Philip Mayfield

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to participate in second reading debate of government Bill C-45, an act to amend section 745 of the Criminal Code.

This is an important debate for Canadians. It is very close to the heart of members of my constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin. Like perhaps every member in the House, I have received many letters, phone calls and communications from people not only in my constituency but from across the country talking about the justice system. They have told me of their dissatisfaction, of the fear they experience and of the difficulties the police forces are having not simply in enforcing the law but in getting convictions in the justice system after people who have committed offences are apprehended.

People tell me the justice system is broken and has to be fixed. The Canadian people deserve, have a need and indeed a right to certain securities and safety in their communities. They tell me this system needs change and it needs to be reformed. That has been one of the major planks of the Reform Party's platform since its inception. The Canadian people deserve safety. They need the security and certainty that they can walk down the street, any street in any Canadian city, without being concerned whether they will be mauled, threatened, injured or murdered.

Why do Canadians feel this way? The answer is a simple one. Canadians do not feel safe in their homes or on the streets. They are concerned about their children's safety in their own neighbourhoods. In some cities like Vancouver, parents have to clean up the mess on the streets before their children can go to school because of the danger of coming into contact with harmful substances, objects or people. They also see the justice system as one protecting the rights of criminals over the needs, the suffering and the loss of victims.

This bill merely perpetuates this reality. Bill C-45 does not do anything to protect victims and their need to recover from horrible suffering, pain and loss.

As my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley stated, Bill C-45 is totally redundant. There are two major reasons why this is case. Before I discuss these reasons, let me describe who the victims of crime are. How does section 745 of the Criminal Code ignore their legitimate needs?

The victims of crime I am talking about are the friends and families of those who have been callously murdered in our society. Victims are sentenced by a killer. Their sentences are true life sentences because they carry the pain and the loss of a loved one forever.

This brings to mind the sentencing of first degree murderers which we call a life sentence at 25 years. In my mind 25 years does not represent the life of a person. The son or the friend or the spouse who has been stolen from a victim with no regard for their loss, let alone no compensation, is gone forever. There is no time limit on that.

Many victims of crime view section 745 of the Criminal Code as one way the justice system protects the rights of murderers over the needs of victims. Section 745 dates back to 1976 when Parliament abolished capital punishment with the passing of then Bill C-84.

Included in Bill C-84 was the mandatory sentencing clause which gives anyone convicted of first degree murder a minimum 25 year sentence before parole eligibility. The mandatory sentencing clause also included section 745, the so-called faint hope clause, which more and more victims are calling the sure bet clause. It gives every first and second degree murderer the right to apply for a reduction in parole eligibility after they serve 15 years of a 25 year so-called life sentence.

This is the absolute right of the convicted murderer, but 79 per cent of those who have applied for a reduced sentence under section 745 have received a reduced sentence. That means only 21

per cent of murderers who apply under section 745 are denied and must continue to serve their full 25 years life sentence.

Section 745 was included because the government of the day felt that in some situations the interests of the criminals should come before the interests of the public. This was expressed very clearly by a minister of the day. Jean-Pierre Goyer, a former solicitor general of Canada said in response to Prime Minister Trudeau's attempt at reforms of the justice system in the 1970s: "We have decided to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society".

That is exactly the point where we differ. That is exactly where we believe the government at that time made a wrong turn and sacrificed the safety of our citizens for the rights and the rehabilitation of convicted felons.

This is exactly what victims of crime are upset about. Section 745 violates the needs for fundamental justice. The victims are the ones who have to go home every night to an empty house or sleep in an empty bed. Then they live out every day with the grief, the sorrow and the suffering of knowing the one they love is never coming home again. The only solace they have is being sure the one who murdered their loved one is behind bars, unable to inflict such violence on anyone again.

After 15 years of this kind of pain many victims discover for the first time that section 745 even exists and that those who murdered their loved ones have the automatic right to a section 745 hearing to determine their suitability for early parole. The felon gets another opportunity to state why he deserves freedom while the victims continue to bear the life sentence inflicted on them by this same applicant. Even though the murderer may not be granted early release, victims must still relive the horror, anxiety and pain of their loved ones' death.

Darlene Boyd, whose daughter Laurie was murdered 14 years ago, says she did not think her family members could go through another judicial hearing. It would be traumatic for them.

Victims also feel cheated by section 745. They often ask: "Why should the person who killed someone I loved and who has been convicted of murder and given a 25 year life sentence be released early or even be given the right to apply for early parole? I have no parole or judicial review or faint hope clause to shorten my sentence".

Mrs. Rose Onofrey, whose son Dennis was murdered, said: "Is that all my son's life is worth, fifteen years? Why do I have to be victimized again and again?" Dorothy Mallet, a convicted murderer who received early parole under section 745, wants to visit her children. "I have to go to the cemetery to visit my son", Mrs. Onofrey said.

The problem with section 745 is that it respects murderers' rights over the rights and the needs of victims. The bill is a weak attempt to correct this imbalance. Indeed it is not an attempt, it is totally redundant. Bill C-45 does not go anywhere near protecting victims and their needs.

There are two major reasons why this is so. Bill C-45 removes the right of only multiple and serial murderers to apply under section 745. If this legislation is passed before the House adjourns, and it is expected that it will, serial killers like Clifford Olson can still request to apply for early parole because the restrictions against serial killers are not retroactive.

It is true that killers like Olson would be unlikely to win an appeal to apply for early parole in any case, but this is not the point. The point is Clifford Olson and people like him should not be allowed to even make the request. Allowing a criminal like Olson any right to ask for a hearing to determine his suitability for early parole degrades and undervalues the rights of Olson's victims.

Gary Rosenfeldt, the father of one of Olson's 11 victims, said last week this entire section is an insult to victims. I agree. Mr. Rosenfeldt is correct. The families Olson has hurt and traumatized have suffered for years with the memories of his heinous crimes. Bill C-45 still gives him the right to request a hearing for early parole. It is insulting. Victims deserve more respect than that and the public deserves a greater degree of certain safety.

The second reason Bill C-45 does not go far enough is that those who have killed one person still have the right to appeal their parole ineligibility. Multiple or serial killers are denied this right. This creates categories of killers in society, first degree killers that is.

Those who killed one victim will have access to the process for early release but those who killed more than one victim will not have the access to the early release process. Canadians believe that murder is murder and that one murder is as bad as the next. Why then does the justice minister consider the killing of one person less serious than the killing of two or more people?

I can hardly believe he would do that. I can hardly believe he would tell the friends and family of Lisa Clausen of British Columbia who was murdered by Paul Kocurek in 1980 that Mr. Kocurek can enter into the early release process on August 2, 1996 because Lisa was the only person he killed.

How about the family of Kenneth Kaplinski? Kenneth was abducted in 1977, taken into the woods and executed by Edward Sales and Allan Kinsella. Kinsella obtained an early parole hearing and was turned down, while Sales has applied and awaits a response. How can the justice minister tell Ken's family that Sales and Kinsella will be allowed to request a hearing for early release because they have only committed one murder?

I can hardly believe that the justice minister would tell Janet Shelever of Calgary that her husband's killer can still request early parole because her husband was his only victim. That is exactly what the justice minister is saying to these victims and many others if Bill C-45 passes.

Victims of single murderers grieve, mourn and suffer as much as the victims of multiple and serial killers. If Bill C-45 passes, they will continue to suffer and the person who killed their loved one will be eligible to apply for early parole and could obtain an early release.

Does Bill C-45 respect and place a high value on the suffering of victims? I say no and so do many Canadians. All that is valued in this bill is the status quo.

There have been a couple of questions about how many people have been killed by people let out of jail on section 745. In fact, section 745 which was passed in 1976, has only allowed convicted killers the opportunity to appeal for the last five years. That is a very small window by which to test anything. In the past five years one killer has been out under section 745 and has killed again. More important, of all those who have been let out on parole, there have been 15 murders committed by them. That is the true story. That is what we need to look at.

I challenge the justice minister to do two things. First, treat first degree murderers equally. Second, have some regard for the survivors of victims and their everlasting loss and the pain they suffer.

The only way to achieve these objectives is by repealing section 745 of the Criminal Code, not by amending it. Those who commit any murder, single or multiple, would have no right to apply for or receive early parole. Their parole privileges would be the same and survivors of victims would not have to relive the horror, the anxiety and the pain of their loved one's death. Nor would they feel cheated because the one who killed their son, brother, sister or mother is only serving a fraction of the life sentence they deserve for causing so much harm and such irreplaceable loss.

This brings me to another point. Why does the Liberal government almost always deal with serious issues by bringing forward bills which at best are only half measures? Bill C-45 is redundant. It is not going to change anything. There is a pattern to this and it goes beyond Bill C-45.

Think of the pain, the anguish and the horror caused to many Canadians with the way Bill C-33 was rushed through the House. After saying this was going to be a more open government, the Liberals gave no opportunity to Canadians to have input on the human rights bill. It was dealt with in 10 days.

Consider also the GST. What a way to deal with the promise that was made in the red book. Because the Liberals could not reach an agreement with the provinces, they singled out some of the smaller ones and gave them a better or different deal and left the others to haggle and bargain with the government.

What about the unemployment insurance bill, a bill that affects millions of Canadians? Without input, without even knowing where they are going, there is a proposal to change the whole policy, to ram it through, to let the sufferers fall where they may.

This is not an appropriate way to bring legislation before the House. Legislation should reflect the consensus of the values, the will and the desires of the Canadian people. That is not what the government is doing with Bill C-45 in amending section 745.

This bill will do nothing to change the facts about how unsafe it is for Canadians to walk on their streets and sleep in their beds knowing they are absolutely secure. This bill does nothing to give the police forces the tools and the measures they need to bring criminals to conviction.

[Liberal Party, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has often portrayed the Reform taxpayers budget as slash and burn policy, but this accusation only reflects the government's attempt to mislead Canadians.

The real facts of this matter are these. Hidden in the Canada health and social transfer, the Liberals intend to chop billions in transfers to the provinces over the next four years: a $3.3 billion cut to health care, a $1.3 billion cut to education, a $1.7 billion cut to social services.

Reform's taxpayers budget, however, recommended reductions to health care of only $800 million; education, $200 million; social services, $2.5 billion. That is a total of $2.8 billion less than the Liberals will cut.

Now you tell me, Mr. Speaker, who is slashing and burning Canada's social programs? It is the Liberals who are putting the country's most cherished and valued social programs in danger.

[Standards Council Of Canada Act, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this afternoon to speak on Bill C-4, an act to amend the Standards Council of Canada Act.

What are standards? Standards are measures of dimension, of quality, of exactness, serving as examples or principles to which others conform or should conform or by which the accuracy or quality of others is judged.

Many Canadian and international organizations strive to attain and maintain a certain level of standardization in fields relating to construction, manufacture, production, quality performance, and safety of buildings, structures, manufactured articles, products and other goods not expressly provided by law.

For example, electric plug manufacturers want their products to work safely and efficiently. Therefore they build their electrical plugs to fit into standardized wall sockets. These plugs must also conduct a standardized level of electricity and allow household appliances to work without sparking a fire.

As members can understand from this example, we need standards in the smallest details of our lives. Standards are critical in protecting the safety of Canadians and in ensuring their economic prosperity and the well-being of their children both now and in the future.

For instance, how do Canadians know that their children's bicycle helmets will protect them when they fall or collide? How do Canadians know that the windows in their houses will keep the heat in while keeping out the cold of the winter? How do Canadians know that their TV reception will not go fuzzy when they turn on their home computers? The answer is standards.

Standards are crucial in protecting Canadian people and in ensuring that goods and services will reach a level of quality on which Canadians can depend.

In addition, increasing global trade forces Canadian companies to agree on international standards. Canadian manufacturers know that their products must meet the requirements of various countries around the world or they will not be able to export and trade abroad.

Canada's trade agreements, NAFTA, GATT and the internal trade agreement, prohibit the use of standards as trade barriers. However, international co-operation relating to standards is crucial to Canada's economic growth.

The bill before us today deals with the Standards Council of Canada. The mandate of this crown corporation is to promote standardization with the hope "of advancing the national economy, benefiting the public, protecting consumers and facilitating trade and furthering international co-operation". These all relate to standards.

What are the main elements of Bill C-4? First, it expands the current mandate of the Standards Council to all areas where standardization is not already provided for by law.

Second, Bill C-4 involves more Canadian volunteers in standards activities and promotes communication between governments and the private sector.

Third, Bill C-4 reduces the number of council members from 57 to 15 and adds qualifications for private sector representatives.

Fourth, Bill C-4 changes in the English version the titles of the president and vice-president to chairperson and vice-chairperson respectively.

Fifth, Bill C-4 specifies the duties of the chairperson.

Sixth, Bill C-4 establishes the provincial-territorial advisory committee and the standards development organizations advisory committee.

Finally, Bill C-4 specifies that meetings of the council and its committees may be held through electronic means.

These are amendments to the Standards Council of Canada Act that the Reform Party of Canada can support. I will only comment on a few elements of this bill.

The Standards Council of Canada membership would be reduced from 57 to 15. This is an important change. The council would be able to meet more often with fewer people. Presently the council only meets twice a year for a day each time. This is hardly enough time to co-ordinate, develop and administer efficient and effective standards, especially in today's electronic world with so many rapid changes occurring.

Telecommunications and computers are advancing so rapidly that it is difficult to develop standards quickly enough to keep up with these changes. It is common sense that a smaller membership, meeting more frequently, would be an improved means of dealing with the complexities of standards implementation in this fast changing world.

Using modern technology to hold electronic council meetings is also a bold step for a crown corporation to take to operate more effectively. These kinds of meetings can build efficiencies and save tax dollars. We encourage the council to continue to experiment with ideas of this kind.

The Standards Council of Canada membership would also change under Bill C-4. The number of public servant members on the council would decrease from six to one. This is a change that would hopefully make the Standards Council of Canada more representative of the Canadian people and the Canadian industry that depend on these standards.

Too often in the past government decisions have been made by an elitist and insensitive group of public servants in Ottawa who have no direct contact with the desires and needs of the Canadian people who are trying to make the economy work. This requires change, but it needs to change not only with the Standards Council of Canada but with all of government.

Public policy needs to be designed and implemented by the applicable level of government closest to the Canadians affected. Canadians must have a direct say in what government plans and what government brings into effect. When this happens, the government can in the words of Pericles be called "a democracy because power is in the hands not of the few but of the many".

I am not suggesting a new idea. The private sector membership of the council would also change under Bill C-4. To make the council more open, accessible and accountable, members would be representative of a broad spectrum of interests and would have the experience necessary to assist the council in fulfilling its mandate. This change would hopefully allow those most affected by the council's resolutions to have a direct say in this decision making.

I will comment on the Standards Council of Canada's financial situation. Its operating expenses this year were estimated at $9,847,000. Its revenues were estimated at $4,663,000, but its budget for 1996-97 is estimated at $5,184,000. That is quite a saving. I congratulate the council.

We commend the Standards Council of Canada for its efforts to reach full cost recovery, but it has not gone far enough. It needs to take further steps by being even more innovative in covering all of its operating costs. In doing this the Standards Council of Canada would be setting an example for all of government.

Therefore we challenge the government and we challenge all crown corporations to follow the standards council's lead. We challenge them to examine their operating budgets, to find areas where they can offer programs more efficiently and to find where costs can be fully recovered. More important, we challenge them to find ways to become more accessible and more accountable to the people they serve. They will be doing what is right for Canada and what is fair and necessary for all Canadians.

[Goods And Services Tax, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the people of the Atlantic provinces really are aware of how much extra tax they will have to pay because their provincial Liberal governments have come to the rescue of the federal Liberal government as it desperately tries to save face on the GST nightmare.

The actions of their governments will mean that consumers will now pay taxes on such things as children's clothing, second hand goods, heating oil, gasoline, new homes and funerals. While the rest of the country's taxpayers will pay for their government's inability to keep a promise, the people of the east coast will ultimately be the ones to suffer under this harmonization scheme.

The GST rate may be lower for the time being, but when the so-called subsidy runs out and the provincial governments find they have to make up this difference, where will it come from? According to the memorandum of understanding it could come from the Atlantic Canadians themselves as they face increased provincial taxes to cover the shortfall.

Harmonization is not what the government promised on the campaign trail and harmonization, plain and simple, means higher taxes for all. Talk about government by broken promises.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made some point of discussing the regional economic development which goes on out there and Reform Party policy. He mentioned my leader, the member from Calgary Southwest, at least three times. He has said a lot of things.

The hon. member should look at what the Reform Party is about and not simply what his own party is saying about Reformers. The Reform Party really would like to see Canadians be independent, to be able to care for themselves, to take satisfaction in their achievements. That is what we would like for the provinces as well. We would like for Labrador and Newfoundland, as well as all the other provinces, to be strong, economically capable and self-sufficient. As a British Columbian I am really proud that we have the strength, the economy and the wealth that benefits other provinces and other people in Canada.

In the member's justification of all the things the government has done over the years for Newfoundland and Labrador, such as the army bases and bringing in money through economic development funds, would he tell me how prosperous the province has become as a result of Liberal initiatives?

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member would say we are calling to have this contract judged. That has already been done. That is not what we are asking for. We are asking to have the contract renegotiated.

It is not only Churchill Falls that is the problem here. The problem is the blocking of a development which is waiting to spring up and benefit the people in that part of the country. The lower Churchill, the Voisey; there is so much happening there and this contract is a plug that will not allow events to flow through.

The Government of Canada should be prepared to take some leadership in opening up the possibilities for this to be resolved. We have suggested some of those possibilities but we are not the government in power. We are urging, pushing and suggesting that the government must take the initiative. If it cares for Newfoundland and the development of Labrador it must take the initiative. It must adjudicate fairly to the interests of both Quebec and Labrador. It must take action to relieve this impossible situation.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has been calling for fairness and justice about the injustice it has been suffering. Newfoundland and Labrador has been hurting very badly for a long time. If we are to have a country in which all of the provinces can hold together, then the interests and the needs of every region of the country must be given attention.

Are we to say to Quebec that its needs have not been met so it can go? Are we to say to Newfoundland that it has been hurting for a long time and maybe if it leaves Confederation it will be able to renegotiate a contract or say to go stuff it?

The interests of Newfoundland and Labrador must be attended to. The Government of Canada must attend to the interests of all regions of the country, including the eastern region of Newfoundland and Labrador. It must also attend to the needs of Quebec, I agree.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member would have us believe that the Reform Party has come to Ottawa to begin thinking about what the country needs. I did not come to Ottawa because I was interested in the self-serving drivel I have heard from the opposite side and the government benches. I entered politics because of serious concerns of longstanding issues that need redress from my part of the country.

We did not go into Labrador simply to win a byelection. We were there long before this byelection was called. This is not a new issue that the Reform Party has dreamed up. This is an old, old issue that has been hurting and crying for redress for years and years and years. Simply because the Reform Party has the guts to stand up and say that enough is enough, something has to be done does not mean it was invented by the Reform Party.

We are simply speaking on behalf of the people who have been calling for redress for decades. This is nonsense that I am hearing from the member. This is an unjust contract. He knows it and what he says is to serve his own political purposes.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the poet Robert Frost penned the very eloquent words: "Something there is; that doesn't love a wall; that wants it down".

This is a sentiment with which Quebec's new premier is starting to agree. He wants to mend and remove broken fences, to heal old wounds, to show that Quebec is a good neighbour and that it would be a good trading partner, as a sovereign country of course. However, one fence which Quebec and Labrador have between them which needs major repair is the Churchill Falls contract.

Twenty-seven years ago a 65-year contract was signed between the Churchill Falls Corporation of Labrador and Hydro Quebec. The contract requires that Newfoundland sell cheap power to Quebec from the gigantic hydroelectric project on the Churchill River until the year 2041 at pre-1973 oil prices.

It is an extremely unfair contract. Newfoundland earns $20 million each year from Churchill Falls' electricity sales. Hydro Quebec, on the other hand, makes a staggering profit of $800 million from the resale of Newfoundland power to New England. That is a difference of $780 million.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are extremely upset and even embittered over the contract. This is a matter which dates back long before the days when the Reform Party was in politics. It was a matter of great concern and sadness before I ever thought about politics.

It is an unjust contract. It is an unfair contract. It is an oppressive contract. Newfoundlanders know they erred in signing it. They realize that Quebec has wilfully and knowingly taken advantage of them. Quebec knows that too.

When Newfoundlanders suffer, Canada suffers. The $780 million that Newfoundland and Labrador lose to Quebec every year is nearly equal to the amount that Newfoundland gets in equalization payments from Ottawa. The Churchill Falls contract is extremely unfair to the Canadian taxpayer as well.

If Quebec wants to be a good neighbour, if it wants to build good fences rather than poor ones, if it wants to show the world that it can be trusted, it will come back to the table and renegotiate the

contract with Newfoundland and Labrador. We challenge the premier of Quebec to make this commitment.

Newfoundland is a have not province. It suffers from the highest unemployment rate in the country. Over 20 per cent of the population is unemployed. The cod fishing industry is practically non-existent and its economy is in a complete shambles.

If a fair contract had been signed, or if the federal Liberal government had intervened to ensure that Newfoundland received an equitable share of the profits from this megaproject, the economic situation in Newfoundland would be quite different today. There would be jobs. There would be growth. There would be prosperity in Newfoundland today.

Newfoundland has been unable to finance a power line to siphon off some of Churchill's power to the island. It has also been unable to finance the construction of a second Labrador power plant on the lower Churchill River, estimated to cost $11 billion. This project would create 24,000 construction jobs. Newfoundland also cannot afford to develop a smelter in the Voisey Bay, a project that would create hundreds, if not thousands of jobs.

The federal government promised to create jobs, jobs, jobs. There is no place in Canada that needs jobs more than Newfoundland. However, for the last 27 years the federal government has failed to act on behalf of Newfoundlanders concerning this matter. It has failed to intervene and to guarantee one of the poorest provinces in the country its fair share of profits from the direct sale of power to the New England states.

If Quebec does not want to be a good neighbour, if it does not want to build good fences and voluntarily agree to renegotiate the Churchill Falls contract, then we challenge the federal government to stand up for the people of Newfoundland. We challenge the federal government to lower internal trade barriers in Canada and to push Quebec to the negotiating table.

Quebec has refused to allow Newfoundland to build its own power lines on Quebec soil. Consequently, Labrador cannot develop the lower Churchill Falls hydroelectric plant. Quebec also has refused to allow Newfoundland to use its transmission lines to transmit electricity to markets in other parts of Canada or the United States, to join in the North American power grid.

Clearly Quebec has backed Newfoundland and Labrador into a very tight catch-22 position. It cannot develop the untapped resources of the lower Churchill Falls unless it gets an energy contract. It cannot get a contract without a way to transmit the electricity to the buyer.

Quebec has established a barrier to the free movement of electricity from Newfoundland to places outside Quebec. If Quebec does not want to be a good neighbour, if it does not want to mend walls with Newfoundland and Labrador and voluntarily agree to break down this trade barrier, then the federal government must move to have the trade impediment removed. This would lead to prosperity, not only for Newfoundland and Labrador, but increased prosperity for Quebec as well.

In western Canada natural gas, electricity and oil freely cross provincial boundaries. This neighbourly approach to trade creates a harmonious relationship among western provinces and produces greater wealth for all the provinces involved as these provinces have free access to each other's markets.

If Quebec would be this kind of good neighbour, Labrador and Quebec would both prosper, shoulder to shoulder into the 21st century.

By this August there is supposed to be a second draft of the internal trade agreement to be signed. Unfortunately it is not in Quebec's economic interest to sign the internal trade agreement. Quebec would have to give up some of the benefits it receives from Churchill Falls contracts. It is unwilling to do this so it will not come to the table.

It is important for Ottawa to finally take a stand for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It needs to take a strong stand and say that enough is enough. Quebec must come back to the negotiating table. It must help build good fences between good neighbours. It must work to allow Newfoundlanders to benefit from their own resources.

The federal government can urge Quebec to be more neighbourly by first of all following a recommendation by a federal government mandated group that tabled a report in 1988 called: "Energy and Canadians: Into the 21st Century". That report recommends:

The federal government should articulate the conditions under which one province has a right to access, on a business basis, another province's electricity corridor or electrical grid for the purposes of transmitting electricity to a market not adjacent to the first province.

This is the first step for the federal government: state the right of the provinces to interprovincial trade, then articulate the conditions under which that trade might exist. Taking this stand would not require legislation. It is a direct statement of policy.

The government must assert its authority under section 121 of the Constitution to bring down internal trade barriers. Section 121 reads: "All articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall from and after the union be admitted free into each of the other provinces". If the federal government is willing to use this section of the Constitution, it might be enough to encourage Quebec to come back to the negotiating table on this subject.

If Quebec still refuses to be a good neighbour, the federal government could act further. It could give the National Energy Board the power to open up Quebec's transmission lines to allow export of electricity from another province. This would allow Newfoundland to channel electricity through Quebec lines to markets in the United States.

Quebec would still have the original Churchill Falls contract. Its earning power would remain in place but Quebec would also be helping out a neighbour. It would be helping all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to get back on their feet financially so they could get off government assistance and back to work. This would help build a prosperous future for their families right into the 21st century. It would be a neighbourly act indeed.

If Quebec refuses to be a good neighbour and remains unwilling to mend fences between itself and Labrador, the federal government might consider a second position suggested by the National Energy Board. That option is to use section 58(4) of the National Energy Board Act to designate a corridor through Quebec on which hydro lines could be built by Newfoundland for the transmission of its own power. This could be done through an order in council.

What I have just discussed are only options. They are options available to the parties and to the federal government. They are options that would encourage Quebec to become more neighbourly in its attitude and more giving in its actions.

The fences between Quebec and Labrador are in need of much repair. Newfoundland and Labrador have suffered financially for years due to the Churchill Falls contract and Quebec's trade barriers. They are extremely embittered. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador want a change and they have wanted it for years.

The new premier of Quebec wants to mend broken fences, to heal old wounds, to show that Quebec is a good neighbour and that it would be a good trading partner as a sovereign country. This is a prime opportunity for Quebec to come back to the table voluntarily to renegotiate this contract with Labrador to break down internal trade barriers. If Quebec does this, then and only then will Quebec together with Newfoundland and Labrador be able to say that well mended fences make good neighbours. However, if this is not possible, the Government of Canada representing the interests of all provinces must intervene.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I would like to expand on it a little bit.

It occurred to me as I listened very carefully to the minister's brief history lesson that when the contract was being agreed on and signed, there was a Liberal government in Newfoundland, a Liberal government in Quebec and a Liberal government in Ottawa. I wonder if the Newfoundland voters consider this as they think about who is representing their interests.

It also occurs to me while we listen to members of the Bloc Quebecois talk about honouring contracts, there is another contract that many of us hold quite dear, originally known as the British North America Act, the Canadian Constitution.

Bloc members seem to feel there is some injustice in their province. Some members of Parliament and Canadians would very much like to accommodate the legitimate concerns of Quebec so that every province, including Quebec, would have a legitimate and

meaningful place in the country. While this is being done, there are other members of a rump group, who are saying: "No, we will tear up that contract. We will go our own way. We will forget about that".

I would like to add that question to the previous question. It seems to me that if the province of Quebec no longer exists and becomes a country, whatever name they choose to call it, then it is necessary to re-establish contracts and certainly this contract with Newfoundland and Labrador.

How does the member consider breaking the contract of confederation and his insistence that the previous contract with Newfoundland and Labrador cannot be touched?

[Translation]