienced serious difficulties with problems of crime across our border-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I enjoy seeing you in the Chair today, Sir. We are wrapping up debate on the very important justice Bill before us. However, it is unprecedented that we are debating a justice Bill when the Justice Committee is travelling. In other words, the members
May 3, 1988

of the Justice Committee are travelling throughout Canada on justice business and the Government has brought a justice Bill before the House. There is no precedent for this. This has never happened before and, as a matter of fact, there was an understanding that it ought not to happen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that that is not a point of order. It may be a point of debate if the Hon. Member has the opportunity to participate in the debate. The Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor has the floor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that my colleague will be able to find occasion to make that point in debate in the future.
From our perspective in Windsor, across from Detroit, which is one of the highest crime centres in North America, the principles in this Bill are important. They are important to many people in our city who have been victims of crime, sometimes from within our community and sometimes from those outside our community who cross our borders. Since this Bill recognizes the concerns of victims of crime, it gives a greater sense of security to those not directly involved in law enforcement that they will be able to look to some recompense and responsibility on the part of the Government and the community for the suffering which has been caused by crime.
I represent a mixed constituency of urban and rural sections. One might think that the problems of victims of crime would be most evident in the urban sections of my constituency. However, I have found, in our community meetings across Essex-Windsor and in discussions I have had with my constituents, that many of the small towns and villages within my constituency have also been subject to pressures from crime to which they often feel tremendous helplessness to respond. That is why I believe this Bill is welcome.
During the committee hearings witnesses made several suggestions for amendments. Unfortunately, these amendments were defeated because I think they would have made this Bill more beneficial to people in my constituency of Essex-Windsor.
For example, one amendment sought the provision of victim offender reconciliation programs. A number of witnesses before the committee and groups who submitted briefs recommended such a program.
It was also suggested that funds raised by victims' surcharges be directed to new programs and not simply go into general revenues. It was also suggested that funds be dispersed consistent with a statement of principles on victims that was recently agreed to by federal and provincial representatives of the Departments of Justice. Frankly, I believe this Bill would be much better if some of those amendments had been accepted.
Criminal Code
There are three important aspects to dealing with crime in a community like Essex-Windsor. First, citizens and citizens' groups should be drawn into the process of assisting police and the community at large in dealing with crime. We have had a very active Crime Stoppers program, which has involved careful surveillance of different neighbourhoods that are subject to higher levels of crime than other parts of our community. There is also a system by which those who have information about a particular crime could make confidential reports to the police to help solve these particular crimes. That kind of public approach is an important step forward in dealing with a very serious problem in my community and others.
Other citizens in our community who are concerned about the problems of victims of crime have organized groups to deal with child abuse. Last year, an important conference was held in Essex-Windsor in which the various difficulties which afflict victims of child abuse were outlined, not just in the immediate instance of the abuse being suffered but in terms of the psychological damage that goes on far into the future.
Such child abuse is at the very heart of an attempt to respond to victims of crime in our society.
Finally, I want to speak about problems of public awareness and the difficulties that are brought to bear on victims of crime in our community. Public awareness must be pushed as vigorously and actively as possible in order to achieve a sense of community caring for those victims of crime and those who wish to reduce crime levels within our cities. May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Jack Harris: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) rises on a point of order.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, it was agreed that the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) would be our last speaker on this matter. However, I want to put a comment on the record on behalf of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who called from Montreal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: I think I would ask the Hon. Member to come immediately to his point of order.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, there is room for questions and comments at the end of the Hon. Member's speech. I would like to make a comment on the record before the question is called.

May 3, 1988
Apartheid


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: If the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) still has the floor, he has the floor until five o'clock, and will continue to have the floor at six o'clock, then there will be time for questions and comments.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In order to facilitate the business of the House, we are prepared to allow this debate to transpire now, to finish it off now, then have the Private Members' Hour so this Bill can pass. What we are trying to point out is that our justice critic is in Montreal with the Justice Committee, and yet the Government called this Bill. That is hardly fair ball. We want to put that on the record, but we do not want to hold up the House. If you would call the vote on this Bill, Mr. Speaker, if that is possible, I think you will see that the House is prepared to pass third reading of this Bill and then we can move on to Private Members' Hour.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, we would like you to put the question, but we, of course, do not accept that the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) should be allowed at this time to put any questions or make any comments. We on this side would agree to have the question put right now.


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


Jack Harris: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: If there is not consent to put the vote now, we will proceed to Private Members' Business.


Jack Harris: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: On the issue of Private Members' Business, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris).


Jack Harris: I have a point of order. We have gone until five o'clock. The Parliamentary Secretary who spoke interrupted. There is one comment I wish to make on behalf of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who worked very hard in this debate-


Charles Joseph Clark: You are out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: I do not accept that as a point of order. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic has the right to present his Bill in the hour for Private Members' Business.
It now being five o'clock, the House will proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   APARTHEID ADVISABILITY OF RESCINDING SOME SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the
advisability of rescinding two categories of sanctions against South Africa
namely (a) those which impact most less well off citizens (b) those rendered
inapplicable by recent progress towards the dismantlement of apartheid.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion which has been on the Order Paper for well over a year. During that time, as I reflect upon it, I became more and more convinced of the rightness of this approach. I think the Government of Canada ought to reconsider its policy with respect to South Africa. The imposition of the present sanctions, in my opinion, are having quite the opposite effect to what was intended. They are not helpful at all.
The policy initiatives to date are negative. They are negative in effect and negative themselves. They are based on a lack of complete understanding of what is a particularly complex situation. They are certainly having the opposite effect of what was intended. In my opinion, the policy of sanctions ought to be reversed. They ought to be replaced with positive and constructive initiatives. Canada ought not to be scared of doing that which is right and just, just because we might be criticized on that account by countries and people who have some other axe to grind.
I compliment the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for the way in which he has been speaking out rightly and justly on controversial issues in the recent past. I would hope he would extend that also to the situation as it exists in South Africa. What I think is needed is a friendly approach to assist the people of South Africa in solving their problems. They have made remarkable progress over the last few years. It has necessitated a whole change in people's thinking. People who were brought up to think one way have had to reverse that thinking in the space of just a few years, and they have adapted remarkably well.
South Africans do not need us kicking them when they are down, which is what sanctions do. They need a helping hand to raise them up. The stated rationale of the Government of Canada for the imposition of sanctions is-and I will try to paraphrase the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-to demonstrate to the people and to the Government of South Africa a repugnance for the apartheid policy, to let them know that such a policy is unacceptable internationally and that they must change it. If this was the reason, then the sanctions should be lifted immediately. South Africans know this already.
The stated policy of the Government of that country is to dismantle apartheid- we applaud them for that-and to find a system of government where all South Africans can play a



May 3, 1988

full role. Their country is a country like ours which has a parliamentary system, and it takes time to make these changes. It is very difficult to do it overnight.
I know that a fantastic amount of intellectual effort has been put into this problem by the Government at various levels, the academic and business community and people on practically every street corner of the country. I would suggest something we could do as an experiment. Whenever we meet a South African, and it does not really matter what colour, race, or whatever else he or she might be, we should sit down with that person and try to talk about the weather or anything other than the apartheid policy and the initiatives to change it. We will find we cannot get past five minutes because within five minutes that person is going to tell us what they are doing to change it and what his or her ideas are and all about the debate going on in that country. If the stated reason for the imposition of apartheid ever existed in the past, it certainly does not exist today. South Africans themselves are well aware of the problem and are well on the way to a solution.
In looking at some of the sanctions we have imposed, it is not too difficult to see a certain air of selfishness about them. We continue, for example, to import some of the materials, such as chrome ore from South Africa, which is our cheapest source of supply, but on the other side, we will not buy its coal or steel. Perhaps there is an element of protectionism for our own industry in that. I sometimes wonder about the ban on the krugerrand, and to what extent that was put on to help the sales of the Canadian Maple Leaf gold coin rather than to effect any social change in that country.
What are the effects of the sanctions? What they do is to impose economic hardships on the people of that country. They create unemployment. They increase the cost of living and reduce the standard of living. Most, of course, can be avoided one way or another. It is not hard to figure out ways to get around them. But there is a cost to this, and this cost is borne by the consumers in that country.
The increase in cost has the most effect on those who already have the lowest standard of living. That is always the case, and it is the case there. We also have to remember that South Africa is the economic giant of southern Africa. The health of the neighbouring countries is very much dependent on the economic health of South Africa itself. So sanctions against that country also have a negative effect. They hurt people in countries such as Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Zambia and the surrounding areas.
Just as an aside, it is interesting to note the number in very many cases of illegal immigrants or refugees coming in to South Africa from countries such as Mozambique and these others what one might call international basket cases surrounding this area. If it were not for South Africa, those countries would be in an even worse state than they are today. It is probably the mineworkers' earnings that just manage to
Apartheid
keep Mozambique partially afloat. If the mineworkers were all told to go home, then that country would be in a worse state than it is now.
From where does the main opposition with respect to the process of dismantlement of apartheid come? Generally speaking, it comes from that sector of the white population which is in the lowest economic bracket. It is not the president of the bank or the insurance company who wants to keep apartheid. He is going to keep his job regardless. The same thing is true with respect to the chief geologist in the mine. He can go anywhere in the world to make a living. He is still going to be chief geologist before or after. It is the locomotive driver and the union member at the bottom of the economic ladder who see the jobs being taken away from them. They see themselves being left destitute or not enjoying the present advantages. That is where the opposition comes from. Sanctions, by lowering the employment rates, creating unemployment, and making it difficult for people to maintain those jobs and that standard of living are exaggerating and exacerbating this problem.
When times are good and the labour force is expanding, that does not have to be bothered with so much, one's job is secure and there is less resistance to change. But sanctions have had exactly the opposite effect. They have generated more opposition to change and the policies that the South African Government would like to pursue.
It is an observation that unequal employment practices are concentrated in the older industries, the railways and the mines. It is the new industries, petrochemicals and plastics, that very often have been financed by outside capital where people have been treated equally in the job place. Disinvestment therefore again has a negative effect.
Just one aside to what disinvestment has done. It has enabled the South Africans to take control of their own economy at a few cents on the dollar. They have been able to buy their industries back cheaply, which was not the case in Canada under the regime of the previous Government when we had to pay something of a premium to regain control of certain of our industries, such as the petroleum business.
In my motion I refer to sanctions which have the worst effect on those who we are presumably trying to help the most. I would like to cite two examples of this. First, there is our discouragement of tourism. The hotel trade and the tourist industry in South Africa, just as is the case in Canada, is an intensive employer of labour, very much of which is unskilled and semi-skilled. How many chambermaids and how many kitchen staff have been laid off as a result of our policy? I just wish that when our Minister went to that country he would have had the opportunity to speak to some of the chambermaids. Undoubtedly, they would have told him what their view with respect to sanctions are.
Another example is with respect to farm products, apples, grapes, wine, et cetera. Most of these come from the fruit growing area of Cape Province, the home of the coloured

May 3, 1988
Apartheid
people, the people who are officially designated as coloured. They are a mixture between white and the indigenous Hottentot population. Most of these people work on farms, either permanently or seasonally. They badly need the income that is generated from that activity. With our sanctions, in the worst cases, they will go hungry as a result of what we have done to them. I cannot believe that Canadians would willingly and knowingly use hunger as a weapon. There are too many of our people who have had first-hand experience with this type of policy in Ukraine and elsewhere. I cannot see how we would ever deliberately use that tactic against somebody else.
Our policy is misguided, in my opinion, and probably stems from listening to the few self-appointed spokesmen who themselves will not be affected by sanctions. We have not listened to the vast majority of South Africans who want the same things of life as we do. They want jobs, education for their children, a decent standard of living and opportunity for the future. I do not know of one single elected leader, somebody who is responsible to the people who elected him-


James Douglas Manly: Who the hell has a chance to vote there? They don't even have a chance to vote!


Dave Nickerson: -either municipally, nationally, or tribally-or people of any colour or religion-who approves of these trade sanctions. It is not necessary to burn South Africa to the ground. It is not necessary to destroy it so that magically some new Phoenix-like society can arise from the ashes.
Nearly all the petty segregation has already been set aside in that country. There are still remaining problems, such as with respect to the Group Areas Act that has to go. But already more and more grey areas are appearing.
Second, there is the constitutional challenges. Municipally, there are now mayors and councillors of all colours. Nationally, there is a tripartite Parliament, albeit without black representation. That has to change, too.
Measures have been taken to ensure a role for all South Africans in the executive branch of government, witness the national council that has been established. This is admittedly imperfect but it is not a lot different, say, from the situation that existed in the United States a generation ago.
I have never met a South African of any colour, and I have met many, whom I did not like. I have a great admiration for the people of good will of this embattled country who are trying to resolve their problems while having to put up with terrorism at home and misguided sanctions imposed from abroad, not to mention the existence of certain unfriendly neighbouring states liberally supplied with Soviet weaponry.
In Canada, we should be encouraging visits and exchanges between ourselves and South Africa so that we can learn more about each other and each other's problems. We should trade with and invest in South Africa. That will make change come about easier in that country. We should set a good example by
putting our own house in order. There is some room for improvement on that score, even in Canada.
I find some issues difficult to understand, for example, the Japanese treatment of its citizens of Korean origin who were originally brought over there as slave labour during the war. We are remarkably quiet on that issue. When the Government of France sends troops to New Caledonia, we do not hear too much from the Government of Canada. When there is a slaughter of 1,000 Dinka tribesmen in the Sudan, there is a small write-up of one paragraph on page 16 of the newspaper and there is not much said by the Government of Canada. Yet it seems that there is no condemnation too severe when it comes to South Africa. That is something that I cannot understand. This country has made a great effort to put things right, an effort that has not been made in other parts of the world.
With this presentation this afternoon, I do not expect to change everyone's view overnight, because there is a lot of learning to be done. There is too much misinformation around. What I hope will come out of this debate today is that people will start to think a little more than they have in the past. I hope that they will think positively and constructively in order that we can take the action to ensure that South Africa can be welcomed back into the family of nations as soon as possible.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this most misguided motion. The misguided nature of the motion was only equalled by the misguided speech that we just heard. The motion itself speaks about the concern for the less well off citizens. The people whom we are most concerned about in South Africa today cannot be regarded as citizens, because they do not have the rights of citizens. The laws in that country deny them the rights of citizens. Therefore, the motion itself is badly worded as well as misdirected.
The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) talks about the hardships that sanctions will impose upon poor people. He talked about the discouragement of tourism. The question that perhaps we should face is, does tourism help the poorest of the poor in Third World countries, or rather does it not encourage an elite to scoop up the beauty and the wealth of those countries and make them available to wealthy people from the first world who can take advantage of it, and a few people from the Third World who are lucky if they can get those jobs mentioned by the Hon. Member as chambermaids or servants, servants to others in their own country? I do not think that tourism is the answer for Third World countries. That is not the type of development that is needed.
The Hon. Member talked about agriculture. What type of agriculture did the Hon. Member talk about? Agriculture producing food for other peoples rather than themselves; producing food on farms and ranches that are not owned by blacks but by a white supremacist class that has put apartheid
May 3, 1988

in place and is keeping it in place. They are the people whom the Hon. Member purports to be concerned about in this motion.
The motion itself is most ill-advised, and it reflects a tragic misunderstanding of the real situation in Africa. It reflects the very real success of the past two ambassadors from South Africa to Canada. Last September, the present Ambassador, Johannes De Klerk, said in an interview that South Africa is "in the process of abolishing the last remnants of apartheid". What a lie that is. He stated that that would come "the day we decide on a new constitution, because the Government has already said all the black people living in South Africa must have political rights". The Government does not state what political rights. It does not say that blacks will have the same political rights as the white minority. The Government just states that they will have a few specific political rights.
Mr. De Klerk also said, "Neither the details of how minority rights-with whites making up one of those minorities-will be protected nor how they will affect the political rights of blacks have been worked out". The details have not been worked out. It is just a minor thing, Mr. Speaker. Mr. De Klerk also stated, "We've acknowledged that racial discrimination based on the colour of somebody's skin is wrong, and that white political domination must disappear". He was reluctant, however, to put any kind of time-frame on when it could happen. It will happen sometime in the 21st or perhaps the 22nd century. There are people in South Africa today who are violently opposed to any change.
As the Hon. Member has stated, it is wrong to say that sanctions propose opposition to change. It is the very suggestion that there should be change that has aroused that opposition to change. There are people in South Africa who have put those vicious apartheid laws in place, and will do everything they can to maintain them. Far from South Africa moving to dismantle apartheid, a couple of months ago we saw this Bill of theirs that was euphemistically entitled "The Promotion of Orderly Politics Bill". It banned within South Africa all organizations that were seeking to work against apartheid, and all organizations that were seeking to work nonviolently. As the Reverend Allan Boesak of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches stated: "This is an illegitimate Government that deserves no authority and does not have it, that deserves no obedience and must not get it".
The Reverend Khoza Mgojo, President of the Methodist Church of South Africa, stated: "The South African Government wants no non-violent actions. That was proved today. The South African Government is the enemy of any nonviolent or peaceful demonstration in this country and that will be the message to the people".
When South Africa banned the 17 non-violent organizations that were working against apartheid, leaders from the major Christian churches stated in a letter: "We believe that the Government, in its actions over recent years, but especially by last week's action, has chosen a path for the future which will
Apartheid
lead to violence, bloodshed and instability". These are the leaders of Christian Churches who for years have been attempting to work within that system to get some change that would grant those political rights for the blacks talked about by the Hon. Member.
This is the time when we should be stepping up sanctions and not downgrading them. We can look at the actions of South Africa in destabilizing neighbouring countries of Mozambique and Angola where our best efforts to try to provide some type of development assistance for Mozambique, one of the poorest nations on the face of the earth, is destabilized by a South African financed rebel organization that is fighting a war against development.
If the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members want to know the real situation in South Africa, I encourage them to read a March 8, 1988 column by Michael Valpy published in The Globe and Mail. The article states:
What is the reality of South Africa?
The pillars and foundations of apartheid remain firmly in place. Its pillars are the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act, the constitutional mechanisms that ensure white control over all key areas of national political life, and the national disfranchisement of blacks.
The Population Registration Act requires all South Africans to be racially classified at birth. It determines where they may live, be educated, be treated when sick and buried at death.
The Group Areas Act specifies what residential districts may be occupied by which racial groups. The act is not fading away through lack of enforcement.
South Africa's National Party Government has vowed repeatedly that it will never be abrogated. The group areas police have recently been reactivated and are again busy at work in the cities, looking for people of the wrong race living in the wrong neighbourhoods.
The article continues:
There is no national political power for blacks. The Government takes visitors-from Canada, among other places-to meet members of municipal councils in black townships, introducing them as elected representatives who can speak for black South Africans.
It is seldom, if at all, explained to visitors that only about 5 per cent of the municipal electorate goes to the polls, that the councils have virtually no power, that they are widely believed to be corrupt and collaborators of Pretoria, that forthcoming elections to racially mixed regional councils have been strongly criticized as sham political vehicles for blacks.
Mr. Speaker, the situation in South Africa has not improved; it has deteriorated. There have been a few "sham" changes made on the facade of apartheid, but the structure of apartheid remains intact. Canada should be taking a stronger position against it, not a weaker one, and I know that all Members, once they have had a chance to think about this, will want to vote against that vicious system.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs);: Mr. Speaker, apartheid is an odious system of racial discrimination that is an integral part of the very constitution of South Africa. Apartheid not only determines where people may sit in the bus, which bench

May 3, 1988
Apartheid
they can use or which movie theatres they can go to. It is the systematic repression, under-development and exploitation of the majority of the population of South Africa. It forms the basis of national policy on education and health, and it also has the effect of regrouping a large number of citizens in geographical areas that are, for the most part, arbitrarily designated. It is also characterized-and this is the most important point-by the way it totally deprives the majority of all political rights, so that the majority cannot use the political process to change the situation.
South Africa is the only country where this repressive system of racial discrimination is legislated. Canada raises its voice in protest whenever and wherever human rights are violated, but South Africa has put itself in a different class altogether. Since its citizens espouse values that are diametrically opposed, Canada has no choice but to take a stand against apartheid with all the means at its disposal.
When it started to exercise pressure with a view to the peaceful dismantling of apartheid, Canada immediately made two decisions. First, if its action against apartheid was to have any real weight, this country had to have a clear view of the position it would take as a last resort. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) clearly indicated that Canada was prepared to apply total sanctions and to break off diplomatic relations with South Africa, once it had exhausted all other means. Second, it was decided that it would be more effective for Canada to join other countries in intensifying international pressure on apartheid than breaking off, suddenly and spectacularly, its relations with South Africa. Our ties with that country, commercial and otherwise, are not crucial enough for Canada to be able to force a change in policies through sanctions and incidental measures. To exercise any influence at all, Mr. Speaker, we must therefore join forces with other countries.
Sanctions are obviously not an end in themselves. They are only a way to exercise pressure, and that is how they should be evaluated. One can, of course, debate their effectiveness. In fact, a large number of very clear-headed opponents to apartheid in South Africa, as well as discerning public figures in other countries, have some reservations about economic sanctions.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, sanctions are among the only peaceful methods that countries have to clearly express their opposition to apartheid and to demonstrate that they are prepared to go beyond mere speeches.
To the average South African, sanctions are tangible evidence that the world considers his country's system repugnant. They also have a concrete effect. All the sanctions now in place have without any doubt played a role in the growing number of private sector decisions to withdraw investments in an increasingly unstable system. Sanctions add to the costs and difficulties of maintaining apartheid.
Black South African leaders have called for sanctions. Thousands of black South Africans have voted for effective international measures with the only means at their disposal:
strikes, rent boycotts and demonstrations. They are also concerned with the immediate and future consequences of sanctions. However, their first priority is freedom.
As for exports, we have forbidden the delivery of products that contribute to apartheid. Regarding imports, we have emphasized products that are most important for the South African business community. These measures have cut in half our trade with South Africa. The other measures we have taken affect the South Africans who can afford to travel abroad, government representatives and large South African corporations.
Nevertheless, we recognize that sanctions do have an impact on the victims of apartheid. Even so, this is a price that many black South Africans seem prepared to pay as part of the pressure to end a system that systematically deprives them of their most basic rights. And this price is very small compared to what the great majority of the country always pays in the form of unemployment and poverty directly related to apartheid.
South Africa sets itself in a different class altogether. Apartheid is a unique system of racial prejudices enshrined in the Constitution. This deliberate inequality under the Constitution is all the more scandalous in a hypocritical society which maintains that it respects the values of Western democracies and free societies. It should be pointed out that South Africa itself imposes on its neighbours sanctions and trade restrictions that have more impact than the obstacles set up against it.
Canada's policy also includes scholarships for poor South Africans, support for NGOs, aid to victims of apartheid, a code of ethics for Canadian companies doing business in South Africa and other measures. Together with the sanctions, they are a package that clearly shows Canada's commitment to change in South Africa. Were they not combined with sanctions, the other measures would be incomplete. We now see signs of a growing malaise in South Africa. That country's government is spending more and more money on propaganda. It is trying to convince the world that it is making basic changes, although they are only superficial. These attempts show that sanctions have an effect.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that economic measures have given rise to a vigorous operation aimed at circumventing sanctions or lessening their impact. This is an understandable and predictable reaction on the part of the South African government. Its activities in this respect should not be ignored.
At a meeting in Canada last October, Commonwealth heads of State adopted the Okanagan action program on Southern Africa. They set up a Committee of Foreign Ministers, chaired by The Right Hon. Joe Clark, to ensure that the program would take off with full force. As far as sanctions are concerned, the Committee will concentrate in the coming months on expanding, tightening and intensifying their application. The Committee held its first meeting in Lusaka last February, and will be meeting soon in Canada this summer.
May 3, 1988

In Lusaka, the Committee approved the terms of reference and scope of two major studies on sanctions, aimed at shedding light on new trade avenues, accounting practices and delivery routes, and South Africa's relations with the international financial community. The Committee will also try to gather concrete evidence of such practices and will examine specific measures to ensure enforcement of the compulsory embargo on arms shipments.
Sanctions are applied for two reasons, Mr. Speaker: The first is economic and the second is psychological. Measures taken by Canada and other countries have had an impact on both levels. They have sent a clear message of disapproval to the defenders of apartheid and of encouragement to its opponents.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the objective of the international community is to promote real change that can form the basis for justice and prosperity in South Africa. We are trying to change a devastating social system, not to paralyze an economic power, and we hope the system is changed before violence plunges South Africa into total chaos.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have an opportunity to speak against this very misleading motion. The motion of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of rescinding two categories of sanctions against South Africa namely (a) those which impact most less well off citizens (b) those rendered inapplicable by recent progress towards the dismantlement of apartheid.
We have been given by the Hon. Member the standard phoney story, whether he understands it or not, that South Africa, the Government and the people of South Africa, for the most part, are trying to remove apartheid. That is a lot of nonsense.
In the end of the 1940s, about 1948, when the Nationalist Party came to power in South Africa, they brought apartheid in as law. Apartheid did not drop on them from the moon or the sky, something they are struggling to free themselves from. They created it. They are not struggling to remove it. They are struggling to disguise it but not to remove it.
They have got a very good reason for keeping apartheid. Apartheid is the key to slave labour. It is the key to the slave labour of the great majority of the people of South Africa, the black people. Without that, the white people there would have to pay more for their labour. They would not have such an affluent life on the backs of the black people who must struggle in crowded townships, many of them, to get jobs outside the townships, because they are forced by military force, by guns and whips and tanks and tear gas, they are forced to live in those townships. Some of them are allowed to come and work under great restrictions in the cities controlled by the white people at wages controlled by the white people.
Apartheid
We are told it is the poor whites only, like the locomotive driver or the people at the bottom of the union ladder, who want apartheid. That also is nonsense. When people have tried to organize multiracial unions, the Government and the police have smashed them. When the black people have organized their own labour federation, 750,000 workers, the Government has banned it, outlawed it. The Government only believes in unions to the extent that it can manipulate white membership against the black people.
The Member for Western Arctic did not seriously expect us to pay attention to his motion because he did not explain in the motion what were these two categories of sanctions that should be removed. He did get around to it in the last three or four minutes of his remarks, and he talked then about the kind of services that are provided by desperately poor people in Third World countries for the benefit of people from our countries. The export of food in a country where millions of children are starving for lack of food, not because the country doesn't grow food but because they are not allowed to eat it, and the service to well-heeled tourists.
In return for that, what he did not bother to tell us, South Africa wants to import things, and therefore our Government has, for example, banned the sale of sensitive equipment such as computers to the South African police and Armed Forces. If the Hon. Member says that those computers and the Armed Forces impact on the black people, that is true, for sure. They do impact and we could see the impact on television until South Africa banned the freedom of the press and the freedom of the media. We would still see the police, with their computer guided equipment, impacting on the black people if South Africa dared to have freedom of the media there.
There is an embargo on imports of South African arms to Canada. Good. South Africa is becoming far too militarized for the good of its own people, all its people, or the good of its neighbours, and should not be encouraged to be an arms peddlar.
There is a ban on the imports of Namibian uranium. South Africa is an international thief. It has gone in by violence and robbed Namibia of its uranium and many other valuable metals and stolen the proceeds of the sale. The United Nations declared long ago that Namibia should have its independence from South Africa, but South Africa despises the decision of the world community through the United Nations and continues to rob the people of Namibia for the sake of exporting valuable minerals from that country. When the people of Namibia opposed that robbery, South Africa brought in the army, called the Namibian people bandits for defending their own land and killed them or driven them out of the country.
We are asked to believe that the Botha Government wants to dismantle apartheid. They have not said that. They want to dismantle some of the little fringes of apartheid, but they do not want to change the basic purpose and system of apartheid, which is segregated labour so that a black person is not

May 3, 1988
Apartheid
entitled in almost all cases to have the wages that a white person would have for the very same job, whether man or woman.
We are told that the people will be hurt by our sanctions, and yet those who are leaders in non-violent action, non-violent protest, speaking as black people, like Archbishop Tutu, like the Reverend Mr. Boesak, those people are silenced, as far as the Government dares, by police threats. They are not allowed to speak publicly. Their demonstrations, their public actions, are banned, and these are non-violent leaders, so that the South African Government wishes to create the impression that it is a besieged civilization, opposing invasion by violent people, because it will not permit any movement, non-violent, towards change.
One of the best things that the present Government has done has been its move in the direction of sanctions against South Africa. They have not been successful in bringing down apartheid yet, it is true. For one thing, the Government has only gone partway, in spite of the Prime Minister's promise several years ago to go the whole way. The Government keeps holding off and holding off. It is true that there are trade considerations and that the Government in Canada does not want Canada to go short if other countries are making money by selling to apartheid.
It may be that because of Britain particularly, the sanction movement will not succeed in its direct economic effect on South Africa. But to the extent that the Government of Canada, backed by thousands and tens of thousands of the people of Canada, backed by the great majority of the people of Canada, has supported the idea of sanctions, at least there is a message given of hope to the black people and the coloured people of South Africa that is a message of warning to the white slave owners.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this topic today. I believe that one of the contentions of the motion is that recent progress towards dismantlement of apartheid has rendered inapplicable some of the sanctions Canada has imposed on South Africa. In spite of the very passionate speech by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), I do not believe there have been major reforms in South Africa. However, contrary to what my friend from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) said, I do believe that the sanctions we imposed impact upon the poorest people in South Africa. I favour a continuance of our policy of moderate sanctions while leaving the door open to be involved closely with South Africa as the situation changes.
It is true that we now have the phenomenon of the Government of South Africa engaging in an international campaign to try to convince the world that it is prepared to let the black majority share in political power. However, it has not addressed the basic issues and has not demonstrated that it is prepared seriously to contemplate negotiations with the
majority towards the creation of a non-racial representative Government.
Apartheid is a system which attempts to preserve all political and economic power in South Africa for the 15 per cent of the population who are of European descent. The theory was that the different races should develop separately. By pretending that the non-white majority, 85 per cent of the population, were not really South African, the Government of South Africa attempted to rationalize the operation of a whites only parliamentary system. The Government went so far as to declare approximately six million South Africans to be citizens of totally uneconomic and geographically fragmented "homelands", which it declared to be independent. For all others, the South African Government introduced rigid restrictions based on race to determine where people could live. Similar restrictions were imposed on the use of schools, hospitals and all other public services.
I assume that the motion under consideration supposes that the minor relaxations in the application of some of these race-based restrictions constitutes significant reform. Relaxation of restrictions has, however, been a minor phenomenon, usually in the large cities which are frequented by foreigners. For almost all the population of South Africa, race continues to determine living standards, where one can live, go to school, to work, or be treated for health problems.
On the political level, the assumption may be that a proposal by the Government of South Africa to establish a national council with only a minority from the 85 per cent of the population which is not white somehow constitutes reform. However, we should note that it is only a proposal so far. It also excludes from participation most of the individuals whom most of the population regard as their leaders through a clause which disqualifies anyone convicted of what many regard as political crimes. Additionally, the majority of members would be appointed by the Government, presumably to represent the white minority or its interests. It is not surprising that the proposal has been rejected by all significant black leaders, including Chief Buthelezi who said that he would consider participating only if Nelson Mandela were released and allowed to participate, and if the bans on the ANC and other organizations were lifted.
Indeed, recent messages out of South Africa are negative and appear to be clear evidence of an unwillingness to face the prospects of real change. The Government acted to place even further restrictions on the peaceful political activities of opposition organizations and a number of individuals. It acted to detain church leaders who tried to deliver a letter to the President asking him to rescind these political bannings. It introduced legislation that could put in jeopardy international funding of organizations that oppose apartheid. I do not believe these are the actions of a Government which is serious about facing fundamental change. The majority of South Africans remain without political rights and continue to suffer gross economic and social inequities.
May 3, 1988

In Nassau, in 1985, the Commonwealth heads of government identified five criteria by which South Africa would be judged. The authorities must declare that apartheid will be dismantled and take specific and meaningful action to do so. They must terminate the existing state of emergency. All those imprisoned and detained for their opposition to apartheid, including Nelson Mandela, must be released unconditionally. The political bans on the ANC and other political Parties must be lifted. Finally, in the conditions these actions would create, and in the context of a suspension of violence, a process of dialogue must be initiated across lines of colour, politics and religion, with a view to establishing a non-racial and representative government.
Action towards satisfying these five conditions are the criteria of progress and the test of any claims by the Government of South Africa that it is serious about reform. While I am aware of the major problems that can occur as they proceed towards dismantling apartheid, I am concerned that some regard as substantial movement the minor tinkering which has so far taken place. The basic realities of the situation in South Africa are so stark, however, and the fundamental injustices so clear, that I am confident Canadians will continue to demand a policy in South Africa which reflects Canadian values.
Now is the time for the Government of South Africa to act to bring about a peaceful settlement. Progress remains possible while there remains some willingness to compromise. If more time is lost, inevitably the passions of racial hatred will continue to grow and the future of South Africa may be too grotesque to contemplate. The goal of Canadian policy must be to continue to press for real reform and real negotiations now, while a prosperous, humane and just South Africa remains an attainable goal.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes remaining I would like to make some comments about Motion No. 89 moved by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).
The Government of Canada's policy on South Africa is to do everything possible to help avert a disaster. South Africa is a bitterly divided and violent country which risks a devastating conflagration. The security clamp-down on the vast majority of the people, the inequalities based on race, and the refusal by the Government of South Africa to accept the requirement for fundamental change, have created hardship, disaffection and discontent. If not positively dealt with, the frustrations arising from these conditions will sooner or later spill over again into ever escalating violence.
Canada has been at the forefront of international efforts to pressure South Africa to change course and chart a new future in which all South Africans can play a full role in the nation's social, economic and political life. It is a new future that will also allow Namibia its rightful independence, and South Africa's neighbours a chance to develop unhindered by South African military and economic destabilization.
Apartheid
To impress upon South Africa our conviction that real progress must be made urgently in achieving fundamental change, we have imposed a series of strong economic and other sanctions unilaterally and in concert with the Commonwealth and the UN. These measures are important and they are working. They are also a concrete expression of Canada's strong condemnation of the system of apartheid and the repressive actions taken to maintain that system. Those actions include the imposition of Draconian additional restrictions on the peaceful activities of anti-apartheid organizations and individuals, introduction of legislation that could restrict foreign funding of anti-apartheid activities, detention without trial of thousands of South Africans for their opposition to apartheid, and the increasingly repressive censorship regulations.
Equally important in Canada's policy are positive measures which we take to assist the victims and opponents of apartheid. Programs to provide support, both psychological and material, to help overcome additional suffering imposed on those who dare to speak out and try to bring about change, are essential for humanitarian reasons. Even more important, they are a practical demonstration to those involved in the struggle to change South Africa that the world supports their cause and cares about their faith.
I see the time has expired, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the Order is dropped from the Order Paper.
Pursuant to an order made earlier this day, the House will now resume consideration of third reading of Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime).




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime), be read the third time and passed.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to comment on this important piece of legislation before the House. Before I get into the text of my speech I want to comment on today's process. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was very gracious in his comments. He indicated at the outset that he appreciated the co-operation which the opposition Parties had given him and the Government in the development of this Bill. Today we are debating

May 3, 1988
Apartheid
the last stage of the Bill, third reading, before it goes to the Senate.
Having said that, the Minister of Justice went on to introduce the final stage of the Bill knowing two things. First, the House traditionally recognizes that Members of Parliament carry on their duties and responsibilities not only here in the Chamber but also in other jurisdictions, not the least of which are the standing committees of the House of Commons. One of the most active standing committees and one of the most critical in the administration of justice is, of course, the Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. That committee is travelling today and holding hearings in other parts of Canada on important matters.
There is an understanding among Members that you cannot be in a committee and in the House of Commons at the same time. It is a physical impossibility. There has, therefore, been an understanding that a committee will not sit when a Bill in which it would normally be interested is before the House. In the alternative, there would be ample notice given to allow the spokespersons from the various political Parties to have a chance to be in the House to participate in the debate.
That is one tradition or common courtesy which was broken in this case. There is a second. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) worked hard with the Minister of Justice and his colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. He worked to develop a piece of legislation in the best interests of victims of crime. We are debating that Bill today. The Minister of Justice recognized that cooperation. The Hon. Member for Burnaby is recognized by Canadians from all parts of the country as an outstanding Justice critic.
He was unable to be here today because he was participating in a committee of the House of Commons, and the Government knew that. Nevertheless, the Government decided to bring before the House legislation which he had worked hard to develop in co-operation with the Minister of Justice, in spite of the fact that he could not be here for this last stage of the legislative procedure.
I am not complaining particularly or saying that this is terribly unfair. However, it certainly indicates an insensitivity and indicates that the Government is prepared to ignore tradition, procedures, and practices. I simply wanted to make that case.
The crime victim in Canadian society is victimized first by the offender and then by our justice process. Remedial action is long overdue. Every year almost 700 Canadian families are victimized by a murder, 2,500 lose someone to a drunk driver, and 100,000 other Canadians suffer lasting emotional trauma as a result of crime. Many more lose property or have their homes entered.
I understand that process, having been subject to a break and entry in my own home recently.
For these Canadians there is rarely any assistance to recover from the shock, fear, and anger. They experience delays in return of property-if there is any return at all-a lack of information about the investigation, and occasionally a summons to a court room where they are considered to be virtually a nobody.
Only one in 50 victims of violence receives any form of compensation at all from the state. Only one Canadian community in 100 has practical and emotional assistance organized for victims of common crimes. One in 25 has a rape crisis centre or shelter for battered wives.
This is not news to federal and provincial Ministers responsible for justice. Few have denied it, most have lamented it, and all have studied the recommendations of numerous reports. However, legislation has not been introduced or basic services established.
One Justice Minister was not content with this talk. Manitoba's former Justice Minister, Roland Penner, introduced a justice for victims of crime Bill which would have provided a coherent response to victims' needs for assistance and recognition. The Bill would have placed Manitoba among world leaders in recognizing the plight of victims of crime. Manitoban crime victims would have been informed promptly about remedies such as counselling, restitution from the offender, and compensation from the state.
I only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the change of government in Manitoba will not hinder the implementation and progress of this incredibly outstanding initiative taken by the former Government in Manitoba.
Victims would be kept informed of the investigation concerning the crime of which they were a victim. They would have their property returned when recovered and told how to prevent further victimization. Services would be created to help them cope with the longer-lasting problems of fear, anger, and sleeplessness. Judges and lawyers would consider the victims' needs, particularly when ordering restitution.
The Bill introduced by Manitoba's Roland Penner would achieve this by establishing a permanent committee which would use a victim assistance fund to promote specific principles of justice for victims. The inclusion of two victims on the committee would keep the innovations focused on the victims' needs.
You will recall, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that in 1985 the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a detailed declaration on victims' rights, calling on countries for more effective measures to prevent crime and basic programs to assist victims.
The General Assembly, like other international bodies of which most of us are aware, stresses that victims have personal interests that are affected by decisions of the criminal courts. Victims must be given access to justice and fair treatment.
May 3, 1988

Reparation from the offender to the victim must be given priority. Services must be provided to help victims recover.
Officials concerned with national policies on victims in Britain, Switzerland, and India are already studying the Manitoba Bill to which I referred earlier, which is the first to implement the United Nations resolution in a local jurisdiction with a committee which has real teeth. In other words, it would have real powers to act in this very critical matter dealing with victims of various crimes. However, it covers only those principles that relate to provincial jurisdiction, and even then it does not deal with crime prevention or state compensation.
This leads us to ask what the federal Minister can do besides talk on the initiative which we are discussing here today. Most victims first contact the police when in a serious situation. Any action to help victims should start there. The federal Government's responsibility for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police gives it direct influence over one in three police officers in Canada in the best regarded police force in the world.
There is no question that the RCMP is the most respected police force anywhere in the world and one of which all Canadians can feel very proud. As a western Member of Parliament I know that it is traditional to have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police represent us in terms of law and order. Whenever there is a special event to honour an officer who has carried out his or her duties above and beyond the normal call of duty, the response from the community is overwhelming. I am proud to be able to say that and to be part of a Parliament which has seen fit to have such an outstanding police force.
The federal Government could set an example of how police should respond to victims by establishing public guidelines for the RCMP. These might specify how the officer would give the victim information on services and remedies available as well as how the victim will be informed as the investigation continues.
Criminal Code
At the National Police College, where senior officers from Canada and abroad are educated on strategies for the future, the police leaders for the next decade could be committed to treating victims as people, too.
In 30 U.S. states, the judge is required to consider restitution and usually will study a report on the losses suffered by the victim.
One could go on and on to talk about the need for seeking ways and means of offering justice for the victims of crimes. This legislation is a step in the right direction.
As the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has said on a number of occasions, it is a step in the right direction, and we are pleased to be associated with it.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby was a master of the content of the Bill, having been part of the drafting process. He was almost intimately knowledgeable about every aspect of the Bill. He indicated to me that had he been here it would have been quite appropriate to have one Member speak this afternoon. Since he was unable to be here, some of my colleagues have seen fit to make appropriate comments with regard to the development of the legislation.
With that, I will simply say that we are in favour of the Bill and believe it is a useful step in the right direction. We support it enthusiastically.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.12 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, May 4, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers