Ron MacDonald

[Employment Equity Act, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is not that many generations ago that blacks in Nova Scotia were not allowed to walk into theatres and sit with whites. It was not 100 years ago. It was in the early 1960s when that came to an end.

The member should look at history to find out when native Canadians, the first people in this land, were finally recognized as people and given the right to vote. That is within my generation and my lifetime.

[Employment Equity Act, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am unlucky or lucky. Each time an issue dealing with things such as employment equity, discrimination, or fairness in hiring comes up, I always speak after the member for Wild Rose. What it means is that I normally do not have to worry about going back to a speech that somebody else wrote for me. He usually incites me to find things inside that are germane to my very being, that are at the core of what I am and the reason I got into politics.

Some of the nonsense I hear espoused by that particular member does a great disservice, not only to the constituents he represents but to the party he belongs to and the Parliament he sits in. This member consistently and constantly gets up and shows that it is okay to speak in the Parliament of Canada-and I do not deny him the right or the privilege to do so-and pretend that things are other than what they are.

I listened to this member say "What about the white male?" He told everyone who was listening tonight that his 23-year-old mailman son, I think he said, had to go south of the border, had to get a green card. I am sorry for that. I hope that my son will be able to get employment in this country when he is ready to enter the labour market. But I want to give him a wake-up call. There are many sons of people in my constituency whose colour is not the same as mine or the member for Wild Rose, whose native language is not the same as mine or the member for Wild Rose, whose fathers cannot get employment in this country, not because the jobs do not exist but solely because of the colour of their skin, the language they speak, or their cultural heritage. That is the reality in this country.

If the member for Wild Rose wants to be shown, I will issue him an invitation to come down and I will walk him through the back streets of Preston, Nova Scotia, and he can meet the people who for generations have fought to be included. They have not asked to be given special treatment, they have not asked to be singled out. They have asked to be treated like his white male 23-year-old son to participate to the fullness of their ability in the labour market. That is what this is all about.

For the hon. member to deny this tells me that this individual and the fact that he can get up and speak the way he does in the House is more a testament to the tolerance of the democratic institution called Parliament than it is to the point of view he espouses.

The member opposite and the Reform Party get up and use this high office called Parliament-what John Turner used to refer to as the highest court in the land, and it is-to put forward points of view they know are dishonest, points of view that say there is no need in this country for the federal government, the lead government in this country, the highest court in the land, to put out in policies and programs what it believes are standards that should be followed in its own bailiwick, with its own employees in the areas it regulates, in federally regulated industries.

To listen to the member and those of his ilk over there one would believe that everything is rosy, that the status quo is something not just to be maintained but to be heralded. This is the way we have done it. This is the way it should be.

[Cfb Shearwater, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

In the budget of two years ago, measures were announced regarding the downsizing of Canadian Forces Base Shearwater which resulted in the loss of about 700 jobs. Through perseverance and hard work that community has adjusted. However, new and unnamed DND sources are now being quoted in the media as saying that the Department of National Defence intends to com-

pletely close that base down this fall which would result in the loss of an additional 1,400 jobs.

I ask the minister to remove the anxiety these recent rumours have caused to that community by stating clearly that these latest rumours bear no relationship to the plans this government has for CFB Shearwater.

[Witness Protection Program Act, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

This is an important bill, particularly for the hon. member from Scarborough who so kindly gave up his spot for me to speak. I congratulate him on the work he has done in laying the groundwork for this type of legislation.

Many times in the past the legislative procedure and process of the House of Commons have given reason for the public and members of this place to be cynical and sceptical about what it is the backbench can do, what it is independent members can do with respect to setting the legislative agenda. I acknowledge up front the work the hon. member for Scarborough West has done in ensuring this important piece of legislation was put before the House.

It is quite rare for a private member's bill to be debated and actually get beyond the pro forma number of required hours once it is drawn and actually get passed. The fact that the hon. member for Scarborough West got the bill to second reading and caused it to come forward is not only a testament to the way Parliament can work. It is also a personal testament to how the member sticks to it. All members owe him a debt of gratitude.

There are very few times when a piece of government legislation comes forward which is supported by all sides of the House. It appears the legislation is supported by all sides of the House. Perhaps the government and the House leadership on our side will take a close look and find, when legislation comes from the backbenches of either side of this place, that it is better legislation. They might want to free us up a bit more to do that type of job.

In the last number of years I have found that my opinions on justice, law and order have gone from what would have been considered to be a liberal left position to a more realistic, responsive position when it deals with some aspects of the criminal justice system. That has happened over the seven years I have been a member of Parliament because of my interaction with the criminal justice system on behalf of my constituents. I have viewed it from afar and have watched cases unfold. I have dealt with people who have been victims of crime. I have dealt with the law enforcement agencies and people in the judiciary.

As we start to understand that, when we deal with the criminal justice system, just as we have to be flexible in other areas of public policy such as social policy and fiscal matters, we have to be extremely flexible and reasonable when we deal with the criminal justice system.

The system must be responsive to the needs of the community. Clearly the area of witness protection is one of those areas where there was a responsibility, a requirement by government, to come forward and recognize we had to statutize programs that currently existed at the federal level with the RCMP.

I am concerned that sometimes we direct the limited resources we have for law enforcement into areas that simply are not able to deal with the problem in as effective a manner as is required. The area of witness protection has concerned me for a number of years. I will deal with the reasons for that.

In my area, which is not that dissimilar from most urban areas across Canada, there is a lot of urban crime. There are a lot of crimes specifically against children. The hon. member for Scarborough West has been on his feet in the House more times than any other member dealing with some of these issues.

In my riding we have had to suffer through a disproportionate number of our young children from 13 years old to 16 years old being drawn into prostitution. I claim no moral high ground in dealing with these issues, but I am a parent and I represent an area where there are many kids who have been plucked from their turbulent years in puberty and thrown into a world that can only be described as a world of terror. They are plucked out of their schools; they are taken from the downtowns, from the shopping malls, by people who can only be described as the worst criminals in Canadian society. They are pimps that befriend primarily young girls, draw them into a life of crime, of drug addiction and literally

sexual slavery. At 14, 15 or 16 years old these children have lost their youth and have been violated in the worst possible ways.

However there has been a problem in the criminal justice system in dealing effectively with that situation. There has been a problem in the judiciary in applying the strictness of fines and of penalties the public demands and that should be applied. There has been a problem in the prosecution because it has been extremely difficult to offer the level of protection to those young girls, the victims of crime, but also the witnesses to crimes that happen to themselves and to others in that circumstance.

They come forward with the certainty that if they give testimony in a court of law against these monsters walking the streets one of two things will happen. Either the criminal justice system would deal with a conviction in such a light manner that 6 months or 12 months later the individual is back out on the street doing the same thing with young kids again, or there would be threats to the personal safety of the individual who came forward as a victim and a witness to the crime as well as threats to their families.

I relate something that happened about three years ago which marked me forever. It was late on a Friday afternoon. There were far too many calls to return and I was tired after a week up here. My secretary said I had to take a phone call.

It was a mother who was more than distraught. She was beaten by a system that could not respond to what she saw as her child's need, a mother despondent because she did not think she could help her child. Her 15-year old daughter had been lured into prostitution at the age of 13. At one point the daughter said she had made the break and she did not want to do that any more. Two days later a van showed up in front of her house with her pimps or the part of the international criminal element that deals with street prostitution of juveniles. They had their buddies and they parked outside.

Within two or three days the daughter told her mother she had to go back to Toronto, back on the street. The mother begged her and beseeched her not to do it. Her child had been raped, abused, beaten and threatened with death. She had seen some of her friends beaten close to death by this criminal element, these monsters, these pimps. Why would she go back to a life like that? She feared for her own personal safety and did not believe the criminal justice system could afford her the protection necessary to put those demons away.

Outside her own personal safety she went back to the street out of the fear for the safety of her family and knowing full well that she might be a statistic, and maybe she is today. I hope not. She did not want her mother to suddenly turn around one morning while she was by herself in her kitchen and be confronted by thugs who would beat and perhaps sexually assault her. That is why that child went back to the street.

About a year later the mother called me and said: "My daughter has called and she cannot stand any more. She has been beaten, tortured, sexually assaulted and she is getting out. She is in Niagara Falls and I want to bring her home. We have to get her out of there. She has broken away from her pimp and I cannot get anybody to help".

I thought of my 11-year old daughter and my God, I hope that if I am ever in a situation like that somebody would at least do their best to take my child out of that danger.

It took a lot of phone calls, a lot more than it should have taken, before I could get somebody to act. The child was turning 16 on a Monday of a long weekend and the law enforcement agency said: "We can bring her back but what do we do with her? Where do we put her? These people will be back. Is she prepared to testify? If she is not, what do we do with her?" I spent until 11 p.m. that night trying to find a safe haven for that victim of crime and potential witness against the perpetrators of the crime.

The bill begins to address some of the real issues facing law enforcement agencies, the judicial system and certainly facing the victims of crime and individuals who can come forward and give testimony in a court of law, knowing full well that if they do there are resources and programs available by statute that will assist in their protection and that of their families.

Every year we spend a lot of money to put somebody in jail. We spend a lot of money when we have to send law enforcement agencies and police officers to pursue criminals. We must put money into a program that will say to witnesses that if they come forward and tell their stories, we will do our very best in a very regulated statutory fashion with a program that has financing to protect them and their families against intimidation or, God forbid, physical violence or even death.

In my riding a young lady involved in prostitution broke away and wanted to stop. She wanted the people who had stolen her life to be dealt with by the criminal justice system. She was to give evidence against a gang of criminals operating right across Canada and in the northeastern U.S. She was to testify. A strong message to all those other victims of that type of crime was sent when she was found murdered before the testimony could be given. The individual she was to testify against is currently awaiting trial on murder charges.

I wish that were the only case I could relate. There are more cases in which young girls or women who have decided to get out of prostitution and turn evidence have had to live a life from one hell to another, a life on the run, not knowing when a car stops in front of them whether somebody will put a bullet in their head. That is reality street in a town of only 65,000 people. It is

happening in Toronto, in Scarborough, in western Canada and in small town Canada.

The bill starts down the right road. It does the right things. It tells us there is a program and there will be rules to the program. The program will have a dollar allocation. Currently the RCMP deals with that in its own programs because it has the budget.

This is the type of legislation the Canadian public wants. It wants to give the necessary resources to government agencies and to the criminal justice system for it to work. They want the resources to be targeted in a way that we alleviate as much as we can the criminal element from our streets while at the same time give protection and statutized, regularized program protection to those willing to come forward and confront elements in our society truly from the dark side of humanity.

I speak for the victims of crime who are potential witnesses to their victimization. I encourage the government and all members to continue to work, like the member for Scarborough West has worked, to identify to government and Parliament the types of programs through which we can come together and ensure the limited resources of government can be directed toward law enforcement and the criminal justice system. They should be directed in a fashion that allows us to attain the goal of safer streets and that those willing to participate to help us have safer streets are afforded the protection required.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I just found out there is a positive aspect of being moved one more seat to the left. I am a little closer to the Speaker's plane of view. I appreciate being recognized in this very important debate.

This is one of the issues that really galvanizes what our party stands for. It also makes strikingly clear what lies at the heart of the Reform Party. I have very strong views when it comes to employment equity, affirmative action and government striking the fundamental policy framework that we expect our bureaucrats, our departments, our crown agencies and those businesses within the

federal realm of regulation in setting the parameters of the type of behaviour we expect them to follow.

This is not the first time employment equity has been debated in the House. In the last Parliament on a number of occasions, be they private members' bills or motions put forward on days to eliminate racial discrimination, members put on record what they believed about employment equity.

In the last Parliament we may have differed substantially on our economic approaches and policies and on our social policies but there was almost a unanimity of agreement with the New Democratic Party and with the Conservative Party when it was in government about a couple of fundamental facts about Canadian society.

One was that systemic discrimination unfortunately does exist. It exists in the federal workplace. It exists in the provincial workplace and it exists in the private sector. Anybody who would get up in the Chamber and indicate they believe there is no such thing as systemic discrimination clearly is from another planet or has been living with their head in the sand for longer than I have been on this earth.

Systemic discrimination is as real as the air we breathe and is as alive today as the people who sit in these chairs. More than once I have talked from the perspective of an MP who represents the largest indigenous black community in Canada, in Preston, North Preston, East Preston, Cherry Brook, Lake Loon. Those communities have been established in Nova Scotia a lot longer than the community I was born in, New Waterford. Most people in Nova Scotia see New Waterford as more of a Nova Scotian community than the Prestons which were founded by blacks from other parts of the globe over hundreds of years.

Preston community is six kilometres outside the boundaries of my city. My city has an unemployment rate of anywhere from 7.5 to 8.5 per cent. In the almost entirely black community, a ghettoized situation from 250 years ago, there are unemployment rates upward of 80 per cent in the winter.

One of the first things I did in 1988 after I was elected to represent the good people of the riding of Dartmouth was go to the Speaker of the day. I asked the Speaker, Mr. Fraser, whether it was possible to use some of my budget to get a survey done. Our budgets were more restrictive.

I explained what I wanted to do. I had gone to the bureaucrats. They are good people, not racists, not bigots. I asked them what information they had with respect to unemployment levels in the black community. They said they did not have any. Why not? How can there be federal programs such as skills training, job development and re-entry programs that are supposed to help those groups most dislocated from labour if there are no statistics about the degree of the problem in a particular community?

Bureaucracies knew there were problems but did not want to quantify them. We spent $15,000 out of my budget and we quantified. There were no startling revelations except that finally somebody white in a position of authority said the facts are the facts and they are indisputable. It was only then that bureaucracies felt comfortable trying to address the problems of barriers to entry and participation by visible minorities in my area.

I am saddened to say that seven years later I am worn down from my efforts of trying to battle systemic discrimination. Daily it becomes more systemic and rooted in the way bureaucracies operate.

The bill does not seek to tell employers they have to hire a black person or a native Canadian or a Cape Bretoner, which I am, if they are not qualified. It sets down a framework and sets out a policy objective that says: "If everybody in your organization looks like me, speaks like me and acts like me, they are more likely to hire somebody who looks like me, acts like me and speaks like me". That is not individual racism; it is the way life is in most organizations.

The bill seeks to build on the previous employment equity legislation passed in 1986 and say we have come a long way but we have a mighty long way to go yet. We cannot succumb to the insane attitudes of some on the loony right of the political spectrum and say, as the member from Windsor said: "I am all right Jack. What is your problem?"

I will tell the House what some of the problems are. A good businessman came to my office a week and a half ago. He operates without a line of credit at the bank and employs 17 to 20 people in the winter. He finances his operation through a finance company at 28.8 per cent interest. He cannot access capital through the regular sources. He has been shying away from the sheriff for 20 years. He is a black businessman. There are barriers to his access to capital from banks.

Seven years ago when we did the study the banks were angry because I fingered the banks and said there was systemic discrimination in their lending practices. They wailed. The facts coming to my office told me it was that way. How could an individual that resilient, who could operate from a line of credit from a finance company and who had no cash flow to work with stay in business? That was the best entrepreneur I ever saw.

Just think what would have happened if he was a white entrepreneur who had access to capital from the banks. Banks such as the

Royal Bank have recognized that when we talk about systemic discrimination we are not pointing a finger at individuals; we are stating facts based on statistics and we must work aggressively within a policy framework to deal with it.

This bill simply sets out the framework. It says the government is still very much concerned that its crown agencies and corporations may not be working as hard as they should to ensure there are no barriers to participation in the federal public service, crown corporations and the private sector which is federally regulated, to ensure the people who do the hiring, the people in power, recognize they may have to work a little harder. If we deal on the other side of it with the people in the labour market, maybe the young black who wants to be an entrepreneur does not understand he could be welcomed as a client of the bank. He also has his own barriers to participation in the equity market or the labour market.

Sometimes that extra effort is made to say: "We will hire 12 people and we have to make sure we do not send it just to the community college". The community college in my area does not have the proper participation of minority groups. It is not proportional. If employers say they have made a commitment to hire qualified individuals, and it is all about the merit principle, they must recognize that by past practices there may be some groups in society that do not feel they are wanted at the door and do not make the application.

Employers, because they have set it out as their policy to encourage qualified members of minority groups to participate, must make sure that instead of going just to the community college they also go to the Dartmouth East Black Learners Centre and say: "We need people with these skills. Are there some people you can send for us to look at?"

That is what this bill is about. It is about setting a direction. It is about setting a goal. It is about a process whereby we remind ourselves that systemic discrimination does exist and that we can do something about it to ensure individuals are not discriminated against based on colour, language, gender, sexual orientation or any of those other things that really should not make a difference.

I hope some of the misinformation from the Reform Party's minority report is put to the test. This is not about special treatment. This is about equal treatment and equal access. The bill does not solve the problem but it is another small step in the right direction toward allowing everyone regardless of colour, race or language to develop to the fullness of their potential. Governments are setting the tone and the direction to remove the obstacles to that full participation.

[Oceans Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is the first time I have spoken from the left side of my chair instead of the right side and perhaps my left leaning ideology may come out a little stronger in this speech than it has in the last speeches I have made in the Chamber.

I hope the bill finds a very broad degree of support by members on all sides of the House. It clearly establishes the framework of a piece of legislation, a commitment given by the government as espoused by no less than the Prime Minister to get a focus in government on the development and management of oceans and ocean policy.

The bill has been a long time in coming and has been awaited with much anticipation by many individuals and organizations dealing with the marine environment. The Canadian Wildlife Fund and many other organizations have pushed for many years for the government to come in with a piece of legislation that would consolidate the administration of all governmental activities related to oceans as well as ensure the number one prerogative and prerequisite of this policy be conservation.

If measures taken by governments respecting management of oceans and oceans policy did not pass the fundamental test of being environmentally sound, they would not be passed.

The bill affirms the commitment of the government to a new approach to oceans management. The preamble clearly outlines the government's commitment to manage the oceans in a sustainable, environmental and ecologically sound fashion.

The bill consolidates and gives impact and full effect to the laws of Canada, not just marine laws but environmental laws in our 200-mile limit. It goes through a whole bunch of definitions of the contiguous zone, the coastal zone, the 200-mile economic zone and all of those things.

In essence it puts in a single piece of legislation the regulatory legislative framework for us to act in the best interests of those who rely on our marine resource for a living. It directs government as to how it should deal with the marine environment.

Part II of the act tries to consolidate a lot of governmental activity with respect to the oceans. I have been critical about the way the government has handled the oceans generally. I have been critical for fairly good reason.

Over the years governments have come to see the ocean as a place to exploit a resource called fish. We can see this very clearly by the difficulties we have on both coasts, more poignantly perhaps on the east coast with the collapse of the ground fishery and over 100,000 people without employment. Coastal communities are dying and a way of life unique to that part of Canada is perhaps facing extinction.

It is all because governments have not been able to deal comprehensively in policy with that ocean resource. Current legislation almost ignores that there is an interrelationship between various policy arms of the government with respect to the health of the ocean resource.

It also ignores that there is an ecology within the ocean that deals with living and non-living organisms. In the last number of years Canada has worked aggressively at the United Nations. It has been one of the states that has promoted to a great extent and has perhaps been the lead nation on some of the major conservation efforts with the United Nations law of the sea.

Canada has talked a lot about the need for some international regimes to deal with oceans, to deal with those fringe areas, straddling stocks, highly migratory stocks. However, there are other issues in the law of the sea convention that Canada had some difficulty with, deep ocean bed mining, for example.

How do we reconcile ourselves as a state to that? Whose resource is this to manage? When we get on to the continental shelf there are laws dealing with our proprietary right and our management responsibilities in the water column. Perhaps they are less clear about which level of government has jurisdiction or whether

the Canadian government has any legal jurisdiction for the sea bed for minerals or deep ocean mining.

There has been much debate in the last year with the Americans about sedentary species when dealing with the continental shelf. Who has management rights of those species? Who has the right of first exploitation and who has the responsibility to manage? The act seeks to consolidate in a fairly substantial way all the various issues, programs and legislation.

I am pleased with the direction the bill has taken. I am pleased that it gives primary responsibility for co-ordination of the application of these pieces of legislation and regulations to the minister of fisheries. However, I am from Missouri, I am yet to be convinced the bill goes as far as it should to ensure a sharp edge to the sword in the management and policy development dealing with our marine resources.

I am a bit confused that in the bill we give the minister of fisheries primary responsibility for co-ordination. I would rather see a direct line of accountability for the administration of some of the acts which still fall under the purview of other departments and other ministers.

I think back to the dispute we had not long ago when two ministers worked very well together in dealing with the turbot dispute with the European Union, more particularly and poignantly with the Spanish fleet decimating a straddling stock. We almost saw another stock going into the record book as being extinct as a commercial and viable stock on our east coast.

We had the good fortune at that time to have the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans working together on a co-ordinated and combined approach to resolve and put together the Canadian position, making sure the Canadian position was put to the international community very strongly and firmly and that it was accepted by the international community. As a result of that close working relationship, sharing the same goals, we were able to save a species and defuse a difficult international situation that had arisen with respect to the turbot allocation on the east coast.

I am extremely pleased the bill is going to committee. As chairman of the committee, I want the committee to look at whether there are some pieces of legislation currently outside the direct jurisdiction of the minister, although the minister may have the responsibility for co-ordination, where we possibly can make a case that those pieces of legislation and programs should be more properly moved over to the minister of fisheries.

When we talk about downsizing and government and operational review we must look at what makes sense. The policy as stated in the preamble of the bill is one I heartily support and I hope it will be supported by all members of the House.

Part III of the bill talks about the minister of fisheries having primary responsibility for ocean research. It is an absolute given. There is more than fish in our oceans. There is more benefit than exploiting the stocks in our oceans. Ocean science in itself is a generator of wealth and employment which can be exported on our east and west coasts and in the labs of central Canada.

I want to make sure that when the bill is passed the minister of fisheries, as stated in part III, has the tools at his disposal to ensure there is proper direction and proper resources applied to the whole area of marine and ocean science.

In my riding of Dartmouth I am lucky to have the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, a world class centre for oceans research. In excess of 12,000 people produce good products. There is partnering by the scientific community employed by the government and the scientific community in the Halifax-Dartmouth area. Some of that technology is being exported around the world.

In that facility the geological survey is doing incredible work. The work of the labs on the east and west coasts is leading science around the world. People from educational and academic institutions and other governments around the world come to see how we do our research in Canada.

I get concerned, however, that lab is not under the direction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is under the direction of the Minister of Natural Resources. It is not the primary objective or job of that department to ensure that deep ocean science has a pre-eminent position when you deal with where your resources go inside a department.

At the same time, we have provisions dealing with deep ocean dumping, which seems to me should more likely be over with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Currently, although there would be a requirement in this act to see the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as the lead, it does not hand that particular responsibility over to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

We have a chance through committee to show two things. One is that the committee can work. I have an incredibly good committee, and I am very proud as chairman to say that most of the work we do is non-partisan. Sometimes we fall prey to the fact that we are practitioners of the political profession and sometimes we become partisan.

As a chair of a committee I want to let everybody in this place know that I believe there is a proper role for a committee to play with respect to examining legislation. I am hoping that when this bill passes second reading and gets to the committee we in the committee will do a fairly exhaustive review of this bill and will be

able to come back with a bill that is true to the principles and if necessary strengthens the hand of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada within its own area of responsibility clearly feels if there is a dispute settling mechanism and the dispute is settled but a province is stubborn and decides after one year of going through the two bodies, the joint co-operative committee and the processes outlined and agreed to by all 13 parties, that it will not to be party to the dispute settlement mechanism finding, to the resolution, and still refuses to act in compliance with the agreement, the government will take some actions.

Those actions are extremely limited by the very section of the bill. It does not say the Government of Canada can take straight retaliatory action. It outlines clearly the actions that can be taken and the actions that cannot be taken.

I understand the member opposite would be worried that the federal government can use its heavy hand to impose a settlement. Clearly after 10 provinces, two territories and the federal government agree on a dispute settling mechanism and a province or territory refused to adhere to the rules of the game, the government believes it is justified to use within its jurisdiction certain economic means.

I do not think it is unjustified. It is like telling my children over and over again there are rules but if they violate the rules there will not be any penalty. If my children violate the rules there is a penalty. It is a penalty of last resort after consultation, after communication and after dispute settling in my house.

At the end of the day if they continue to violate the agreements in our house-it would be the same in the federal House-I reserve the right, as would the federal government, to take reasonable means in response to that.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I gave away a little of my firepower in questions to the hon. member opposite. I indicated to the hon. member that it was very clear when I read the documents relating to the bill that nobody on this side of the House believes this is the be all and end all.

The Prime Minister in his remarks last year when this was all done clearly indicated that he thought it was a step, albeit a small but very necessary step, toward the full removal of internal trade barriers in Canada.

I understand what the hon. member was speaking about. I also understand that sometimes we have to crawl before we walk and walk before we run. There is no question the bill is long overdue. There is no question that the internal trade barriers perpetuated by various provincial governments, with the blessing of the federal government because perhaps in the past the federal government has not shown the necessary leadership, have caused a real mishmash of provincial trade barriers not just in the movement of goods and services but also of people. It is fair to say to individuals watching that the bill is a step in the right direction.

The hon. member opposite mentioned that it did not apply to the energy sector. That is exactly right. By the time the agreement was signed last year there was no agreement among the 13 players on how we should treat the energy sector. If my reading of the memorandums of last year is correct, it was agreed that there would be some framework to deal with the energy sector by the end of this month.

The hon. member raised some good points. If he waits 10 days-and perhaps we could wait 10 days-he will see the process concluded and there will be some guidelines, rules and framework for the energy sector.

It is clear the bill is long overdue. It does not impose anything on the provinces. It simply reaffirms the requirement in legislation of the federal government to fulfil the commitments made last year when the agreement was made. The bill provides a federal legislative framework. It does not impose anything on anyone. It encourages the type of debate that has taken place in the past and the consensus building that has arrived at the framework of today.

I mentioned that perhaps it was easier to conclude the free trade deal with the United States because there were only two partners, or the NAFTA because there were only three partners, than it was to deal with the Canadian provinces and territories.

Everybody knows there is a problem within Canada. Everybody knows there are certain things that must be done to make us more competitive. One only has to look at some of the areas that are covered. The agreement covers 10 very specific areas: procurement of goods, services and construction; investment; labour mobility; consumer related measures; agricultural and food goods; alcoholic beverages; natural resource processing;

communications and transportation; and environmental protection. It is a step in the right direction.

I want to focus my speech a little away from the bill per se and at a microcosm of some of the problems in Canada. I want to specifically focus on Atlantic Canada. There are four Atlantic provinces including the three maritime provinces of P.E.I., New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It is very clear to me as a student of history and a student of Murray Beck, a political scientist who has written some very good and thought provoking accounts of the political history of Nova Scotia, that Nova Scotia has always felt it was at a disadvantage in Confederation.

Prior to Confederation we were free traders. All one has to do is look at our location. We are stuck out on the northeastern coast of North America. We have the closest deep water, ice free port in Halifax to the great circle route. We were great world traders. When we got into Confederation it started to change because the trading patterns were forced by regulation and by legislation to be east-west when we normally should have been trading across the ocean and north-south.

My friends from the Bloc Quebecois might be interested to know that the first secessionist movement in Canada did not happen in the province of Quebec but in the province of Nova Scotia. There was great debate shortly after Confederation on whether or not the province should stay. We chose the right course and we chose to stay even though there were some restrictions to our growth. We decided the way to deal with it was to stay in a larger unit and to try to address the problems.

Since the 1970s the Council of the Maritime Premiers realized that three small provinces, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, had less than two million people and had far too many barriers to internal trade in that small region. Each of those provinces had its own professional accreditation boards. A pipe fitter in New Brunswick may not have been able to work on a job in P.E.I., or a barber in P.E.I. may not have been able to cut hair in Nova Scotia. Those were the barriers to trade set up during that many decade period of protectionism in an effort to create jobs and keep them in each area.

We have had much talk in Atlantic Canada about how we must become more competitive and less reliant on government. If we go back to 1989 there was a gentleman by the name of Dr. Charles McMillan who wrote a very good document called "Standing Up to the Future" in which he talked about the need for maritime Canada to take up the challenge of integrating our economies. He said very clearly that governments must pursue a strategic program and that economic integration is a key to economic prosperity. He said:

The strategy must be based on eliminating trade barriers, encouraging new investment and being outward oriented.

Back in 1989, after almost 19 or 20 years of having the Council of Maritime Premiers, it was clear we recognized the requirement of reducing internal barriers to trade.

In 1991, after Dr. McMillan's paper had been around for about a year and a half, the Council of Maritime Premiers responded very forcefully and effectively. It came up with the Maritime Procurement Act which stated that for goods tendered for $25,000 or more, for services of $50,000 or more and for construction contracts of over $100,000 there would be no more discrimination based on where the company that bid for those contracts came from in Maritime Canada. Clearly the movement had begun to reduce those barriers to trade.

In 1992 the council came up with the Maritime Economic Co-operation Act. It has been working on a number of major projects since then. The Council of Maritime Premiers has a number of boards, organizations and bureaucrats working for the continued removal of barriers to the mobility of apprenticeship trades people. The primary goal of this whole focus in maritime Canada is to become more competitive.

Everybody in maritime Canada knows one of the stumbling blocks to removing internal trade barriers has been the free movement of beer in Canada. Although this may not seem like a big deal to some people it is a big deal in Atlantic Canada for two reasons. We had come out of a period when individual provinces had restrictions on the movement of beer between provinces. They did that to protect brewing industry jobs in their areas.

With some of the agreements in the past, we found products were flooding into Nova Scotia but perhaps Nova Scotia or New Brunswick products did not have equal access to the most lucrative market which is in Ontario.

My point in all of this is the maritime provinces, the traditional have nots, the ones which seem to be left out of the economic cycle when it is on the up swing but always first included when it is on the down slide, have long since recognized the key to competitiveness is to remove internal barriers to trade.

I have always been a free trader. People in my area and all over Canada will only prosper and be able to recognize their potential and our potential as a nation if we work aggressively to remove those barriers to trade.

This is not a perfect bill, but it is closer to perfection than anything I have seen in the six years I have been here. I urge members of the Reform Party opposite who seek a perfect bill to support the direction of the bill and to work with us on this side and with members of the Bloc Quebecois to ensure the people we represent have access to markets unfettered by regulatory and non-regulatory barriers to free trade.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member. I have to say I am not exactly sure what the hon. member really wishes to do to try to get free trade within the country.

On a number of occasions the hon. member was urging the federal government to abandon the consultative process which resulted in the bill before us today. One year ago July 13 senior governments in Canada-the 10 provinces, the federal government and the two territorial governments-arrived at a consensus.

A little later in his speech he talked about the government using its heavy hand because there was a section in the legislation that may allow it, given certain circumstances under the Constitution by the way to disallow provincial legislation.

He cannot have it both ways. What does the hon. member find so offensive about a process that has finally arrived at a framework under which all governments in the country, federal, provincial and territorial, have agreed to reduce internal barriers to trade? What process would he want to put in its place? This process has been under way since 1987. The agreements that were reached in July of last year were agreements that were reached after seven years of negotiations.

Would he have the federal government use the heavy hand, the constitutional powers he says we have, to completely abandon a moral requirement for consultation in these areas? Would he have us roll over the rights of provincial governments? Would he have us abandon the consultative process? Would he have us abandon the basics of the agreement on internal trade, specifically the section that deals with the affirmation of constitutional rights and responsibilities since he spoke a lot about them, the general rules section which sets out the obligations for activities governed by the act, a special rules section which sets out the particular ways in which the rules apply in the 10 sectors covered by the agreement, and the section that sets out administrative provisions and the dispute resolution mechanism?

Surely the hon. member opposite knows that when we are dealing in the area of trade it is not as easy as walking in and saying: "Here is what I want; therefore that is what I get". This is a process of negotiation similar to what was done with the free trade agreement with the United States. It was probably a little easier in the free trade agreement with the United States because we were only dealing with two governments. Indeed when we were dealing with the NAFTA we were dealing with three governments. In Canada, because of our constitutional structure, we were dealing with 13 governments.

Should we abandon the consultative process which he seems to have condemned in his remarks and use the available tool albeit blunt in our Constitution, or does he say that we should abandon the process and start again? Which does he want? Does he want consultation or does he want heavy handed federal action in this area?

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was a member in the last Parliament, and I do not often use language that strong. I am sorry, but the member's comments incited me to strong language. If it is the wish of the Chair, I will withdraw it.

I will speak later in this debate and I will clarify my comments so that anybody who is listening will fully understand the intent of what I just said to the hon. member.