1984-01-23

Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, at this point I rise in order to seek the unanimous consent-


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I would like to hear what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) is saying. Then 1 will hear the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Chair has to read the Order of the Day in order to proceed further, with great respect.


Mr. Speaker:: The problem the Chair faces is that the Order of the Day has to be moved by an Hon. Member. There is a problem in seeking unanimous consent to substitute another Hon. Member in the name of the Hon. Member in whose name the motion stands on the Order Paper. For that reason the Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill at this point.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent of the House to substitute the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) for the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who fell ill this weekend and had to go to hospital. We understand he will be returning home today. He is unable to be here today. We would like very much the Hon. Member for Regina East to move the motion for the Hon. Member for Skeena and speak to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there consent that the Hon. Member for Regina East should move the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena?


Mr. Pinard:: These are humanitarian grounds that are entirely understandable, and I think it would be most unreasonable to deny consent when one of our colleagues is ill and as a result unable to move a motion. I can assure you that we on
the Government side are always very reasonable, and in the circumstances, we most certainly shall agree to the Hon. Member's request.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in our view it is unnecessary. It has long been the practice of this House in circumstances like these, or any other circumstances where the mover of a motion is not present, for that motion to be moved in the name of any other Hon. Member who is recognized for that purpose. Certainly if there were consent required, we would gladly give it; but in this case we maintain that that consent is not necessary, that any member of the NDP could move that motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is acting in accordance with the ruling of Madam Speaker Sauve on October 17, 1983, as spelled out in Hansard at page 28078, where Madam Speaker clearly ruled that in such circumstances unanimous consent was required. In accordance with that, I presume there is unanimous consent. Therefore, the Hon. Member for Regina East, seconded by Mr. Ogle-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, you cannot presume unanimous consent has been given on this side. We have stated that we believe, with great respect to the former occupant of the chair whom you have now replaced, that she acted on bad advice in that instance. It has for decades been the practice of this place, when an Hon. Member in whose name a motion stands is away, that that motion may be moved by any other member of the Party that has moved it.
[DOT] (U10)
We are not going to stand in the way of unanimous consent. We expect this Order of the Day to proceed today. I understand the Government House Leader might be disposed to find some area of agreement with me, but you will recall the difficulty it led to on the last occasion and what a ruling like that means, Mr. Speaker. I would hope the Chair might take this under consideration. In circumstances where perhaps we are not on all fours as we are now today with respect to this motion proceeding, it leads to the position where, in order to be sure a motion put down in the name of a member is heard, it has to be put down in the name of every other single member in the Party that supports that motion. The Order Paper is cluttered at God knows what expense and we do not want to be put in that position ever again. We want to revert to the practice where we were free as we were in the past. For example, when a Minister is absent, there must be freedom for that motion or Bill to be moved in the name of another

January 23, 1984
Supply
Minister. That has been the practice here and we would like the Chair to review it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has made a ruling. The Chair has made note of the observations of the Hon. Member for Yukon. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Regina East to move the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton)?


Erik Nielsen: We will not refuse consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East) moved:: That a Royal Commission of Inquiry be created to study the nuclear fuel cycle in Canada including the range of economic, social, medical, environmental and safety matters resulting from exploration, mining, production, transportation, storage and use of uranium and its byproducts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today my Party, the New Democratic Party, has introduced this motion during its Opposition Day. We feel the time is long overdue for the public of Canada to be afforded an opportunity to look at the Canadian nuclear industry, from the mining aspect to the enrichment, to the use and export and sale of uranium and nuclear reactors.
There is no doubt that the introduction of nuclear energy, brought about by some important and historic discoveries by Albert Einstein and many other prominent scientists, has opened up a whole new vista for the world, namely a new energy which was originally touted to be the great saviour and a solution to many human problems by providing an endless supply of energy. What we have found is that while the potential of this new energy has not been fully realized, many of its dangers are more than apparent to us today. This new energy has placed the world on the brink of its own selfdestruction through nuclear weaponry. The threat of devastating and destroying large sections of our environment is yet another danger that arises out of this new discovery, nuclear energy.
Just to give you some example of the scale with which we are dealing, Mr. Speaker, the half life of uranium and other radioactive particles is measured in thousands of years. A mistake, then, is a thousand-year mistake. An environmental mistake can destroy hundreds and thousands of acres or miles, which destruction will last for thousands of years, longer than the existence of the pyramids.
Dealing with an energy that is so potent, the effects of which can be felt for such a long time, requires a tremendous sense of social responsibility by the institutions that deal with it. They are the scientific community, government and industry. What we have seen, in fact, is social irresponsibility by the handlers of the nuclear industry. In my own province, when my Party was in power it decided to go ahead with the development of uranium mines in northern Saskatchewan. At that time, publicly and within the Party conventions, I opposed that move. One of my reasons was that while the Party was in power it could take all the necessary safeguards and precautions to make certain that the environment and the safety and health of workers is not in danger; but the time could come when
another party would be in power which would not have the same regard for the health and safety of the workers and the environment.
[DOT]	0115)
The events of the last few weeks have demonstrated the social irresponsibility of the Saskatchewan Conservative Government. Since taking office it has drastically reduced the monitoring capacity of the provincial government. For example, in its budget of March, 1982 it cut the program that deals with occupational health and safety by 14 per cent in funds and by 17 per cent in staff. Since taking office it has also cut the budget of its Department of the Environment by some 18 per cent. It has chopped 11 per cent of the Department's budget and 20 per cent of its staff. This is the Department that is responsible for making sure that the environment of northern Saskatchewan is not in danger.
The budget for the mines pollution control branch that is supposed to monitor the work in uranium mines was cut by 39 per cent and the staff was cut by 42 per cent. This is a case of a government anxious to reduce its deficit, anxious to get the revenues from the uranium mines onstream as fast as possible, and for that it is willing to take certain risks and cut certain corners. The end result is the most major environment accident-and I put "accident" in quotation marks, Mr. Speaker-in Saskatchewan's history with over 100 million litres of radioactive water now loose in that environment.
Can we honestly say that the federal Government has dealt with the uranium question in a responsible manner? Thanks to Canada's contribution by selling the Candu reactor to India, India now has a nuclear bomb. Canada has sold Candu technology to Pakistan and it will soon have the first Muslim bomb. We are quite anxious to sell Candu reactors to Argentina, South Korea and Romania. What great democracies these are with a tremendous history of social responsibility!
I charge the Government with total irresponsibility, not only to Canadian citizens but to citizens of the world, by merchandising technology that would allow the creation of nuclear devices and nuclear bombs by people with a history of nuclear irresponsibility. Certainly they do not have a history of democracy.
I should like to deal with the economic question now. Does the nuclear industry make any economic sense? So far in this country I understand that the nuclear industry has been subsidized by up to $4 billion. It is a very expensive form of energy that requires 40 per cent subsidization. That just does not make any economic sense. The citizens of Ontario will be paying billions of dollars, for years to come, Mr. Speaker, for their nuclear power plants, many of which cannot be used. Many of them are out of commission. Heavy water plants, Mr. Speaker, were over-built. They now have to be taken apart at a cost, again, of hundreds of millions of dollars.
[DOT]	(1120)
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the great planners in the energy sector, particularly when it comes to nuclear energy, have
January 23, 1984

made some horrendous mistakes which are going to cost the average citizens of Canada hundreds of millions of dollars in the years ahead. Yet the Government is not willing to call a halt to these fantastic sums of money being poured down the drain. It is not willing to say: "Enough is enough; we have made a mistake. Let us cut our losses and look for some alternatives". The economics just do not make sense on a public level.
There are those who propose nuclear energy as a saviour for Third World countries, which need this endless source of cheap electricity. But it is not cheap, Mr. Speaker, it is very expensive, and most Third World countries cannot afford the massive loans necessary to build reactors and to create an infrastructure which would use that electricity. There are technical problems involved. For example, just out of uranium mining alone, there are 99.3 million tonnes of radioactive tailings which have to be stored in Ontario, some 20 million tonnes of such substances in Saskatchewan and 1.1 million tonnes in the Northwest Territories. Altogether there are 120 million tonnes of radioactive tailings covering 87,400 acres which Canada does not know how to dispose of properly. The 100 million tonnes of tailings in Ontario is in the Elliot Lake region. This is enough to cover a two-lane highway to a depth of three feet from Vancouver to Halifax. The problem will get worse, to quote a government document.
We do have some major technical problems, Mr. Speaker, not only with storing the tailings but in dealing with the waste from the nuclear sites themselves. We have technical problems with the Candu reactor itself. We also have problems with our agency, the Atomic Energy Control Board, the AECB. This agency is supposed to be the monitor of the nuclear industry. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous conflict of interest occurring there. Most of the people responsible for the monitoring originally came from the nuclear industry itself. What that "watchdog" agency is really up to, we just do not know. However, most of us are quite suspicious of the impartiality of that agency. I place on record a quote from a memo which was sent to Environment Canada from the Chief Safety Engineer, of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. This is what Mr. Liberty Pease, the Chief Engineer, had to say, and I quote:
Not only do I see no particular obligation on the part of the present generation for the comfort of future generations, but I also think we underestimate the ingenuity of future generations to control pollution from the technologies they
devise.
It is my strong personal view, that environment regulation (including nuclear regulation) is in danger of becoming a serious overkill. Regulatory agencies are responding to public hysteria, and although the intentions are good, the effect is further to aggravate the hysteria.
This is a quote from one of the watchdogs. He considers we should not be concerned about future generations, that the future generations will take care of themselves, that they will devise the technologies to take care of the tailings and the nuclear waste. I hold that up as a prime example of social irresponsibility. If this is what the people in the watchdog agency are saying, what are the people in the nuclear industry itself saying? We want a royal commission, Mr. Speaker, to look into the alternatives. For example, the economics of
Supply
nuclear energy have never made sense to me, when one realizes that if the amount of money it would take to build a nuclear power plant was spent on conservation, more electricity would be saved than the nuclear power plant would ever produce.
There are two directions in which our western industrialized society can go. We can continue down the path that we have been following, a highly capital-intensive path, one which makes no economic or environmental sense. Alternatively, we can develop conservation and the use of alternative sources of energy. Going down the nuclear path requires tremendous capital investment, produces only a few jobs, and continues the dependence of people on financial institutions and utilities for a basic need, that of electrical energy. Conservation would allow individuals to become more self-sufficient, allow them to heat their homes in a cheaper way so that they do not have to meet those high monthly utility bills. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the rational path to follow is the one leading to energy conservation and self-sufficiency.
Those are the alternatives, Mr. Speaker. However, this Government and previous governments have chosen the capital-intensive route. Some 70 per cent of the money this Government has spent on energy research has gone to the nuclear industry, with the balance, on the whole, going to the oil industry. Precious little of it has gone to conservation, or wind-generated, solar or other forms of energy. There are alternatives and it is about time we had a government with political will and vision to realize that the nuclear route is a dead-end economically and environmentally. Where the health and safety of workers is concerned, it does not make any sense. Is it not about time we started looking at alternatives?
I urge this House to accept our motion, Mr. Speaker, our call for a public inquiry. This Government is seriously contemplating building nuclear power plants in Canada to export electricity to the U.S. in order to help our balance of payments situation. Another example of social irresponsibility. This Government has given massive subsidies to the nuclear industry. We have problems with tailings and nuclear waste. The economics of this situation no longer make sense. There are dire medical consequences flowing from exposure to radiation. Much of our uranium ends up in weaponry. The judges at Nuremberg did not accept the excuse of: "Well, if it was not us, someone else would have provided it". That is no longer an excuse, Mr. Speaker. The environmental implications of the nuclear industry are everlasting. There is a conflict of interest in the AECB.
Given all that, surely the time has come where a full public inquiry into the nuclear industry is desperately needed. Let the Canadian people decide which route we should follow. Let the Canadian people in open hearings get all the facts and figures about the real risks and benefits. Let the Canadian people make those decisions rather than having them made behind closed doors.

January 23, 1984
Supply
[DOT] (N30)
It is an important step, Mr. Speaker. We are living in a day and age in which major global implications are coming to a head. We have the problem of the greenhouse effect. Scientists are now saying that the consequences of the greenhouse effect are irreversible and will be felt within the next 20 years. Major social, economic and agricultural changes will have to occur on a global level. We will need new forms of energy. We will have to change how we use our energy. Necessity will force us to this position in our lifetimes. Time is running out. We need a comprehensive, open national discussion and debate regarding what type of society we want and what road we should follow.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House, and in particular I urge this Government, to allow an open public inquiry into the nuclear industry. We had an excellent committee of this House which discussed and investigated alternate forms of energy. The major recommendation of that committee was that Canada go to hydrogen economy. Yet the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has totally ignored that recommendation. The bureaucrats in the back seem to know better. Look at the mistakes they have made which are costing this country billions of dollars. Yet they have the gall, Mr. Speaker, to say that they know better! They say that the committee of Members of Parliament was just a bunch of "feelies" and their suggestions were totally off the wall because after all they are the experts. They are some experts, Mr. Speaker, who have made decisions which are costing this country billions of dollars and are endangering our environment. Through their stupidity they are introducing nuclear reactors into the world that are endangering the safety and continuing existence of the human race. Let us have a public inquiry.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), that this House approve the following motion:
That a Royal Commission of Inquiry be created to study the nuclear fuel cycle in Canada including the range of economic, social, medical, environmental and safety matters resulting from exploration, mining, production, transportation, storage and use of uranium and its byproducts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the comments made by the Hon. Member. I note that he wishes a royal commission of inquiry. I would like to ask him one or two questions in relation to the substance of his remarks.
He talks about a royal commission making an inquiry. In listening to the Hon. Member, unless my interpretation is wrong, we know his position before that inquiry would take place. He would like to see the displacement in Canada of
36.000	workers involved in the nuclear industry. Since he seems to have come to a conclusion as to what ought to be done with the industry, I hope the Hon. Member will rise in his place momentarily and tell us what he would do with
36.000	displaced workers. If he has given so much consideration to making his position on an inquiry and on the nuclear
industry known, obviously he would have 10 or 15 steps readily available to put into place to hire the 36,000 workers.
We know from reports within the New Democratic Party that their policy of the past is not in line with what is happening in Canada today. I hope, Mr. Speaker, we will not get the same rhetorical answers that we have received in the past and that the Hon. Member would be kind enough to address himself to that question.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question in a non-rhetorical way. It is unfortunate that the question itself was not put in a non-rhetorical way.
Of course, there has to be concern for the jobs of the 36,000 people involved in the nuclear industry. You must also ask whether $4 billion that they have continued to owe to the federal Government is not quite a high price to pay to maintain those jobs. Of course, those jobs have to be phased out and alternative jobs have to be found for those people. This Party has consistently attempted to convince the Government that when you replace industries, or as industry introduces new technologies, or whatever occurs, you do it in a humane way. You do not abruptly throw all sorts of people out of work. It is unfortunate that in a whole slew of other industries that same concern is not exhibited.
I would suggest as well that there are a lot more jobs waiting in other forms of energy. The conservation program was a good program. The CHIP program was highly successful. It created many, many more jobs than the nuclear industry created at a fraction of the cost and with much more human benefit to the average Canadian. There is an area in alternative energies that can create more jobs, that will have a greater benefit to the average Canadian and cost the Canadian taxpayer less.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member's Party does not have elected representation in the Atlantic provinces, he might share with the Members who are present here today what their position as a Party is in relation to Point Lepreau II in the Province of New Brunswick. I would like to know if the Leader of that Party, or any spokesperson for that Party, has communicated to the Premier of that province their position on that project. Members of Parliament on the Government side as well as the Official Opposition are very supportive of that particular project if in fact markets are found. I do not believe the Hon. Member is the official energy critic, but perhaps he could consult with other members of his caucus and let the House know what the Party's position is.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Party's position, by resolutions passed at federal conventions, is that we should phase out our dependency and expenditures on nuclear energy. Our reaction to the particular plant to which my hon. friend has referred is that it was a most unfortunate initial decision. The Atlantic provinces can ill afford the type of debt load that they are now placed under. We suspect that had the same sums of money been spent on conservation and other forms of energy within the Maritimes, more jobs would have been created and
January 23, 1984

the provincial jurisdictions would have less of a debt load to carry than they are now carrying. It was a bad decision. It is an example of what happens to Third World countries that select the nuclear path. They inherit a tremendous debt load. They often do not have the infrastructure to use that massive amount of electricity. It just does not make sense in terms of bettering the average person's lot in those jurisdictions.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member has reluctantly refused to answer the first two questions, perhaps he could answer the third. Has that Party position been worked out with the Canadian Labour Congress? More particularly, has that particular position been worked out with the Energy and Chemical Workers' Union in New Brunswick?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a definite answer. There is no doubt that in the debates at the national conventions in which I have been involved, representatives from the trade union movement have argued on the other side of the issue. They have stated that their concern is the immediate maintenance of those jobs. However, when the question is discussed further and the proposition is made that we are willing to provide guarantees that those workers will not lose their incomes, that there will be a concerted and honest effort to find other forms of employment, and when we discuss the health and safety aspect of their work, they would rather work somewhere else than in a plant that is endangering their lives. That is the honest answer. They prefer to be able to earn their incomes from something other than that which endangers their lives and the environment and is linked to the whole nuclear weapons question.
Warman, Saskatchewan, is an excellent example where people in that district voted in a referendum against the whole idea of having an upgrader in their community.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The period for questions and comments has ended.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to note that I am very pleased to respond to this motion on this day in particular, because as I was coming into the House of Commons I was blessed by the nuclear reaction from the heavens for the first time in a long time. The warmth and light was very welcome after approximately six weeks of winter cold and snow.
I would like to respond to the motion and the proposal by the NDP for the establishment of a royal commission to consider the nuclear industry in Canada, to elaborate on some of the specific issues and ultimately put forward some specific recommendations that have been considered by the Conservative Party.
It must be realized that regardless of a particular attitude of a political party or even a country, the use of nuclear reactions is something we have to deal with because it is here to stay. It is understood scientifically and will be dealt with scientifically. While its use as an energy source around the world will depend
Supply
very much on a number of factors, the amount of nuclear energy being produced in the world at the present time means that this source is here to stay.
France is probably the best example to prove its permanence since 50 per cent of France's electricity production is from the nuclear source. Technological breakthroughs have taken place in this industry, not without difficulty or future problems, which mean that it is an energy source with which we will be living in the future.
I was disappointed by one point in particular made by the NDP spokesman this morning. When discussing nuclear reactions he talked about two things. He discussed the nuclear fission reactions in our reactors for the purpose of producing electricity and other forms of energy, and he also talked about nuclear bombs. I suggest that is an irresponsible political reaction that is regrettable and should not be permitted to stand because closer scrutiny proves it untrue. While both the plentiful supply of energy which can be produced from the nuclear reactor and the destructive force of a nuclear bomb should be considered, there are many more uses of nuclear energy as well. I would ask the member from the NDP if he is aware that over 13 million person-years of life have been saved by cobalt.
This debate today is also interesting in light of two incidents which occurred last week. If the Hon. Member from the NDP saw The Journal on CBC last week, he will know that at the same time as it was considering the significant and serious problem of what occurred in Saskatchewan, it also reported the serious incident in Japan when over 60 lives were lost in a coal mine. These two events occurred at the same time.
The main proposal of this motion is to establish a royal commission to scrutinize the industry from one end to the other. While I am not against royal commissions, the establishment of the Macdonald Commission has not greatly encouraged me to support them. I do not know how long that commission will continue, what we can expect to achieve from it or what it will cost the Canadian public, and I am not sure in this instance whether a royal commission is the answer to considering the nuclear industry in Canada.
It is clear that there is a need for additional scrutiny of the industry in a number of ways and that the present system is unsatisfactory in a number of ways. In fact, it was on that basis that in December of 1982 I presented a Private Member's Bill which was designed to revise the Atomic Energy Control Act. What we hoped to achieve through the proposals of that legislation was the creation of a nuclear control board that was composed of people without vested interests in the nuclear industry, the establishment of a radioactive decontamination fund, to require site approval as the first step in establishing a new facility, the disclosure of unclassified documents, and to make the Minister ultimately responsible for the board report to Parliament on a regular basis. Whether these specific proposals or others are followed, it is clear that there is a need for improved scrutiny and understanding of what is happening in the industry. There have been many specific situations when I believe both the public interest and the

January 23, 1984
Supply
industry's interest would have been better served if there had been a better understanding and recognition of what was going on.
It should also be noted that there have been many problems throughout the history of the nuclear industry in Canada as a result of the Government's incompetence to deal with it through its Crown corporation, AECL, and by the actions of many Liberals throughout its history who were responsible for making export deals. The Chalk River project could have gone much further and more quickly if it had not been for some of the unfortunate interventions and actions of past Liberal Party members and Government Ministers.
Let us examine the health aspect of the nuclear industry which I believe is on the minds of most Canadians. What is the real problem in this area? In the uranium mining industry, for instance, everyone knows that the uranium mines have radioactive wastes and tailings, but what is their real significance? We know that in northern Ontario the Serpent River system has had some contamination. The effect of this contamination at its worst has been that the water in that system represented a hazard equivalent to that from smoking about one cigarette a year, assuming that people drink nothing but that water. While the hazard is not zero, I suggest that it is insignificant when compared with other hazards which we face on a daily basis. Perhaps the Hon. Member and I, who probably smoke more than one cigarette in an hour, should think about that seriously.
What about the history of the industry and its workers? I had occasion to visit the original nuclear complex in England. I have also received information from the statistics that were available from Ontario Hydro. I can say from all the statistics that exist in England that the mortality rate for workers in the nuclear industry, including those deaths caused by cancer, are less than the average death rate from cancer. It may be slightly higher in the Ontario Hydro figures, but again it is insignificant.
Three Mile Island had much publicity. What is the net effect of the accident which occurred at Three Mile Island? The best scientific judgment of the effects of the accident is that it will lead to less than one additional fatal cancer in a population of 300,000 people some time over the next 40 years. The number of fatal cancers in that population over that period from other causes is expected to be about 60,000. It was a serious accident, but relatively speaking and compared with other forms of energy-even many of the soft-path energy forms-it is a small and almost insignificant factor.
The economic impact was mentioned. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dingwall) made a very good point, that 36,000 jobs in the nuclear industry are on the line in one way or another throughout Canada. These break down into approximately
6,000	jobs in mining, about 3,280 jobs in research and development, about 4,000 jobs in engineering and design, 6,000 jobs in manufacturing, 11,000 jobs in construction, 5,600 jobs in
operations and maintenance, and 250 jobs in public administration.
These are not jobs at which we can look in the same way as we can look at jobs in a number of other industries. These jobs are at the leading edge of technology. Without any argument at all that there should be and will be changes in the future in this type of technology, Canada is at the leading edge. The New Democratic Party is suggesting that we go back and not consider this as an opportunity but as a hazard. I suggest very strongly that in going back and denying this entire area in which Canada has always maintained a near forefront position, indeed we would lose a valuable opportunity in the future. I cannot believe that the NDP would suggest that that is the right way to go, but that is its position.
What is the future of the industry in Canada? Perhaps one of the reasons the NDP is asking for a royal commission now is that the Government has avoided dealing with the issue publicly. It had an internal discussion, one that is suspect but one that produced some results. I do not know whether it made any final decision because it had three or four options to consider. These options ranged from doing absolutely nothing and letting the industry die away-and that would be the future of the industry if there was no additional consideration in a year or so of what was happening-to the idea of having dedicated nuclear plants for the export of electricity to the United States. In between there was a range and combination of things which could be done.
It is clear that if nothing is done we will continue to have an industry which will atrophy. If we cannot export more units to places such as Taiwan, China or Turkey, and if we do not do it on a reasonable basis, we are in danger of seeing the industry die despite whether or not we continue to use nuclear reactors in Canada. I do not know what the Government has finally decided. When the Minister speaks, perhaps he will tell us. I think this is one of the reasons the NDP and others justifiably criticize the Government. No one knows what it is doing; perhaps the Government does not know what it is doing.
If we look at what is actually happening, with the number of layoffs at AECL, the number of closures and the overbuild of heavy water, questions come to mind. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how many millions of dollars worth of heavy water are continuing to be produced in Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury and what he anticipates doing with it in the near future. The stockpile of $100 million worth of heavy water was reached two years ago. How big is the stockpile now? These questions should be answered in an open and forthright manner.
We have had many serious discussions within our Party about the nuclear industry. We have considered in some detail some of the things we could do to help with the problem. Indeed, it started in 1979 when the Government appointed a task force to consider the whole issue. I am not sure whether we have the luxury, both in terms of the industry and the technology which is at stake around the world, to not get moving. I am not sure whether we have the luxury for a task force or a royal commission. There is no question the scrutiny
January 23, 1984

it would bring would be welcome and desirable, but I think it is time for the Government to take some positive action. It cannot do it by making a deal with Yugoslavia with contra-trade agreements which will deny other industries in Canada or by selling our technology in a way that we will end up having given away our technology and all the opportunities it creates in terms of jobs and development in Canada. We cannot do it that way. We have to do it in a way which will benefit Canada in the long term. We have to do it with the confidence that nations will not exploit our technology for developing destructive forces. I am sure the Minister is very familiar with all these elements.
In the last few minutes remaining, I would like to mention some specific ideas which I think are important and can be implemented. The nuclear industry must be rationalized. Indeed, that is being done. Many times industries have had to compete against each other and certainly, for the amount of economic activity there was, it was not affordable. The industry has to rationalize itself and the Government has to rationalize itself. Historically, if we go back to the Argentinian deals or other negotiations which were very fruitless, we know there is a lot of room for increased co-operation among Government Departments and within the Crown Corporation, AECL.
We call for an open and full discussion of our waste management disposal system particularly. Having visited Whiteshell, as I am sure the Minister must have done by now, I know we have one of the best programs available anywhere in the world. Other nations are looking carefully at the results for opportunities to cure their disposal problems. We should have a full and open discussion of it to ensure that the public is aware and that we are going in a direction that is in our interests. Also we should ensure that internally our nuclear reactors are part of an overall industrial strategy. It is clear we do not have an industrial strategy. It is particularly important in this area because we have opportunities with our reactors, whether it be in Point Lepreau, Gentilly, NPD or Pickering. We have opportunities to make our nuclear resource really help in terms of industrial opportunities. Those opportunities range from using the additional energy produced from the nuclear source not just for electricity but for a whole range of industrial applications which can be of positive benefit to the economy.
In addition, Canadian energy policy-and this is one of the major failings of the NDP-has to be directed toward considering this source as an integral part of all other sources, not just as a component which can be dropped in or dropped out. It has to be considered as it is tied into the environment, to other energy sources and so on. The lack of integration of nuclear energy and nuclear research and development is a big negative in terms of the way the Government is approaching it now. I do not think I am communicating very well with the Minister, but there are not many people who are approaching nuclear energy on that basis. Whether it is hydrogen, ethanol or methanol, the nuclear reactor has a very great role to play.
Supply
Finally, we should not only develop a sound strategy for export of electricity to the United States from nuclear reactors, but we should also for our export market potential develop a strategy that will see a Candu nuclear reactor become the centre of an industrial complex for a country. Prior to the construction, design and development of these reactors, we have an opportunity that most other countries do not have in making this an energy centre rather than just a nuclear reactor for the production of electricity which is of limited value, particularly in developing countries.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your attention and for the opportunity of joining in this debate.


Mr. Ogle:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct just one question to my colleague from Bruce-Grey. After listening to his remarks, I would like him to tell me if the Conservative Party's policy on atomic energy development is the same as that of the Liberal Party.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer very specifically the question that was asked of me, but that is precisely the problem. The Liberal Party of Canada has no policies.


Robert Joseph Ogle: What is yours?


Gary Michael Gurbin: That was not the question.


Mr. Blackburn:: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for the light.


Mr. Chretien:: You need a light.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: If I was waiting for a light from over there, I would have to wait a million years. The Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), who is a physician, implied that because of the Japanese coal mine disaster more lives are lost in the non-nuclear energy field than in the nuclear field. That is quite true if you are talking about immediate disasters. However, as a physician, surely the Hon. Member is fully apprised of the long-term health hazards of working close to and with nuclear materials.
As a physician and certainly as a parliamentarian, will he comment on the long-term health hazards of the Manhattan Project at Columbia University in New York City where, after using the fissionable material, they dumped it in Buffalo? Approximately 29 to 31 years later, literally hundreds of people have died in the community where the waste material from the Manhattan Project was placed. Would the Hon. Member, both as a physician and a parliamentarian, care to comment on that?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, that is perhaps a small problem as compared to one that existed in Russia where there was a wide area that was defoliated and the entire population was injured. We can go back through history and talk about dams that have burst and thousands of lives were lost.
I would like to come back and make a comment. Can the Hon. Member tell me what consequences there will be if we do

January 23, 1984
Supply
not solve the energy needs of the world? Can he tell me the long-term consequences of carbon dioxide and the buildup in the atmosphere? If he can tell me the long-term consequences of not being able to feed the hungry of the world, I think it would be fair then for me to tell him precisely what the long-term effects of nuclear energy are going to be. I can tell him that no matter what form of energy we use on this globe, there are going to be positives and negatives. How many people die each day from the pollution that is in the atmosphere now, people with chronic bronchitis, emphysema, or heart trouble? Literally thousands are dying every day. How many people have died because of the consequences of coal mining and so on? There are positives and there are negatives.
I am not suggesting that we are stopping in a train of development here, but what is appropriate, and perhaps unfortunate in one sense, is that we can define the dangers, and we should, of nuclear wastes much more readily than we can any other waste that we know of from an energy source. That makes it a little bit easier to track. We should do that. No matter what we decide, energy will form the basis of whether we in fact in an overall way survive and are able to accomplish what we want to accomplish, not just in Canada where we have all kinds of options, which is great, but around the globe.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect, in reply to my question, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey asked me a question. I feel it only fair that 1 should be recognized to respond to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member does not have a point of order.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin). He made some valid points. I especially appreciated the reasons he gave as to why we should have a public inquiry. I wish to quote from the United Kingdom Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution:
Plutonium appears to offer unique potential for threat and blackmail against society because of its great radiotoxicity and its fissile properties. The construction of a crude nuclear weapon by an illicit group is credible. We are not convinced that the government has fully appreciated the implications of this possibility.
I maintain that the same situation exists for the Canadian Government. If the Conservative Party was elected as a government and he was in charge of a nuclear program, would he and his Party approve the sale of Candu reactors to Argentina, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey or Romania? Would they continue the same policies and sell nuclear technology that will create plutonium which, according to the U.K. study, is easily made into nuclear weaponry?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member was here in 1979 when the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the Conservative Party were severely criticized for our concerns with the nuclear reactor sale to Argentina and the use that clearly could be made of the materials from that reactor. I think history has proven her correct; India has been mentioned. But that is not the point. I
mentioned at the beginning of my speech, maybe in an oblique way, that the genie is out.
It is not too late to try to control the development of nuclear weapons. That is one of the most important things the world can do. However, we do not have the luxury or the option of stopping possibly 35 other countries from developing nuclear weapons, whether they use Canadian technology or not. There is no question that this Party has come out firmly, and will again, on avoiding and as far as possible limiting any involvement of Canada in the development of nuclear materials for weapons use. That goes without question. On the other hand, I do not think any of us could be so presumptuous as to assume that as Canadians we are going to stop that proliferation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: This ends the ten-minute question and comment period.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have this occasion to participate in the debate. I have been the Minister of this Department for 17 months or more. This is really the first time that the nuclear question has been debated here or in committee when I have been present. This is a very good opportunity for me to speak on this most important topic.
The speech made by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) on behalf of his Party is typical of the NDP. Of course, the NDP has no solution. The New Democratic Party wants to go back and forget, as the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) said, what happened 40 or 50 years ago. We now have nuclear energy available in modern society and it is not very realistic to think we can completely forget that nuclear energy ever existed. I think we have to deal on a very rational basis with the problem we have today.
The spokesman of the New Democratic Party mixed the question of nuclear weaponry with the production of Candu reactors, the production of electricity and so forth. I believe we are dealing with two different problems. I am willing to debate whether or not we should sell Candu reactors to other nations. This is a valid question. The policy of this Government and of this House is that we should not sell any part of the nuclear Candu system to any country that does not sign the international non-proliferation treaty. If a country does not sign the treaty, we do not do business with that country. We might however, decide whether or not the requirement is strict enough. But the policy of this Government and of everybody in Canada is that we should not deal with countries that do not want to sign the non-proliferation treaty. We presume when a country signs non-proliferation treaty that that country will follow the treaty. If we presume a country has one type of government rather than another, that one will respect the treaty and that another country will not, there is no possibility of any international business, international negotiation and communication. If countries do not follow the treaty they will have to face the consequences mentioned in the treaty and world public opinion.
January 23, 1984

If someone says we should not sell them anything that is one thing. We had a debate in this House about the nuclear industry. I was not the Minister responsible at the time but I see the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) remembers that there was a very lively debate about how strict Canada should be about that business. Canada has more or less played a leading role in that sphere and in terms of non-proliferation. We should keep following that course. If though there are some suggestions to be made, we are willing to entertain them.
I have to come back to the first point and say that this topic has not been a major problem in the last 17 months. This is the first time either in the House or in committee that I am facing a debate on it. I guess the proposition of the Hon. Member for Regina East is typically an overkill. Members of the New Democratic Party do not look at reality. They just say turn the clock back 40 years and forget that nuclear energy has ever been developed. As the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey said, the genie is out of the bottle and we have to cope with it. We have to cope with it in a rational way.
There are some problems. I do not deny that. I think the disposal of tailings is always a problem. Safety is always a problem. I am personally preoccupied with some of the problems with which we have been faced in the last little while. Nobody wanted a spill. I am sure neither the industry nor the New Democratic Party government which gave the licence for the mine operation wanted to have a spill. When the plans were cemented for production to proceed in Key Lake, the AECB asked for the plans, looked at them and it was satisfied they were good enough. Apparently there was human error. However, we should not exaggerate and scare people too much because of the great quantity of polluted water that spilled. The spillage will be collected, reprocessed and there will be no permanent damage. We are working at this time with the provincial administration, the company and the federal agencies involved to make sure that the reprocessing of the spilled water will be reprocessed to protect the ecology.
We should not exaggerate. The quantity of uranium in that water is very small. I am told it is less than what you find naturally in some waters sometimes. But this is an unfortunate incident. We should not have spills of that nature. As long as there are humans working in plants, one cannot always have 100 per cent assurance on everything. Nevertheless, I think it can be managed.
The question is, should we or should we not have a nuclear industry in Canada and a Candu reactor in operation? This form of energy development was decided a long time ago. Canada invested a lot of money over the years to make sure that we would be at the forefront of the new technology when it started. Today nuclear energy is very important in many countries of the world. More than 50 per cent of France's electricity is produced or will be produced from nuclear sources. Finland, Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland depend on nuclear energy for more than 30 per cent of their energy requirements. Countries like Japan, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom are more dependent upon
Supply
nuclear energy than Canada. One-third of the electricity produced in Ontario is produced from the nuclear industry. That percentage will rise. We are dealing with an industry that exists at this time and it accounts for 36,000 jobs today.
We are at the crossroads today and there is a very difficult decision to make. There was some slackening in energy demand because of conservation programs. Speaking of conservation programs, we spend half a billion dollars, more or less, on conservation programs of all sorts. The answer is not to go to solar energy. I do not think we will ever solve the energy problem in Canada through solar. We help that industry. There is a demand and there is a certain market for solar energy. But there are countries that benefit more than we do from solar energy. We have many more days in Canada when it rains than does Mexico, and there are many countries that have 250 days of sun a year that cannot use only solar energy. This form of energy is not necessarily the solution to all our problems.
There are other forms of energy that can be used. There has been reference to hydrogen. We are working on that. On Friday the National Research Council announced the opening of an electro-chemistry lab, the first one to be built at this time. It is being built in the St. Maurice Valley with the La Prade funds that were made available to that general area from the closing of the heavy water plant at La Prade. There was a fund established for a new form of energy and that money was used for the lab announced on Friday.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Is that in your riding?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes. It is logical. Electro-chemistry in Canada started in Shawinigan long before I was born. My father worked on the first dam and the first hydro-electric development in Canada in 1890-something in Shawinigan, where I was born. People in Shawinigan are quite happy with it.
I think we have to concentrate on finding a solution. The Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey asked some good questions. What should we do with atomic energy? Should we or should we not carry on? Should we sell more Candu reactors or not sell them any more? My approach is that we should try. Of course, we have some problems. The capital costs of the Candu reactors are higher than the American, the German or the French systems. Things are now getting more and more competitive. The operating costs of the Candu are much less than others. Of course, we would not sell to any country that does not want to sign the non-proliferation treaty. I have had some requests and I have said: "No. If you sign we can talk business but if you don't, we won't talk business". We have to make sure of that. If we only have the Canadian market and the demand at the level it is today, then the Hon. Member is right; the industry would shrink. That is why at this time we are in negotiation with other countries trying to sell our Candu reactor.

January 23, 1984
Supply
When we talk about human suffering, we can see that many countries need that type of energy if they want to develop. Because of the price of oil, and if they have no other resources, then the Candu reactor can be the key alternative to give many developing nations the energy they need. The policy of the Government is to try to sell Candu reactors so we can maintain a viable industry in Canada. In doing that we have to make sure of the safety of the operation. The incident that we had to deal with last summer in Ontario was pretty interesting.
I was terribly disappointed when the Pickering nuclear generating station had some problems, but it was kind of satisfying that those problems were solved in a very safe and easy way. We did not have to use any of the many devices that are in place for emergencies. When the trouble occurred it was realized that it could be managed on a calm basis rather than a crisis management basis. That is the proof of the safety of the system. Of course, we always have to make sure there is no danger. I think the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey must represent areas where there is some of that industry and he does not seem to be too frightened by it. If we do not get too scared about it, I think we can manage most of the problems.
I think all Members of the House who would like to debate this problem should make sure that there is a good discussion when the estimates come before us. I should like to receive the many ideas that can be put forward at that time. Tailings are a big problem. There is uranium in the ground already and the tailings have to be put where they will not create any problems.
Then what do we do about reprocessing spent fuel? Storage is a difficult and costly matter, but so far it has not created major problems for anyone. When we have to dispose of it permanently, we must make sure that it is done in a safe way. Money is being spent at this time to find a permanent solution to the disposition of spent fuel. There are those who claim that it might all virtually be reused and some experiments are being carried out at this time to make sure that it can be disposed of in a completely safe way.


Mr. Heap:: On Indian lands.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The attitude of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) is that there is some danger in this. However, people have put swimming pools on property next to the Pickering plant. You can swim there if you want, so that means it is not very dangerous. If you want to scare people and not look at the facts, however, you can always make a case and say: "You have virtually an atomic bomb in your backyard".
We must be responsible in this, Mr. Speaker. It is important for Canada. We already have uranium mining. Now that the government of the Party of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) is no longer in power, he wants to close down the mine. But that Party in government gave permission for development of the mine. It cannot have it both ways. It cannot close down the industry as an example to the world and
say we will not have Candu reactors for sale because they are built with the technology and the industry of central Canada. Of course, we have to export the uranium produced in Saskatchewan. If we do not want to deal with uranium, then we should not deal with it at all. We should be completely logical and close the industry down altogether. I do not think a lot of people would want us to give up 36,000 jobs in Canada at this time.
There are some very positive aspects in this, Mr. Speaker. For example, there is the progress we have made through the technology developed in the field of medical research and even for medical services in terms of cobalt and other techniques. Because of the difficulties in the world now, we are less aggressive. We have even had to lay off some people lately because of lack of demand. Some good medical technology and medical instrumentation has been developed out of nuclear research and this has helped people who are sick. A lot of progress has been made so we should keep it but make sure there is no great danger.
I do not think a royal commission would solve the problem. It would be easy to appoint a royal commission and to say that since it will take about a year to report, do not ask me any questions. But I would rather be asked questions and then I will try to deal with the problem, Mr. Speaker. I do not think this problem calls for a royal commission, Mr. Speaker, but there is probably a need for more debate in the House. About 10 different commissions were created in Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec on the nuclear industry.


Mr. McKinnon:: You will be over on this side a year from now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Hon. Member lives in an unreal world. The election is only a year from now, so he should keep having his illusions. What is important is the day of the election and we are usually pretty good that day!
I am not about to accept such a course, Mr. Speaker. It would be too easy for me to do that. I am not running away from the problems either. I think I have dealt with those that have been mentioned. The industry is facing some difficulties today.

It is not a growth industry at the present time, because conservation programs throughout the world have caused a drop in demand for energy, which, in fact, is a very good thing. However, in the long term I think Canada will do well to maintain a nuclear industry that was developed by Canadian scientists and produced CANDU, one of the best systems in the world. We want to sell the system to prospective buyers who are prepared to observe international rules on non-proliferation.
However, I am open to ideas and suggestions from all Members on the subject, so that we can prepare and make the necessary decisions with maximum input from the Members of this House.
January 23, 1984

I think the approach taken by the Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) was much more reasonable because it sought solutions and asked valid questions. The position taken by the Member for Regina-East (Mr. de Jong) was, unfortunately, a simplistic one. It urged complete withdrawal, dropping everything. We must realize there is no such thing as a simple answer to complex problems. I hope that today's debate will provide solutions and enable us to approach the problems in a non-partisan way, so that I myself, my departmental officials and Government agencies responsible for Atomic Energy will be able to take the necessary corrective action, and any valid suggestions will be most welcome, both to me and to my very dedicated and very able parliamentary secretary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Comments and questions. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon-East.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister one question which has to do with the non-proliferation treaties. I understand that any country can get out of the non-proliferation treaties with a 90-day notice. I appreciate the fact that Canada has a more strict interpretation of that; however, I believe that much of the uranium which is now around the world has been sent out under a non-proliferation treaty and then in a parallel way has reached other countries. Does the Minister feel that Canada's involvement with this kind of distribution of uranium around the world is going to influence the credibility of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as he tries to find solutions to the question of world peace?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, these are two different problems. We have a technology which is available to the countries who want to buy it and we are asking every nation of the world who wants to buy Canadian technology to sign a non-proliferation agreement. The Hon. Member's asking me for a legal opinion on how they can get out of this. I do not know exactly. I presume that the safeguards are such that they cannot get away easily from the agreement. There is also a monthly discussion being had in Vienna to improve on these situations. Many of the committees there involve people coming from Canada because our country is among the most determined to bring about an international solution to this problem.
In terms of will it help or not help the peace mission of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I believe it is well known that we in Canada are unanimous in condemning nuclear weapons and we do not want to have them in Canada. We are not developing them here in Canada. I feel these are two different problems. Making available to the nations of the world the possibility of having energy in many of the countries which are not as advanced as we are has nothing to do with the making of bombs.
I believe the contribution of the Prime Minister has been supported by all Hon. Members of this House. I was very pleased with the kind of support which was given to him in Stockholm by the former Leader of the Opposition, the Right
Supply
Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). I feel that is the type of approach we have. I do not believe it is very useful today to try to mix the two problems. We are talking today about a technology which has been developed in Canada which will produce electricity for the people who buy it. This has nothing to do with the making of the bomb because anyone who wants to use Canada's technology has to sign a non-proliferation treaty. I suppose it is our international contribution. There are many countries now who depend on nuclear reactors for more than 30 per cent of their electricity. I believe it is a bit ridiculous to try to forget about this reality.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Minister. Is there written down anywhere the policy of the Liberal Government in dealing with nuclear energy and the Candu reactor?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there was a review made some years ago, I believe in 1980-81, and it was made public. I have not had a review since I became Minister. I have delivered some speeches but not many. I will tell the House at this time that our policy is yes, we want to carry on with the Candu reactor. We want to sell some Candu reactors abroad under conditions which I have previously expressed with respect to exporting electricity from Candu reactors built in Canada. There are public hearings now before the National Energy Board with respect to Lepreau, New Brunswick. One of the conditions I am committed to is that if the Candu reactor is being built, it has to be built without subsidy. It has to be built on its own. If the utility company in New Brunswick wish to build another reactor next to the one it has and sell the electricity, as long as it does not involve any subsidy from the federal Government and is done on a commercial basis, personally I have no objection. It must meet with the concerns of the local citizens and there will be some public hearings in terms of the environment and social impact and the people can express their views.
That is, in a nutshell, the policy which I am enunciating today. I believe it would be good to have a committee discuss the problem and I can be asked more specific questions. However, the policy remains the same as it was before, but it has been adjusted to the realities of today.


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inform the Minister that there was a parliamentary committee looking into this whole question, particularly that of nuclear waste disposal in Canada, some years ago, but it never had its terms of reference renewed by the Government. Therefore, that study was never completed by Parliament. The Minister might very well consider going back and looking at the terms of reference and setting it up again.
I would like to ask the Minister about the disposal of nuclear waste in Canada. He mentioned briefly some of the options which are being considered, and at one point he stated in his remarks that the option of the re-use of nuclear waste was being considered. I would like to know by whom it is being considered and whether or not it has been considered by the Government. Is it one of the options the Government itself is

January 23, 1984
Supply
placing some weight on? Does the Minister realize that this would take us into a whole new generation of nuclear reactors about which many people have very grave reservations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am just saying that one of the alternatives which is being studied by the industry and AECL at this time is what to do with spent fuel. One of the options considered is that it might be reutilized. However, the question is can the technology be developed to do it on an economic basis. If it creates some side problems, which the Hon. Member seems to be alluding to, this aspect is being considered also. It is not something for today. I know that the spent fuel is being stored at this time near the site, either in Bruce or in Pickering or even in Lepreau. They have their pool and the spent fuel is put there. You can store a certain amount for a certain number of years, but what do you do in the long term? We do not know.
It is a problem which has an international preoccupation. I met not long ago with the Secretary General of the United Nations who deals with these problems in Vienna and it is one of the very difficult problems it would like to solve. It would like to have an international regime to dispose of all nuclear waste so that everyone will have the same standards and it will be completely secure.
Some might even argue that if you sell a Candu reactor to a country and you take back the spent fuel and the plutonium, it cannot then make bombs. I do not know if that is a solution, but it might be. If the preoccupation is that we do not trust so-and-so, we can take back the spent fuel and the plutonium. I am not an expert, but apparently one cannot make the bomb without it. So that might be a condition, I do not know. I am just throwing out an idea which has not been extensively debated. That is why I say I welcome a debate on this issue. I believe it is a good opportunity to do so today and I am sorry it did not happen sooner.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, we were all very interested in the remarks of the Minister. He seemed to fluctuate between saying yes, we need more debate and, on the other hand, closing the door to any need for a public inquiry. Surely the Minister agrees that there are technical question marks, especially in terms of tailings and nuclear waste. I believe the Minister will also agree that the economics of the nuclear industry are shaky. In fact, since 1975 there has been a net decrease of some 31,000 megawatts of plant capacity, and in the United States alone, since 1973 about 100 plants have been cancelled. I feel that Canada is at a crossroads: should it continue supporting the investment it has made in the nuclear industry, or should it cut its losses? Would the Minister not agree that this type of debate and these types of decisions should be made in an open forum, and would the Minister not reconsider the need for a public inquiry into the nuclear industry?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not believe we need an inquiry at this time. I have been Minister for 17 months. What I am saying is that some people have raised that problem. However, it did not become a problem which is not manageable. It is the first time
we are having a debate on it. I have been in committees of the House since I have been Minister and there have been very few questions; virtually no questions have been asked on that issue.
I feel that the decision has to be made by the House of Commons eventually. It would be a very easy answer for me to say we should have a royal commission and wash my hands of the problem. But we are faced with decisions today: should we sell or not sell to Turkey? A commission can give me the answer in two years but it is today that I have to make a decision. Should we sell another one to Korea?
The point I am making is that decisions have to be made today, not have a royal commission. I do not think we need a commission; we need the view of the House of Commons. I think we can make a responsible decision with the advice of Members of the House of Commons. Why always go outside? I think we can make our own decision here. That is my view.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, 1 say at the outset I particularly welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on this motion dealing with a subject which I suggest is long overdue. The substance of the motion certainly justifies the consideration of this House here or in committee. I want to point out as well that the NDP does not have a monopoly on matters concerning the environment and nuclear issues. I well remember, and I am certain Members on my left will as well, the efforts of the 1979 Progressive Conservative Government when it attempted to establish a joint committee of Parliament to study a full and wide range of nuclear issues, perhaps wider than those which would be considered under the inquiry which is the subject of today's motion.
The issues proposed for consideration by that 1979 Conservative Government, Mr. Speaker, included the essence of today's motion as well as the whole question of where this nation should be headed with its nuclear energy program. The formation date of that joint committee was stalled from time to time by the joint efforts of the NDP and Liberal Party, until finally they worked together to overthrow that Conservative Government. That was the last time you heard of matters pertaining to nuclear energy in any great substance, Mr. Speaker, until this motion today.
It might be said, Mr. Speaker, that hindsight is simply wonderful, but I know the actions of the NDP in 1979 put off any real examination of these urgent and pressing matters over this period of time. That is what led to the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), when he, with his extensive knowledge and experience in matters pertaining to nuclear energy in this country, expressed surprise and delight that this subject matter is before us today for consideration.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the NDP is back in the House introducing a motion far weaker than the one they prevented from coming forward in 1979. Perhaps our thinking even in 1979 was far ahead of theirs in 1984. In 1979 we in the Progressive Conservative Party foresaw the problems and issues which
January 23, 1984

might develop from a nuclear energy program. I need only refer to Bill C-270 and Bill C-218 put forward by my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) and the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey, to illustrate that particular point. Having said that, I have to admit to some reservations about today's motion. With the indulgence of this House I would like to devote a few moments to giving some background to the issue.
Many Members of this House are familiar with what was known as Bill C-14, the Nuclear Control and Administration Act, introduced in late 1977. That legislation died on the Order Paper and has not been reintroduced by this Government. Nonetheless, that legislation was a first step toward addressing the main problem with respect to uranium mining, the question of jurisdiction. Mining tends to fall in between federal and provincial areas of responsibility, and the federal Government has in fact delegated, sometimes by way of default, its responsibility for safety to the provinces. This is a deliberate attempt by this federal Government to shirk and avoid its responsibilities. It is also a constitutional question which must be addressed sooner or later, and it would have been in 1979 had it not been for the deliberate actions of the Government Party and the Party to my left.
The motion before us today does not make allowances for this. Far from it. The motion simply barges ahead on the assumption that this federal Government has the responsibility for everything and anything. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a better starting point would have been to tackle the main issue of responsibility and resolve it first.
We then have to ask the question whether the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is not both something too little, yet something too much. There is no lack of studies and material on the nuclear industry. The Porter Commission, for example, only recently completed its study for the Province of Ontario. Energy, Mines and Resources has just issued a discussion paper, "Nuclear Industry Review: Problems and Prospects of 1981-2000". All of the material points in one direction, the necessity for the formation of a parliamentary committee concerned with the energy needs of this country, the alternative forms of energy, sources and supply, and what really is in the best interests of this country.
The motion before us proposes a royal commission to concentrate primarily on uranium, only one aspect of this broad energy question. I suggest that if such a motion were adopted and a royal commission were established, it would take as its starting point the terms as outlined rather than the debate which takes place in this House today, and this nation would be all the poorer for that.
When we talk about something constructive, it is in recognition of the fact that Canada's nuclear industry needs a review. The industry is very much at a crossroads in that foreign orders for the Candu reactor are essentially non-existent. The domestic market is reaching a saturation point. These two considerations have led us to layoffs and to some real soul-searching about where this industry is going to go from here. It may well be that greater emphasis will have to be laid
Supply
on electricity exports. That is part of an ongoing parliamentary consideration. At present Canada is supplying only 1 per cent of the electricity requirements of the United States of America. Even so, this amounts to over $1 billion of import revenues to this country. Sales like this are certainly not above consideration; they are well worth pursuing. To do so it may be necessary for us to become even more competitive. We must be able to guarantee an uninterrupted supply of that form of energy. This clearly is not possible in an atmosphere where the nuclear industry is under attack and mothballed until sales of Candu reactors can be resumed. New directions and electricity export targets must be set out. After the kind of constructive review that we in this Party want to give it, it is worth bringing about.
I spoke earlier about Bill C-14 and I would like to return to that legislation. It illustrates why the motion before us today does not offer a full enough solution. It does not go far enough. Bill C-14 was designed to replace the Atomic Energy Control Act which was passed in 1946. The 1946 Act established the Atomic Energy Control Board and gave the Board jurisdiction throughout the entire country over the Canadian nuclear industry. A few regulatory amendments have been made since 1946. The basic Act remains as it was written in 1946 and is far outdated. Bill C-14 was the first attempt to revise that legislation. The legislation would have provided the necessary legislative and regulatory authority to meet the issues and anticipated concerns of the people of Canada and Members in this House.
Although the legislation died, it did have one single purpose: it did serve to underline the need for updating that 1946 Act. The nuclear industry has grown at a rapid rate since World War II. Yet this country has never had a full inquiry into whether this form of energy is in the best interest of the nation.
We in the Conservative Party have tried to do this more than once. My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) and the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), as Private Members, have proposed that the nuclear regulatory process be made much more public and that Parliament be given a greater opportunity to participate in filling the energy needs of this country. Special mention should also be made of my colleague's proposal that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) be made Minister responsible for the administration of the Act. This is in full recognition of the fact that environmental concerns, including public health and safety, must be seen to be paramount in the nuclear cycle.
Bill C-270, last session, put forward by the Hon. Member for Hillsborough, was talked out on February 2, 1983. The Government speaker indicated a degree of support for the legislation but found it too hastily drafted. We could and might dispute that claim. Whether it is true or not, from that day on the Government has not brought forth any alternate legislation or opportunity for us to consider it further. We need
638

January 23, 1984
that opportunity to consider the shortcomings of the 1946 Atomic Energy Control Act. The Government has failed to make available to us the opportunity that is so needed.
That is why 1 welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion introduced by the NDP today. Many of the concerns raised by the motion of the Hon. Member for Skeena would and should be addressed in a new Bill. The remaining concerns should be met by a national inquiry conducted through a joint committee of this House of Commons rather than by way of a royal commission.
I urge the Government to table the necessary legislation and to establish such a parliamentary committee to review the nuclear industry in its entirety. Restricted as it would be by this motion, a royal commission would not provide the solution necessary. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address this most important subject.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There are 10 minutes for questions and comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, it is just about one o'clock. I wonder if we might agree to call it one o'clock so that I can commence my remarks after Orders of the Day are called today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Are Hon. Members prepared to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the unfortunate situation existing today in the Parliament of Manitoba. I am referring to Bill 115, tabled by the NDP Government for the purpose of amending the Constitution of Manitoba, to make French and English the two official languages in Manitoba.
Under the Act of 1870, French has no official language status except before the courts and in the Legislative Assembly.
Out of consideration for the Francophones of that province, and if we want to avoid creating modern versions of Louis Riel, I ask the Leader of the Official Opposition and his one and only Quebec Lieutenant, the Member for Joliette, to intervene by persuading their Conservative colleagues from Manitoba to show some magnanimity and recognize French as an official language, something our Parliament has done since 1969.
* *
*



TOURISM


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith) is going to spend an additional $14.5 million on promoting Canada as a good place to visit, with most of the advertising aimed at attracting more tourists from the United States.
I also hope that the new 29-member Travel Advisory Council addresses the critical issues facing the industry, and reports as quickly as possible. The critical issues are still exorbitant government taxes on alcohol and tobacco. These tax induced increases remain a heavy drag on the industry, which has repercussions throughout the industry. The result is a foreign perception that Canada is too expensive a destination.
This is the year of tourism in Canada, and I wish it well, although, as I look ahead, the uncertainty that characterized tourism in 1982 and 1983 is still present. In spite of this uncertainty, the basic underlying strength of the market is still there. Let us not forget the work that has been done to correct some of the liabilities, and let us work positively at creating more employment within this very important industry.
*
* *



HOUSING


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with representatives of Mississauga's co-operative housing movement. They have asked me to continue my personal support for the co-op housing movement, and to enlist the support of my colleagues here in the House of Commons.
I am proud to be associated with the efforts of co-ops in Mississauga. Indeed, I am proud of the contributions of the people who live and work in all forms of social housing in our city. Homes built by Peel Region as public non-profit homes, homes built by private groups and churches, as well as the co-operative homes, have all made outstanding contributions to my city.
January 23, 1984

As all of us know, a review of CMHC's efforts is now under way, and I want to bring my personal endorsement of the Government's social housing program to the attention of the Minister. The great job done by all participants in this program has laid the foundation for its continued future successes. On behalf of the co-operative movement in Mississauga and Peel, I ask that all Members extend their endorsement for CMHC's social housing program.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Bussieres), who is responsible for the harassment of Canadian taxpayers, the plight of yet another artist who is being forced out of business by the heavy-handed tactics of his officials.
In 1976 a resident of Welland, Ontario, graduated with a Fine Arts degree from York University. As a fledgling photographer, she sold three of her works to the National Film Board, one to an Italian film magazine, and one of her works appeared in the major publication of the thoroughbred breeding industry.
Hoping to establish herself as a freelance photographer in the horse racing world, she started a business in 1979. With her achievements, obvious talents, and ambition, she has been carrying on a business at which she may eventually earn a profit. But the Revenue Department has now deemed otherwise. It has informed her that she will never realize a reasonable profit from her business and, just to make sure that she does not, it has demanded repayment of business expenses that have been legitimately deducted for the past three years.
Apparently the Department did not take kindly to her attempt to object to this treatment. Now it is auditing the rest of the members of her family. How far will the department of intimidation carry on its crusade against fledgling entrepreneurs? What a demonstration of faith in the talents of Canadian artists the Minister has shown! When can we expect a reversal of these unjust policies?



INDUSTRY


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, once more I would like to emphasize today the fact that the Canadian Government has agreed to finance construction of a $225 million gas pipeline in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this project is not getting very much publicity, and I just
want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in our area, all our big pulp and paper mills are still operating, and we also have several aluminum refineries. I also want to say that the construction of this gas pipeline will help to provide our area with an exceptional infrastructure that will attract investors and especially those who are interested in processing this prized metal. I also wish to point out to the House that part of this exceptional infrastructure will be the superport on the Saguenay, which will give our region a window on the export market. The construction of the gas pipeline in our region will make a tremendous contribution to development, and in an area where people are proud of what they are and are not afraid to work, we welcome industries that will process the metal being refined in our region, and we are proud of the fact that we are the aluminum capital of the world.



IMMIGRATION


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Star reported on Sunday, January 22, that the program for enabling long term illegal but established migrants to become legal seems to be failing and even supporting a rip-off. While only 301 illegal migrants have been given a preliminary approval, 648 of them in Ontario alone have been ordered out of the country. That is over twice as many. No doubt some of those ordered out were short term, or failed to establish themselves, but the figures underline the way the program has turned sour since it was undertaken by the previous Minister of Employment and Immigration on June 29.
The majority of Canadians support the original policy, which was to encourage established immigrants to become legalized, where possible, by allowing them to apply anonymously at first. Unfortunately the present Minister has changed the policy. He introduced a rigid rule which excludes many migrants who may have been here for more than five years. He failed to enlist the help of knowledgeable individuals and non-profit community groups, as the Robinson Report advised, and he makes no serious attempt to publicize the program. Then he announced an early cut-off date when less than 2 per cent had even applied. As a result, we now find that panicky migrants are being ripped off by unscrupulous consultants for $1,000, $3,000, or even more, to make their applications.
I call on the Minister to review his program, remove the unnecessary restrictions, use reputable non-profit community organizations to assist these people to become good Canadians, and so end this rip-off of defenceless people.

January 23, 1984
[ Translation]



INCOME TAX


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Bill 43, as we all know, has been causing considerable controversy and concern in the hotel and restaurant industry, and until now, the federal Government has not become involved in this debate since it was not the originator of this new formula.
Nevertheless, whether we like it or not, Mr. Speaker, now that the National Assembly has made thousands of Quebecers subject to this legislation, and considering the interrelationship between our jurisdictions, it is imperative that the House act accordingly and that is why I am asking the Government, whether it likes it or not, to take the following action: First, the Minister of Employment and Immigration responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission should clearly establish the fact that the income represented by the basic salary plus tips will be insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act and that the workers concerned who are paying income tax and premiums will be treated fairly. Second, that the Minister of National Revenue agree, in writing, not to use information that will be transmitted by employees in writing to their employers as data and evidence on the basis of which notices of assessment would be sent out for previous years.
Mr. Speaker, I think such action would help to clarify the debate now going on in Quebec, and would certainly not adversely affect any of the changes the Government of Quebec may wish to make in the legislation as requested by various intervenors.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic provinces, with their resource-based and service-based economies, are traditionally the first hit, the hardest hit, and the last to recover from policies of tight money, restraint and austerity which the Government of Canada finds necessary to impose from time to time.
At the present time, with taxation at the highest level possible, the Atlantic provinces, which are 48 per cent dependent upon transfer payments from Ottawa, have incurred current account deficits of about three-quarters of a billion dollars despite severe restraint measures. To borrow to meet this deficit will have a detrimental effect upon credit ratings, interest rates, and marketability of bonds.
Measures similar to the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants of 1958 may be an urgent short-term solution, but the long-term answer is a secondary manufacturing base which
can expand the tax field and reduce dependence on the federal Government. It is essential for the Government of Canada to establish with the provinces common economic goals and objectives, and to invest in enlightened development policies which will have the positive dividend of establishing national standards for basic services and reducing economic dependence on the national Treasury.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the report of the U.S. Government Environmental Protection Agency of October, 1983, made official what many private scientists have been warning us about for years. The EPA warned that the build-up of carbon particles in the atmosphere will lead to the "greenhouse effect". They warned that the effect will begin to happen much sooner than first realized. Major changes will be here by the year 1990 to 2000, causing massive changes in climatic patterns throughout the world. Coastal areas will be flooded, while other areas like my home district of southern Saskatchewan will become deserts.
While scientists warn that the greenhouse effect is irreversible, they also state that the degree of climatic change will depend upon present and future policies. They all agree that we have to stop burning fossil fuels. There are solutions. Hydrogen is the cleanest burning fuel. It remits no carbon particles. The main recommendation of the parliamentary committee on alternate energies was that Canada move to a hydrogen economy. What is lacking is the political will and foresight.
The Government is spending billions of dollars in grants and subsidies on northern and offshore oil exploration, but hardly anything on alternate, safe, renewable energy forms. Is it not time that we wake up to what is happening? Is it not time that we had some leadership and foresight, rather than the policies we have now, based on short-sightedness, ignorance, and greed. The future of earth demands it.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce should meet as soon as possible with the management of ITT, in order to help people of Port-Cartier. I think it is essential at this stage to have a meeting between the Finance Ministers of Quebec and Canada in order to reach an agreement on

reopening the plant. Today, there are some short term possibilities for finding a solution that later, in a few months, would make it possible to resume operations at the existing plant in Port-Cartier. Mr. Speaker, I think that since there are concrete signs of economic recovery in the Montreal and Toronto areas, it is very desirable and even imperative that both Ministers of Finance, with the Ministers of Industry, Trade and Commerce, should meet in order to arrive at an acceptable, economically feasible and realistic solution, that will put these workers back to work. Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential to find solutions in the short term, since the plant has been shut down for four years, and according to the local consensus, the plant at Port-Cartier must be reopened.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, approximately two years ago I received written confirmation from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) admitting that inequities existed in the income tax regulations which unfairly penalized many disabled Canadians. At that time the Minister promised to bring these inequities to the attention of her colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), who has responsibility for amendments to the Income Tax Act.
Unfortunately Canadian disabled still suffer from unfair legislation. It is sad that these people must not only fight to overcome their handicaps but must also fight Revenue Canada to obtain the few available deductions which exist in the current income tax legislation.
In particular, I remind the Minister of the case in my own riding of Mr. Overdyke, which is identical to that of a recent case, namely, that of Mr. Born. It is my opinion that the first case, which was won after numerous appeals, should have set a precedent for the latter, eliminating the need for Mr. Born to repeat Mr. Overdyke's experience. Once again I make a public representation to the Minister of Finance, asking him to review the position of the disabled with regard to the Income Tax Act.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Darryl Cruick-shank until recently worked for Revenue Canada. He quit, to
Oral Questions
use his own words, because he could not stomach the methods being employed to extract taxes from taxpayers. My question to the Minister involves three of his specific complaints-first, that Canadians, law-abiding citizens, were being treated like criminals; second, that in the collection area-and I emphasize collection area, not the audit area-there were quotas in Kitchener; and, third, that with respect to bankruptcies an actual credit or brownie point went upon the ledger for the tax collector when a bankruptcy occurred and moneys were owed to Revenue Canada.
Will the Minister please acknowledge that there were quotas in Kitchener with respect to tax collection, and that a tax collector gets a credit when a bankruptcy occurs as a result of moneys owing to Revenue Canada?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member to carefully read this individual's statements and to reflect on the nature of the answers that were given, and I am sure that he will then have doubts about some of these statements.
I am thinking of the example he gave, namely that the Department of National Revenue, through its Collections Division, forces businesses to go bankrupt. This is perfectly ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. The Department of National Revenue, and especially the Collections Division, are responsible for collecting monies that are owed to the Government. Why should we force a business to declare bankruptcy, when we know that once it is bankrupt, it will no longer be able to pay what it owes and it is our responsibility to get that money. It is in our own interests to negotiate and help businesses through a difficult period when they are in difficulty, because once they become economically sound again and are making a profit, they will generate taxes, they will be better able to pay them and they will be able to create jobs which in turn generate income for the Government so that this individual's reasoning does not have a leg to stand on.


Chris Speyer: The Minister's answers, with all due respect, are patent nonsense.


DEPARTMENT'S TREATMENT OF TAXPAYERS
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I met on the weekend with two tax collectors currently working in the Kitchener office. They acknowledged the accuracy of what Mr. Cruickshank said. They advised me that there were quotas for each of them-and they are known as PM-2s-that there were 170 files which they had to go through and clean off, and that bankruptcies did not really matter because of the pressure coming from their supervisors. They acknowledged that to me. I am aware of a specific case in my community where a person did not want to go bankrupt and wanted to pay $1,000 per month as a result of a reassessment, but it was not permitted,

January 23, 1984
Oral Questions
because it was a statistic. I was told that by a person who works in Revenue Canada.
My colleagues and I are getting sick and tired of telling the Minister, day after day, what is actually occurring within his Department. Woods Gordon is not enough, because that is not the problem. It is not a question of whether or not this Department is efficient. The real issue is why does it lack compassion and humanity. Why does it not treat people like they should be treated, with civility and generosity, especially coming off a recession?
Did the Minister telephone the Kitchener office as a result of seeing this article and talk with the person in charge of that office to find out its accuracy, or did he rely on his senior officials to mislead him again with respect to information as to what is happening on the street?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished at the ease with which the Hon. Member is able to switch to the lowest kind of demagogy. I may remind him first of all that the Collections Division is responsible for collecting taxes, and that when the Minister of National Revenue knows taxes are owing to the Government, it is also his responsibility. Mr. Speaker, today over $3 billion is owed by taxpayers to the Government of Canada and it is our responsibility to see to it that those taxes are paid. Of course we must do so with tact, bearing in mind the situation of the individual taxpayer. We are willing to examine each special case, as the Hon. Member and the Members of this House are aware.
As for the group I asked to prepare a study, under supervision of Mr. Farlinger, I would like to make it clear that this group will be helping to support two major concerns within the Department, which are first of all, to provide service to the public and give taxpayers the information they need to help them comply with the Act and second, the group will examine the situation with us and give us advice as well on certain practices as they apply to relations between the Department and taxpayers, and if there is room for improvement, we are prepared to continue our efforts within the Department to maintain a humane attitude worthy of the Canadian taxpayer, despite the difficulties of our work and the responsibilities we have.


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER CONTACTED KITCHENER OFFICE
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister initially denied the existence of quotas. Then he changed his story and he said that it was only an isolated incident in Kitchener. He then changed the story again. He said that quotas existed, but he refused to give details.
There has been an allegation by a former Revenue Canada employee, who quit about seven weeks ago, to the effect that quotas existed in the collection department in Kitchener. Did the Minister phone the Kitchener office to find out whether in practice, not as a question of public policy, but in fact whether quotas existed in the Kitchener office with respect to collections?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I must point out to the Hon. Member that unfortunately, I did not have time. I read the article at about ten to two on my way from the airport to the House of Commons, because I wanted to be in the House at Question Period in order to answer the Hon. Member's questions. I did not have time to do what the Hon. Member referred to. I also wish to point out to the Hon. Member that he will have to stop this abusive use of language and stop turning up his nose at certain words. I think it is important to have target objectives in order to be able to measure efficiency and performance within the Department, and I think the Hon. Member should stop being shocked at the Department's trying to be efficient.


CLOSING OF TAXPAYERS' FILES-AWARDING OF CREDITS TO TAX COLLECTORS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister pleads ignorance. He should not be ignorant. He should be aware of the fact that the Kitchener Record called his office on Friday to solicit his comments. We are told that he was unavailable, and that his staff were unavailable for comment on these charges. I want a direct answer from the Minister to a direct question. Do Revenue Canada collection officials receive a credit in cases where files are closed as a result of bankruptcies?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I did not look into this particular matter, as I said earlier in my reply. 1 read the article at 1:50 p.m., before coming to Question Period. As soon as I am able to make enquiries, I will be glad to answer the Hon. Member's question.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT INQUIRY
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, one wonders why the Minister would have been so vociferous in his denials when he says he has not done any research.
I want to ask the Minister about a bulletin that was put out last week by his Deputy Minister, which states, and I quote:
-I believe we have to regard the amount of criticism we have been receiving as evidence of a decline in the level and quality of our service.
January 23, 1984

Does the Minister accept the statement made by his Deputy Minister? Second, in view of the repeated evidence that the Minister simply does not know what is going on in his Department, will he now authorize the creation of a select committee of Parliament, with the power to subpoena documents and witnesses, and offer to Revenue Canada employees who are prepared to come forward, a guarantee that reprisals will not be initiated against them by the Department because they have told the truth about what is going on in that Department?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, an independent group is making an objective study of two major aspects of relations with the public and also of widely varying areas such as training of employees within the Department and certain administrative practices. I think this objective view and assessment of certain departmental practices is already in the planning stage and will help to support efforts being made to improve these two major aspects of the work of the Department of National Revenue.
The Hon. Member referred to a brochure prepared by the Deputy Minister, inviting all departmental employees to bear in mind the principles of service to the public and the principles of dignity and equity in dealings with Canadian taxpayers, and I think the Hon. Member should be glad this reminder was issued and also to see we are concerned about improving the situation just as he wants us to, unless he is only out to criticize. But if his objectives and objections are aimed at improving service to the public, the Hon. Member should be glad about the tangible efforts being made by the Department-this bulletin by the Deputy Minister is an example-in order to improve the quality of service to the public within the Department of National Revenue.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who has recently been touring the capitals of the world and meeting with world leaders in an effort to inject a jolt of political will into the nuclear arms talks. At the same time, parliamentarians have been touring their constituencies and meeting with the unemployed, small business leaders, and local political leaders, talking about the unemployment problem which continues to plague our country. What steps does the Prime Minister plan to take to inject a similar jolt of political will into the Government's economic policy so that the unemployed across this country will feel that their immediate problems of feeding, clothing and housing themselves and their families, are being given the same level of consideration?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member refers to the April Budget of the Minister of Finance, he will see that a very substantial injection of political energy was given to job creation. Some $4.8 billion was budgeted for the creation of jobs. He will also have heard the Minister of Finance indicate that, in the course of 1983, jobs were created at an unusually high rate, something like
40,000	jobs on average a month. The Minister of Finance also indicated that he would be coming forth with a new Budget sometime this spring. I am sure the Hon. Member will see new evidence of political energy being injected into job creation.


LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in that Budget to which the Prime Minister refers, we did see the Minister of Finance ask the people of Canada to make sacrifices for the benefit of the Canadian economy and for the benefit of all Canadians. On the weekend the Minister of Finance was thanking Canadians for making that sacrifice in the best interest of our economy.
As a result of that Budget and the Government's initiatives, we seem to have a recovery that is occurring only in certain sectors. We have noticed a tremendous recovery in bank profits and in corporate profits, but the level of unemployment seems not to have been reduced virtually one iota. How does the Prime Minister explain to the Canadian people, while they are all asked to make sacrifices in the best interests of the Canadian economy, that only certain Canadians seem to be benefiting, and benefiting quite substantially, while high unemployment continues in our country and, as projections would indicate, will continue for some time yet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand how the Hon. Member can suggest that the level of unemployment has not been reduced one iota since the rates have reduced from something like 11.8 per cent-close to 12 per cent-to below 10 per cent. It is obvious unemployment is coming down.


Mr. Stevens:: Which country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member might like to look just at bank profits, but if he looks at the official rate of unemployment, he will see that he is mistaken.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says the unemployment levels have fallen below 10 per cent. I would remind the Prime Minister that he is back in Canada now and that unemployment levels are far in excess of 10 per cent in real terms.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF FINANCE CONSULT ORDINARY CITIZENS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister regarding the upcom-

January 23, 1984
Oral Questions
ing Budget. We notice that the Minister of Finance has gone on record a number of times indicating his interest in consulting with Canadians. He has consulted with the corporate leaders of the land and with a variety of lobby groups, but the one group of people with whom he has not consulted are what we might call average, ordinary Canadians. Would the Prime Minister confirm, in his concern for justice and equity, that he will ask the Minister of Finance to go and meet with ordinary, average Canadians, before the preparation of his Budget coming down in the latter part of February?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to know what the Hon. Member defines as ordinary, average Canadians. I know the Minister has spent a considerable amount of time meeting ordinary average, Canadians.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Lobby groups and corporate heads.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is in Toronto today meeting with such a group.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will bet that the Minister of National Revenue is afraid to appoint a parliamentary task force to look into the running of his Department because he is afraid the truth will get out. That is what he is afraid of.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Everett Greenaway: The Minister is well aware that under Section 31 of the Income Tax Act a lot of money has been taken from farmers and some farm families are literally on their knees because of large, retroactive and unexpected, tax bills. In some cases reassessment has elevated the taxpayer into a higher tax bracket. Now wives are receiving letters from Revenue Canada demanding repayment of up to four years of child tax credit benefits.
The Minister for weeks has assured this House that there is no such thing as tax audit quotas. Is he aware that tax collectors are demanding that farmers' wives repay child tax credit benefits?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite understand the last part of the Hon. Member's question. As to his opening remarks to the effect that Revenue Canada or myself fear an appearance before the committee of the House, I should like to remind him that, as Minister of Revenue, I did appear on a few occasions before the standing committee of the House which studies the estimates of the Department, that we have no reservation whatsoever about appearing before the committee of the House and, should a committee want to hear witnesses and ask questions about the administration of the Department, we will comply without any hesitation, as we did in the past.
As to the Hon. Member's interpretation of Section 31 of the Act, I suggest that he should examine the provisions of the Act. If he is not satisfied with the provisions of Section 31, as seems to be the case, I have already explained to him the procedure to follow: he ought to make representations to the Minister of Finance with a view to convincing him that this particular provision which benefits agricultural producers should be amended, made more flexible and more generous.
Now then, since those provisions are in the Act, the Hon. Member will appreciate that we have to implement them and that, after an audit made pursuant to the provisions of the Act and to the interpretation given to those provisions by the courts, we have to issue a notice of assessment. The Hon. Member will agree that we have discharged our responsibilities under the Act and that we are duty bound to collect the amounts of money to be levied as a result of an assessment notice.


REPAYMENT OF CHILD TAX CREDITS DEMANDED FROM FARMERS' WIVES
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of National Revenue. While he might be following the Act, and the law, and the rest of it, he is not showing any compassion and common sense. In the last few weeks we have heard of audit quotas, collection quotas, taped phone calls, garnishment of bank accounts, third party demands, forced bankruptcies, and now the grabbing of child tax credit benefits.


Mr. Rossi:: Question.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: There will be a question. Will the Minister show some compassion and order his officials to stop this latest draconian move of grabbing tax credit benefits from farmers' wives? The families are literally bankrupt, and now he is going after them for up to four years of child tax credit benefits.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, it is simply amazing to see to what extent Hon. Members opposite are prepared to make people believe that our tax system is being turned into a scheme which is unfair to the taxpayers. Hon. Members should reflect upon their requests for a few minutes. Can you imagine the Minister of Revenue deciding tomorrow morning to disregard the will of Parliament and the law of the land, and saying to people who have to pay taxes: Listen, we will forget you, we will no longer collect taxes, and the others who have no choice, the millions of Canadians who pay their taxes every week, every other week
January 23, 1984

or every month, will shoulder the heavier tax load because the Conservatives are not intelligent enough to understand the Income Tax Act, they raise all sorts of phoney issues and irresponsibly spread fear among the people, thus undermining the credibility of an extremely important institution, the Canadian tax collection system.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I will address my question either to the Acting Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary. Will the Government confirm that under the initial COPE Land Claim Agreement it is proposed, with respect to contracts for the supply of goods and services to either government or to private business when controlled by government lease, licence, concession or agreement, that the land claim beneficiaries are to have a 10 per cent preference in price measured by reference to the lowest competitive bid?


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, there are indeed various agreements which provide for some incentives. In this case, perhaps it should be determined whether there is an official agreement or simply a proposed agreement.


METHOD OF AWARDING CONTRACTS
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has not seen the agreement that has been initialled by the Minister. He should read it, and read in particular Section 16(7). We would like to know whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is aware of the Canada-wide ramifications of awarding contracts on a racial basis, and requiring private firms to do likewise? Is the Minister aware that he could be granting a virtual monopoly on Beaufort Sea oil and gas business to one group? How can the Minister disregard his own stated policy that land claim settlements will respect the rights of all people, both native and non-native?


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I find the Hon. Member's question rather confused since quite a number of agreements are signed each week. In the aforementioned case, various elements have been discussed, certain official agreements have been signed and others are simply at
Oral Questions
the project stage. However, if the Hon. Member would make his question more specific, I shall be happy to provide him with the documents relating to the agreements which have already been signed.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade, in view of the fact that his senior Minister is not here today. It relates to the great fanfare and hoopla attending the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce last week when he came back from Japan. Can the Minister tell me and the House whether or not the senior Minister returned with anything substantive from Japan in the way of a Japanese commitment to invest directly in plant, equipment and jobs here in this country, to manufacture automobiles and automobile parts?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the junior NDP Member-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: -that the question of investment in Canada obviously falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Industry. The question of the sale of Canadian goods abroad, or of the import into Canada of products from other countries, falls under the jurisdiction of trade. If the question relates to the number of Japanese cars that would be allowed into this country under various scenarios, that would be a question with which I might properly deal. The question of how much investment Japan will make in this country might better be put to my colleague.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, after listening to that answer, now I know why my friend is the junior Minister.


AUTOMOBILE TRADE DEFICIT WITH JAPAN
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Last year Canada had a trade deficit of $1.5 billion in automobiles and automobile parts vis-a-vis Japan. In view of the fact that a little country like Austria, or in fact a country like Iran, can force the Japanese either into a quota or source deal with their respective countries, why is it that for the past four or five years neither the Minister nor the senior Minister has been able to get an agreement with the Japanese so that we could create 80,000 new jobs instead of losing 100,000 jobs?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's understanding of the economy is

January 23, 1984
Oral Questions
about the same as his understanding of the structure of government.
I want to say to him that we are in a very different position than Austria in that we sell much more to Japan than we buy from Japan. That is a fact that I should like the Hon. Member to keep in mind. Having said that, I have clearly stated elsewhere, and will state again, that the continuing negotiations for the coming year and other years of Japanese import quotas for vehicles coming into Canada will certainly be influenced by decisions that they make on investment in the Canadian market and the utilization of Canadian parts.
I believe the Hon. Member knows that there has been a substantial recovery in relation to the number of vehicles sold by the Canadian car industry in 1983 as a consequence of the fact that, seeing a recovering market, we were able to negotiate a fixed number of cars with the Japanese by way of quota rather than by way of percentage of the market. Canadian workers have benefited from that, as they will benefit from the negotiations that I am confident will be successfully carried on by my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker I should like to put a question to the Minister of the Environment. He must know that on January 10 a court settlement was reached between Hooker, now Occidental Chemical, and the State of New York, filed for approval in the State of New York without Canadian input or comment. This has to do with a matter of priority concern to his Department and to the Minister, that of containment of an S-area dumpsite on the Niagara River. Since it is a priority matter of concern to the Department and to the state, does the Minister intend to take action himself within the 30-day comment period? Will the Department or the Government take any action with respect to this proposed settlement?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing with the premise of the Hon. Member's question, I should like to inform him that we are being given a very thorough briefing on the content of this proposal made on January 10. We are now examining the elements of it. It is a very important step that has to be weighed out for its positive as well as its negative contents. We feel that the announcement deserves a very thorough analysis before we can arrive at a decision. We are in the process of arriving at one and, when it is made, I will be glad to inform the Hon. Member.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that only a 30-day comment period was allowed, and 12 days have gone by.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ASSIST ANTI-POLLUTION GROUPS TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, if the Government proposes to take no action, will the Minister authorize the agencies that have an interest and concern in this area, such as Operation Clean or Pollution probe, to make some comment, with the help and assistance of his departmental officers, with the testing and findings they have already made?
More properly, if he is not going to take any action within the 17 days left for studies and historical references, will he fund those agencies that have a concern for the 4 million Canadians now using those waters for drinking and recreational purposes?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is posing a hypothetical question and he rests his argument on that. I would be very glad to hear a comment by the Hon. Member on what he thinks of the decision and the proposal. I certainly would welcome his views. He comes from the area affected, and he would be speaking for the people there. In the meantime we are studying the proposal and, when we are ready, we will make an announcement.


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the Canadian ownership charge on gasoline and oil at the pump was introduced to pay for the takeover of Petrofina, a transaction long since completed, and no new takeovers are planned, would the Prime Minister advise the House how much longer he and his Government intend to impose this completely unjustified tax which has been taking $65 million per month out of the pockets of Canadian car and truck owners? If this money had been left with the rightful owners it would have contributed greatly to increased retail sales, and would have provided many additional jobs for the workers of this country.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had followed the statements of the Minister of Finance on the subject he would know that the money was to be used for other Government purposes, and that a Bill will be introduced in the House very soon to that effect. After we finished paying for Petrofina we continued collecting so that we would have the needed cash, should there be a bail-out of Dome. The money has been completely collected for this, but happily we did not need it to bail out Dome. I would point out at the same time that the Canadian Bank of Commerce, of which the Leader of the Opposition used to be a member of the board, was involved. We needed the money to make sure that there would not be a
January 23, 1984

big disaster in those areas. If we do not use the money fully, it will be used for other purposes within government.


TAX AUTHORIZATION
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see that at long last the Prime Minister realizes he cannot take a swing at my fast ball. I will toss him a floater, and maybe he will have the courage to have a try at it.
As the Prime Minister knows, no matter what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said-and it was simply gobbledygook, simply meaningless-the Government has been taxing in a completely unjustified fashion for the past nine months. Does the Prime Minister not realize that taxation without authorization by the people is what caused the introduction of the Magna Carta in 19- in 17- in 12-?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Your fast ball was late, George.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister if he would not just hate to leave these hallowed halls having gained the reputation of being the King John of the 20th Century?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member was unable to hear the shouts among the laughter, it was that his fast ball was several centuries late.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think that the next time the Hon. Member had better not try the Magna Carta, but the Boston Tea Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The American Environmental Protection Agency has warned that what has been called the "greenhouse effect" will begin to be felt within the next two decades. Major global climatic changes are being predicted. Is the Minister treating the warning of the EPA seriously, and what action is his Department undertaking?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the interest of the Hon. Member in this issue. We are definitely interested in this matter, as anyone should be. The long-term predictions are the object of a very thorough examination, because there are a variety of scientific
Oral Questions
opinions about them. It is evident that, in the long term, certain plans will have to be made. As to Canada's relationship to these forecasts, there will be benefits as well as drawbacks, I suppose, and this is a matter which requires very thoughtful analysis which we are in the process of carrying out.


DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROGEN AND OTHER ALTERNATIVE FUELS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He has just heard his own Minister of the Environment saying that the greenhouse effect is a serious problem. All the scientists are saying we must get off fossil fuels. Will the Minister not entertain the notion that he should provide the same amount of grants and subsidies to the development of hydrogen and other alternative fuels which he now provides for frontier oil and gas exploration? Is it not about time the same subsidies were provided for alternative energy sources?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is very unrealistic to think we should stop using conventional oil or other types of oil in Canada, and replace them by solar energy. I believe we need many forms of energy, and in fact when we are using nuclear energy-which the Hon. Member is also opposing in the debate today in the House-it is a form of energy which can be used in Canada which does not cause any pollution of the type which the Hon. Member mentions. This morning he spoke in the House saying to everyone we should completely scrap nuclear energy in Canada. He should make up his mind about what he wants.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As it is generally conceded that the next of kin of the Canadian persons who were killed on the KAL 007 jet which was shot down by Soviet forces last fall, are entitled to compensation, would the Minister indicate if the Government is prepared to make cash advances to those next of kin entitled to such compensation in anticipation of the funds forthcoming from the Soviet Union?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not reached that conclusion. I have thought about that idea, but in the circumstances I did not believe it would be the

January 23, 1984
Oral Questions
right action to take. For the present, our main purpose is to put pressure on the Soviet Union to provide the cash.


STOCKHOLM TALKS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Would the Minister indicate what agreement was arrived at in Stockholm with respect to ongoing negotiations, in the earnest hope that compensation would be forthcoming from the Soviet Union? Specifically, did the Minister receive any assurance from Mr. Gromyko, or any other Soviet official, that negotiations would begin immediately?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did raise with Mr. Gromyko the issue of compensation. I told him that it was still an important bilateral question, along with human rights, which we wished to discuss further with the Soviet Union. That message was quite plainly given to the Soviet Union.
I further suggested that these matters ought to be further discussed by officials, ans that was also listened to by the Soviet Foreign Minister.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What was his reply?


PETRO-CANADA CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES-APPLICATION TO EMPLOYEES
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He is just walking out. May I trouble the gentleman to return?
I am curious as to whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could indicate whether he imposes any conflict of interest guidelines on those individuals employed in Crown corporations under his jurisdiction? If he does so, would he make those guidelines available to Hon. Members of this House of Commons?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the conflict of interest guidelines in every Crown corporation and Government are the same. I do not know if the Hon. Member is referring to a certain problem, but if he has a problem he should give me the particulars and I will see if there is some conflict of interest.


REQUEST THAT GUIDELINES BE MADE PUBLIC
Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, the Minister refused to answer the second part of my question as to whether those conflict of interest guidelines would be made available to Members of Parliament. The Minister, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, is the one shareholder of Petro-Canada on behalf of
all Canadians. In view of the fact that we are talking about a considerable amount of taxpayers' money, would the Minister be kind enough to explain why senior management officials in Petro-Canada would not make available to my office the conflict of interest guidelines as they relate to themselves? Would he also give me the commitment that he will make those guidelines available to Hon. Members of this House?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines that apply to Crown corporations and government employees are outlined in public documents and the Hon. Member can consult them. If he wants me to send him a copy of those guidelines, I can arrange for one to be sent to him, but he should normally have them already in his files for the same guidelines apply to Petro-Canada and other Crown corporations.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. As he knows, the basis of democratic rule depends on representation from constituents. The Canadian law on by-elections and representation has been discussed for six years or eight years now, and is the most outmoded in the western world. Has the Prime Minister contemplated any changes to amend the byelection provisions of our law so by-elections will be held sooner?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, nor do I agree with the Hon. Member when he says these laws have been discussed for many years. I have heard no such discussion, in this House or out of it.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF BY-ELECTIONS TO FILL VACANCIES
Paul Wyatt Dick: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it has been discussed in a Private Member's Bill which I introduce in 1976 when we were looking at the by-election in St. John's East and in Ottawa-Carleton.


An Hon. Member:: St. John's West.


Paul Wyatt Dick: At that time it was seconded by the then Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, the Late Hon. Walter Baker. I was wondering whether the Prime Minister was soon going to announce a by-election in the constituency of Nepean-Carleton, as well as a by-election in the constituency of Laval-des-Rapides?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 will make such an announcement within the provisions of the law as supported by the Party of the Hon. Member.
January 23, 1984


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture who knows that farmers are generally facing very poor prices this year and have used up any reserves which may have existed in the farming community. Some 7,549 farmers are caught in a loan situation with Farm Credit Corporation with interest at 16 3/4 per cent. Another 1,250 farmers have loans which were under a program whereby the Government reduced interest charges by 4 per cent. Both of these groups are hurting badly now that the 4 per cent program has been stopped. Does the Minister intend to bring in a program to reduce the amount of interest which these people are paying to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 13 per cent or lower?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister inform the House how soon he is intending to do this because farmers are attempting to make plans for the next crop, and some are in fact facing bankruptcy, not knowing what is the plan of the Government?


Eugene Whelan: I hope soon, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. One of the criticisms which David Cruickshank levelled at the Department when he resigned was that he and other employees were instructed by their superiors never to apologize to a taxpayer. I have several cases, one of which I raised with the Minister the other day in the House, where the Department has made serious mistakes which have caused needless difficulty and, indeed, severe financial embarrassment. Yet the Department refuses to apologize. What rationale is there for a policy like that, and when is it going to be changed?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member to read the folder which has been referred to today. All our employees are asked to be more careful in their contacts with the public as it is our responsibility and our duty to be. Mr. Speaker, when mistakes are made, either as a result of delays or computers issuing a wrong assessment because of wrong data having been fed into
National Revenue
them, it is our responsibility to express our regrets and to apologize to the taxpayers who have been the victim of such mistakes. I wish to assure the Hon. Member that we do not refuse to apologize, for it is our responsibility to do so.


TAXPAYERS' CONVERSATIONS WITH OFFICIALS-TAPE RECORDING INQUIRY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, every time the Minister opens his mouth he confirms that he does not know what is going on. Even when the Department wrongfully seizes bank accounts, people cannot get any kind of apology from the Department.
On another matter, his Deputy Minister said on Friday that he cannot rule out the possibility that some of his officials may be secretly taping telephone calls with taxpayers. That was just after the Minister denied in the House that such a practice existed. It shows once again he does not know what is going on. I ask the Minister if telephone calls are being taped now, have they ever been taped, and, if so, have taxpayers been notified in advance?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House last Friday and according to the assurances which I received from my officials, it is not a practice of my Department to tape phone calls with taxpayers. I wish to repeat those assurances in the House.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) leaves the House, last Friday he referred to a commission to Woods Gordon and certain terms of reference. He referred to it on the same day in a press release, and again today. Would he be kind enough to table the terms of reference to Woods Gordon and/or the letter of instructions to the firm which contain those terms of reference?


Yvon Pinard: That is not a point of order.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I am ready to table in both official languages the order of reference concerning the review of the Taxation Division, Department of National Revenue to be made by Mr. Farlinger.

Point of Order-Mr. Hawkes


Mr. Speaker:: At this point there needs to be unanimous consent. The Minister can do it without consent at the point of tabling. With consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: This was obviously not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is willing to table his document on Tabling of Documents; but I think it should not be done by unanimous consent on a point of order which was not a point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: It is a very bad habit.


Mr. Speaker:: It was not a point of order, but in the interests of proceeding with the business of the House, the Chair sensed there was general agreement to proceed that way.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Pinard said no.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will not quarrel with the matter because obviously the Minister is prepared to table the terms of reference. But I point out I could have raised it as a point of order, and I was being kind to the Minister because under our rules it is clearly required.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On January 19, 1984 the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) complained about the unavailability of copies of Hansard from the previous session in the Joint Parliamentary Distribution Branch. The Hon. Member will recognize that the first session was unusually lengthy. This resulted in enormous space pressures in the Centre Block and the documents were therefore moved to another, more distant site. I have, however, directed that the last two months of the daily publications of the previous session be restocked in the Centre Block for the convenience of Members. I hope this will meet the requirements of all Hon. Members, and if further difficulties occur I am available to Hon. Members to discuss the matter privately.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to express my appreciation for the prompt action on the part of the Speaker. Thank you very much.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chil-cotin (Mr. Greenaway) on Friday, January 20, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Paul Wyatt Dick: for leave to introduce Bill C-212, an Act to amend the Interest Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple Bill designed to amend the Interest Act so that companies who lend mortgage money cannot get around Parliament's intentions when it first passed this Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motions. Questions on the Order Paper.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think you passed by Motions, and with the agreement of the House perhaps the Minister could make the motion under Standing Order 42 that he was going to make and table the documents he appears to have.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I handed the documents over to the page and they can be tabled immediately.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisks.)
January 23, 1984
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 122, 196 and 375.


Mr. Stewart: Is there a Technical Awareness Program (TAP) and, if so, for each fiscal year since its inception, what amount was spent by the National Research Council under the Program?


Mr. Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Within a subsection of the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program there is a specific service which has in the past been called the Technical Awareness Program. This service since 1964 has provided current information in the form of 60,000 briefs per year to approximately 3,500 clients. This sub-element of the Industrial Research Assistance Program involves approximately three and a half person years at a total operating cost of about $150,000 including copying, computer use, postage and salaries.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were outside consultants employed by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology and, if so (i) how many (ii) what was the total amount paid?
2.	Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case what (a) was his/her name (b) was the amount (c) services were provided?


Rolland Dion: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned:
1 (a) (i) 50. (ii) $131,931. (b) (i) 65. (ii) $248,187.
2.	1981-82. (a) Phoenix Associates, (b) $45,000, (c) To provide technical and management services and advice to assist MOSST carry out activities related to the space program.
1982-83. (a) Hickling-Partners Inc. (b) $44,384.47. (c) Consulting services in connection with the "Study on the Disposition of Intellectual Property Arising from Extramural Research and Development"; and, Consulting services to study and report on the economic issues associated with the disposition of intellectual property produced by the variety of federal Government extramural support and funding mechanism.
(a) Raoul Theriault, (b) $22,434.94. (c) Consulting services to produce an analysis of medium-term opportunities open to industries in the Atlantic region to use technology to enhance their competitiveness and growth; and, consulting services to produce an analysis of medium-term opportunities open to industries in the western and northern regions to use technology to enhance their competitiveness and growth.
Introduction of Bills
(a) Nordicity Group Ltd. (b) $32,500. (c) Consulting services to evaluate a book published annually entitled "Federal Science Activities"; and, Consulting Services relating to an R and D framework related to the disabled and handicapped.


Mr. Howie: 1.	In the current Fiscal year how many persons are employed in the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and what is the total estimated cost of salaries?
2.	For each of the two preceding Fiscal years what amount was spent for salaries?


John Leslie Evans: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to Parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be made directly to him.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 251 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 251 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McKinnon: What is the location, range and frequency of each CBC AM and CBC FM radio station in Canada?
Return tabled.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

January 23, 1984
652________________________________________
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. de Jong:
That a Royal Commission of Inquiry be created to study the nuclear fuel cycle in Canada including the range of economic, social, medical, environmental and safety matters resulting from exploration, mining, production, transportation, storage and use of uranium and its byproducts.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to join in this debate today relating to the use of nuclear energy and uranium mining in this country. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) noted this morning, we have not had a very large number of debates on this industry in the past several years. For many of us in this House, Mr. Speaker, this industry is very important in providing jobs and electrical energy for our communities and untold benefits to the country through exports. I want to comment on a couple of items mentioned by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) in his speech, but I will do that perhaps a little later.
Since 1946 this Government has supported the development of nuclear energy in this country through the development of the Candu reactor, the research programs carried out by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the development of the many uranium mines, both in Ontario and in western Canada.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that at this time nuclear energy is producing 11 per cent of Canada's electricity. By the year 1990 it will be producing 18 per cent of the electrical energy in this country. If we compare that with many countries in western Europe and with Japan we will see that their level of nuclear energy is much higher than ours. In the Province of Ontario, the most populous province of our country with nearly nine million people, 40 per cent of our electrical energy is now being produced by nuclear energy. By the year 1990 that will have increased to 50 per cent.
It is important to know that we have two prime sources of electrical energy in Ontario, nuclear and hydro. These two sources complement each other very well. The hydro source which often comes from small electrical generating plants, many of which are in my constituency of Algoma can be used for peaking power late in the morning and in the early evening when high energy use is required. The peaking power of the hydro is beneficial to complement the nuclear base load. Thirty per cent of New Brunswick's power is now generated from nuclear energy at the Point Lepreau development. Thirty thousand people in our country are now employed in the nuclear energy industry in mining, research and electrical generating plants. There is $1 billion worth of electricity generated from nuclear energy at the present time.
If we look around the world, Mr. Speaker, we see that electricity is increasing in use because of its cleanliness, efficiency and versatility. An increasing percentage of the electricity generated is from nuclear energy. France, Finland, Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland produce over 30 per cent of their electricity from nuclear energy. Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States all produce more of their electricity from nuclear sources than Canada where it is only 11 per cent. That will be rising to 18 per cent by the end of this decade. A recent report by the OECD countries indicated that the countries of western Europe and Japan could produce their electricity 30 to 75 per cent more cheaply using nuclear energy rather than coal as a source of energy by 1990.
Some 5,000 people are employed in the uranium mines in Canada. They produce about $800 million worth of uranium a year, 85 per cent of which is sent into export markets. Canada now produces about 20 per cent of the world's uranium.
The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) suggested that the economy of the nuclear industry is very shaky. In my own constituency of Algoma we have had three major megaprojects constructed during the past five or six years. In the spring of 1982 there were some 85 megaprojects listed across the country. Three of those were in my constituency related to the nuclear industry. In Elliot Lake there was the massive development of the Rio Algom mines, an investment of some $400 million. At Denison Mines there was an investment of some $300 million. In Blind River there was the development of the Eldorado Resources Uranium Refinery, an investment of $130 million. These projects certainly did not do anything to make the nuclear industry shaky. They provided thousands of jobs during the construction period and will be providing jobs for many years to come.
In putting forward the motion by the NDP today I wonder whether the Hon. Member for Regina East was really just calling for a public inquiry into the uranium industry, or if in fact he was hoping for a decision such as was taken by the NDP convention two or three years ago to phase out the whole mining and nuclear cycle.
This nuclear fuel cycle is very important to our country. It provides over $1 billion worth of electricity per year. It provides 30,000 jobs. It is a very important industry. The Tory policy on further processing of our resources is interesting. Looking back at the 1980 election we recall a policy of the Liberal Party to process our resources further at or near the area where they are being produced. We were thinking at that time in terms of uranium processing in the areas of production such as the Blind River-Elliot Lake area. We were thinking about the further processing of petroleum resources in western Canada.
After the 1980 election we returned to power and reversed the decision that was made by the Tory Party to relocate the uranium refinery in Port Hope in southern Ontario to Blind River, the resource-producing area. A decision was made by the 1979 Clark administration to dispose of the waste from the uranium refining facility of Port Hope through the mining cycle in Elliot Lake, but actually to locate the refinery in
January 23, 1984

southern Ontario. The decision made in 1980 and 1981 to put the refinery in Blind River has now been carried out and is providing some 175 jobs to northern Ontario. It also provided several thousand man-years of work during the construction phase.
I think it is very worthwhile, Mr. Speaker, that we are having this debate today on the mining and nuclear fuel cycle. It is a very important industry to our country in terms of jobs and export markets. We want to continue that. During the period that the NDP were in power in Saskatchewan they in fact did not actually shut down the mines out there. The Saskatchewan Mining Corporation developed further mines and became involved in further mining activities. When we read the NDP policy resolution of a few years ago of phasing it out, we wonder which is the policy.
It is interesting to hear a call for an inquiry after the large number of inquiries which have been held into the uranium industry. A few years ago the Ontario Government established the Porter Commission, the Ontario royal commission on electric power planning. That commission published a comprehensive set of reports after five years of work and several million dollars worth of expenditures. The government in Saskatchewan established the Bayda Commission on uranium mining in Saskatchewan, the Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry. That report has been made public during the last few years.
In Ontario, the Parliamentary Select Committee on Hydro Affairs has investigated a number of aspects of the nuclear industry, such as electrical demands, reactor safety and waste management practices including the joint Canada-Ontario program for the management of spent reactor fuel waste and the problem of uranium mining tailings. As well, before making a decision as to the location of the uranium refinery in Blind River in Ontario, there was a federal environmental assessment and review panel which reported on four different locations for a uranium refinery in the Province of Ontario.
The provincial Environmental Assessment Board has reported on the proposed expansion of uranium mining activities in Elliot Lake before the current expansion which is just about complete took place. There was a massive public inquiry into the expansion of those uranium mines, including the arrangements being made for tailings and preservation of the environment.
In Newfoundland and Labrador a provincial environmental review decided that proposed mining operations in Labrador was not environmentally suitable and that more work would have to be done on the design of the tailings system. Again, that was another public inquiry.
In Saskatchewan, the federal Environmental Assessment Review made a report on the proposed Eldorado resources uranium refinery in that province. The Bates Commission in British Columbia carried out an important study on uranium mining there.
I also understand that there is a former member of the House of Commons, Mr. Robert McCleave, who is carrying
Supply
out a commission in Nova Scotia. As the Minister said this morning, there are certainly a large number of public commissions and inquiries studying this matter. Of course, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is carrying out a very extensive research program in northern Ontario and Manitoba to look into the whole question of the high level of nuclear wastes. There will be public hearings into that study when it is completed to identify if that proposal for the deep rock disposal of nuclear wastes is environmentally suitable.
I suggest we must take these facts into account when we look at the resolution which is before us today. In any event, I believe the resolution itself is very valuable because it gives us an opportunity to review the whole nuclear fuel cycle.
When the Hon. Member for Regina East was discussing the subject of uranium mining and electricity production this morning, he stated that we should be moving toward the alternative energy proposal on which the special committee task force in this Parliament reported. I certainly want to pay tribute to those members of the committee and the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), who was its chairman, because they certainly brought forward an excellent report on alternative energy and the use of hydrogen in the future. When we hear this subject discussed, it is interesting to note that the report is based on the concept of producing hydrogen from water and other resources by using electricity. If that ever happens, I assume that the electricity will come from nuclear generators. Therefore, if hydrogen fuel is to be used in the future, much of its production will be based on the use of nuclear energy to generate the electricity that is required. I know that the NDP member from B.C. who sat on that committee was somewhat nervous about that report since he realized that it was based on using nuclear energy.
The Hon. Member also talked about the dangers of the greenhouse effect which is a phenomenon that results when fossil fuels, such as coal, oil or wood, are burned and carbon dioxide is produced which then creates an envelope in the earth's atmosphere and causes a danger. The one fuel that does not create the greenhouse effect is uranium.
It is also important to note that today we are talking about nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, such as generating electricity. It should be remembered that Canada adopted a policy of selling uranium only for non-weapons use back in 1965. That policy has been strengthened over the years with binding commitments that the uranium we sell and the technology be used only for peaceful purposes. I suggest that we have had the strongest policy in that regard.
I also suggest that today's debate is necessary in view of the importance of the nuclear industry. There are some 30,000 people in this country who have jobs in the industry, including some of the largest employers in my constituency. It is an important source of foreign exchange for Canada since 85 per cent of the $800 million worth of uranium which is produced each year is sold to countries throughout the world. It is sold specifically for peaceful purposes. As well, there is almost $1 billion worth of electricity generated in this country in

January 23, 1984
Supply
Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec from the uranium and nuclear fuel cycle.
Therefore I suggest it is necessary for the Government to continue to support this industry since it provides many benefits to the country in terms of jobs, exports and electrical energy. I hope that the Government will continue to encourage and support the nuclear industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Questions, comments and answers? Debate.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to support this motion, moved by my colleague for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), which deals with the consequences of the nuclear energy situation in Canada. It is a situation that demands a careful study by all sides at this time. We are at a critical point in our history.
I have enjoyed the serious nature the debate has taken up to this point and 1 wish to convey my remarks with the same seriousness. I believe this is an extremely important question which justifies the proposal in our motion for the establishment of a royal commision to study the nuclear fuel cycle in Canada. I wish to make my remarks from a different point of view but with the same seriousness as other Hon. Members and speak generally about the difficulty of making moral decisions as they relate to different aspects of our lives. I suspect many people in the House at different times in their education have studied how one makes a human decision and how the morality of that decision is determined. It may have been done under some school auspices, in an ethics class or in some church community, but everyone somehow or other- perhaps it was only with his or her parents-has decided why certain things are good and certain things are evil as they affect human beings. Approximately 30 years or 40 years ago when many of us were taking up such studies when we were younger, the study of morality was much easier because the situations and problems faced by people were simpler. The morality which became part of our lives and affected the way in which we made judgments about our lives and the lives of those around us had a strong emphasis upon personal morality.
The nuclear debate which we are facing today and other questions similar to it demand that we restudy the way we face such a problem from the moral point of view. Most people believe that making a moral judgment about a private act or about their relationship with another person carries with it good or evil. There are circumstances which make the act good or evil. The intentions of the person involved are an extremely important part of the act or the morality of the act. However, today we as people, individuals, communities, parliaments and governments have a much more complicated judgment to make about many things. This change has happened in our own lifetime. For instance, when I was a young person I had no idea of what uranium was. I had no idea about what could be done with it. I remember well the atomic explosion at Nagasaki, as you do, Mr. Speaker. From that a different kind
of life resulted or a different kind of invasion, in a sense, took place into our world about which we as human beings had to make judgments. Shortly after discovering that atomic power could be used for destruction or to do something good, most people had a feeling that we should go ahead and try it to see what it could do, that perhaps we had captured a great power which could solve many problems. However, since that time I and many others have begun to see that in the whole question of nuclear development there are problems built into it of moral dimension, not unlike many areas of our human lives which we have to face as political people, religious people and individuals.
The same kinds of moral questions are now being asked about non-renewable materials, the whole question of fuels which were in the soil over long periods of geological history such as gasoline. Once they are depleted, we will never be able to use them again. Should we use them all up at a particular period in history?
Another moral dimension is to be found in the problem of pollution. When I was young I do not believe I even knew what the word "pollution" meant. Yet today industries, businesses, communities and countries are faced with massive pollution problems at all levels of their existence. There is pollution of the oceans, waterways, land and air. There is destruction and breakdown of our ecology, a major human action induced and brought about by human beings, not by some other force. Because it is a human action, it will have about it a morality, whether it is good or evel or whether it is for building up or tearing down the human community. At the same time there has been use of materials which at one time we thought had no limits, for instance, forest products. In Canada 50 years ago it seemed that there was no limit to wood products. People who knew South America and the Amazon jungle felt that we would never use them all up, but now I know from personal observation that these tracts of forests which at one time seemed unlimited are limited. By using them up, major things have happened in our countries with the climate, erosion, the filling up of rivers and many other things. Here we are as human beings sitting with these problems before us and having yet to make moral judgments about them.
I am well aware that the people participating in this debate are conscious of this reality. However, we have to bring into this debate the question of how we, living in 1984 relate to people in the future. Many of the products, which we have used up in this century for instance, took millions of years to prepare. They have been used up. What about the generations which will come after us in greater numbers than any preceding generation simply because the population of the world is expanding and growing?
I would like to advance the proposition as to how we as parliamentarians-and I do not say this in a partisan way but as a human being elected to represent people-make judgments about moral actions that will have a massive influence on the future. No absolute decisions can be made about this, but I believe it is important to look at the question as we

proceed with judgments about the development of atomic energy and atomic energy power.
I come from the Province of Saskatchewan. It had recent experience in handling the nuclear question. By chance, good or bad, Saskatchewan happens to be one of the great sources or centres of raw ore used in this cycle. When these ore bodies were discovered, the Government of Saskatchewan realized that they could be of great wealth and that to develop them would bring about profound changes in the lives of many people. It proposed that the areas be studied in detail. Before the development of the first major uranium mine in Saskatchewan, the Bayda Committee was set up to study the effects as it could see them at that time of uranium development, not only on the ecology of the planet but on the whole cycle uranium ore use and its effect on local people living around the site where the ore would be mined.
I happened to be a witness before the Bayda Committee. I brought forth a proposal which I had seen in Latin America, Africa and other places indicating that some of the consequences of the situation would be completely different from what ordinary people might think it would be when they think about the morality of such a subject. I brought forth the proposal that if a road were developed from Meadow Lake north to Key Lake, the major problem or change which might result would be that native people would leave the area to go to the cities. I had seen that phenomenon take place in many parts of the world. A situation which many people thought would help local people turned out to be a problem, because a new lifestyle was imposed on them and so they left to go to other places to find work and sustenance. Many times they did not find work and had to live in situations far less compatible with their understanding and way of life.
When the second major find of uranium occurred at Key Lake, a similar type of in-depth study was done about the effects and possibilities of conducting the operation properly. It was chaired by Mr. Robert Mitchell of Saskatoon. They studied the conditions under which the mine would go forward and the safeguards which should be installed before mining licences would be authorized. One of the major reasons we were able to bring this resolution before the House today was the fact that at that particular mining operation there have recently been major spills. From personal contact with people in my riding of Saskatoon I know that people are worried about the fact that so quickly after a mining company received its licence to proceed, there have been major breakdowns in the system. Today we are discussing this problem in light of how we can approach it from the moral standpoint of whether it is good or evil to continue operations at this time when safeguards are not really in place. We realize that what we are doing has unknown consequences.
Interestingly enough, in the Province of Saskatchewan the moral issue surrounding uranium has become a prominent question. In that Province, the leaders of the various church groups have proposed that a judgment be made on the morality
Supply
of what is taking place in a way that has not been done previously. I would like to read into the record sections of this document which has been prepared by such people as: Most Rev. Noel Delaquis, Roman Catholic Bishop of Gravelbourg, Mr. Edgar W. Epp, Executive Director, Mennonite Central Committee (Sask), the Most Rev. Charles Halpin, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Regina, Dr. John W. Kleiner, Professor of Christian Ethics and Church History, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Bishop G. W. (Lee) Leutkehoelter, Central Canada Synod, Lutheran Church in America, the Most Rev. James P. Mahoney, Roman Catholic Bishop of Saskatoon, the Most Rev. Blaise Morand, Roman Catholic Bishop of Prince Albert, Dr. Paul W. Newman, Past President, Saskatchewan Conference, United Church of Canada, the Most Rev. Michael G. Peers, Anglican Archbishop of Qu'Appelle, the Rt. Rev. H. V. R. Short, Anglican Bishop of Saskatchewan, Rev. Wendell Stevens, President, Saskatchewan Conference, United Church of Canada, the Most Rev. Jerome Weber, Roman Catholic Abbot Ordinary of Muenster, and the Rt. Rev. Roland A. Wood, Anglican Bishop of Saskatoon.
These people are the leaders of the church communities of our Province. Sometimes they have signed in their own name and other times in the names of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction which they represent. The document they have proposed relating to the uranium debate is entitled "Christian Leaders call for halt to uranium mining for the sake of peace". The document reads as follows:
Making peace, a most pressing task of our time, is more than a matter of not declaring war. Peace-makers strive to end all forms of violence against their neighbours, their environment, and themselves.
We Christian leaders believe that a moratorium on uranium mining in Saskatchewan would make a significant contribution to world peace. We ask the people of Saskatchewan to consider again the implications of uranium mining for our future. We ask our political leaders to reconsider their commitments to the uranium industry in the light of the demands of making peace.
This ecumenical statement outlines some of the major reasons for this position.
The three major reasons they have given are the following: First, uranium is fueling weapons; second, uranium is risking health; third, uranium is a questionable investment. All Members of Parliament are well aware of this. The document, which is not very long, is important in the uranium debate. These people have traditionally taken responsibility for speaking to moral issues when it came to individual cases such as stealing, lying, marriage laws or family life. They spoke with moral authority. These same people have seen this new problem evolving. It will affect the lives of all their people and many other people of whom we are not aware. Therefore, the document demands that a judgment be made in the same way that the church leaders have done previously in their role as moral leaders and that they speak to the larger questions, one of which happens to be the uranium debate.
The three principles they have outlined is, first, that uranium fuels weapons, second that uranium is a risk to health and, third, that uranium is a questionable investment. They call upon the people of Saskatchewan to consider once more the

January 23, 1984
Supply
dimensions of the uranium issue. They believe that our political leaders desire to make peace. They say, and I quote:
We hope that in sharing our reflections on this important moral issue, we are being faithful to our prophetic call as Christian people.
I hear some of my colleagues question, by their remarks the rights of religious leaders to speak on moral questions of this dimension. 1 believe religious leaders not only have a right but a duty to do so. We know it is one thing to speak to a moral issue. Whether the advice is followed is another question, but it is important, as they say, to speak to the issue in a prophetic role.
Recently I talked with others in my constituency who are likewise interested in the uranium debate. In the last few days I talked to people who strongly suport the idea that uranium is one of the few ways by which we can find power and energy for the future. Just last weekend I talked with scientists in that respect. They moved very directly in that way. On the other hand, there are many people who do not have that confidence. They are concerned as well. This group of people has difficulty when it comes to understanding and knowing who is telling the truth. In the recent incident in Saskatchewan, truth has been very hard to find. After the major spill that could not be "closed up", it was found that other spills had occurred previously and there had been no truthful explanation about them. A few minutes ago I learned that press people will not be allowed into the site along with the group which plans to visit this week.
Because of the lack of truth about the industry, the question about its morality is becoming more urgent. I appreciate the fact people in the industry believe that truth is not that important because of the general moral disorder that we find in so many parts of society today. However, as serious parliamentarians we must push for some effort such as this motion proposes so that we and all others interested in the debate can find the truth about what is going on and what we should do.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, will the Hon. Member advise us whether he thinks it was a good Christian principle to turn off 35 per cent of the electricity in Ontario because the mining of uranium should cease?


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is certainly valid. It also indicates that the Hon. Member has not thought of other ways in which this situation can be dealt with. In the Canadian context, we were sold a bill of goods. Following World War II, we were told that this is the way energy will go and that unlimited amounts of money would be put into research in this area. It would have been much better for Ontarians, Canadains and everyone else if at that time there had been a broader perspective of how to seek energy sources.
The Hon. Member's point is certainly valid in the sense that a judgment has been made that this amount of electricity is going to be generated in Ontario by nuclear power. I hope the Hon. Member is also aware that many people around those places where the nuclear stations are to be built are wondering about that. I can speak from a little bit of experience in
Saskatoon. There was the possibility of a nuclear refinery being built at Warman, 14 miles from Saskatoon. The people now have knowledge about spills, about Three Mile Island and the various problems under which the nuclear business is functioning and operating. In Pickering itself there have been indications of where this system can break down. People had an open debate and discussed whether or not they should have uranium refining at Warman, Saskatchewan, with everybody involved, not just a few bureaucrats, a few scientific people, a few engineers, and a few technicians and representatives of companies that were going to build the reactors. People did not want the refining process there, and they were the ones who would have been employed. They made a moral choice that having the refinery was less advantageous than having a job. This morning we had a question from the other side. I think we have to start looking at the question again about whether this is truly a social and economic good or whether it is leading us down the road which finally we may all have to say was not the right road and will have to be reconsidered. But reconsidering, reconverting and changing is not a bad thing. We have to be ready and aware to do that.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, 1 was interested to know, in listening to the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East, if in fact the NDP policy position of 1981, which was to phase out the nuclear fuel cycle and to halt uranium mining in Canada, is still the policy of the national Party? I just wanted to inquire about the actual position of the Party on that. I had hoped to ask the Hon. Member for Regina East who spoke this morning but I was unable to do so during the period of time allotted for questions. The Hon. Member spoke about the spill at Key Lake. Is the Hon. Member aware that the provincial member for the Athabasca riding Fred Thompson, visited that site. The Canadian Press reported that he said there was no need for an inquiry into the matter. In his remarks he seemed to be alluding to the facts that there was no access for outsiders to visit that area.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, the policy, as far as I remember it, has been correctly stated by the Hon. Member. The Province of Saskatchewan had its own New Democratic Party convention several months ago. Up to that time it had been a policy different from that. But on the floor of the convention, after a very serious and a very well debated debate, the provincial arm of the New Democratic Party changed its policy to one that is in conformity with what the Member stated. I do not want to go on record as saying that it is exactly the same word for word, but it is in that general direction-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No nuclear energy period.


Robert Joseph Ogle: You got it. We are opposed to nuclear energy to be used in the building of military weapons or in the production of electricity, but the use of nuclear energy as it is sometimes used in medical practices, such as in the cobalt bombs and so on, could be useful.
January 23, 1984

My colleagues who speak in absolutes all the time are giving me a slightly hard time here. But there is an area in which we make human judgments as well.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I want to know whether you are opposed to nuclear energy, and if you are, say so.


Robert Joseph Ogle: May 1 ask for the Hon. Member's second question again, Mr. Speaker?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member spoke he indicated that there was no opportunity for people from the outside to visit the Key Lake spill. Is he aware that the provincial Member, Mr. Fred Thompson, actually visited the site of the Key Lake spill and indicated that there was no need for an inquiry as a result of that visit?


Robert Joseph Ogle: That is an extremely good question, Mr. Speaker.
I was aware the Member had said that. Because the people who work at the mine are almost all from Saskatoon, I am very interested in it myself. I hope to visit the site, probably this week. I have been told that I cannot bring any press people with me, and that bothers me. If there is no problem, I do not see why the matter cannot be disclosed and opened up. This is what we are talking about, having a complete and open study of the situation. I do not think anyone should be afraid of the truth. We should know the facts, and all Canadians have to be aware of those factors in order to make those decisions that we or someone else has to make about the future.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of three questions. Can the Hon. Member indicate why in 1979 his Party effectively blocked the formation of a committee to inquire into not only the things mentioned in today's motion but something much broader? Can he indicate why he prefers a royal commision to some kind of a joint House of Commons-Senate joint committee of inquiry? Can he tell the House why the exploration issue is not covered by the motion? Is the New Democratic Party not concerned about the exploration of this kind of technology around the world?


Robert Joseph Ogle: First I will try to answer the questions with the knowledge I have, Mr. Speaker. It has been mentioned twice. I appreciate the fact that a committee was being set up and that the House did not last long enough for it to continue in 1979. I know of no reason why we blocked it except that the terms of reference perhaps were not broad enough at the time. If it was blocked, I cannot remember who did that.
The royal commission is an approach. We introduced the notion of a royal commission because of the broader terms we felt could have been brought in to study the whole institutional process. We felt the whole thing could be done better under that kind of a group. If there were any group moving at all in this areas, we would be happy, whether it were a committee, a royal commission, or anything at all, that someone was doing a serious study of the whole process from beginning to end. Exportation naturally is a very important part of the whole cycle. I hope anybody who wants to will speak to that. I asked
Supply
several questions about that of the Minister and of other people this morning. I, too, believe that proliferation, the spreading around of the technology as well as the material itself, is something that I do not think is guarded carefully enough. I believe some of the sales that have been made, to help the Atomic Energy Commission along, I think have not been well studied from their moral point of view. I would be very happy to hear the opinions of everybody on this whole question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That concludes the ten minutes for questions and comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Blaker).


Mr. Blaker:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the House and you yourself permit me to pursue a point of order only as a courtesy in that I have not been able to speak for the last four years while I occupied the same position that you do now? This is the first chance that I have had to do so. I would like to express to all Hon. Members my great appreciation and the honour I felt in serving this House in the position that you hold. At the same time I want to take the opportunity to wish Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, the Acting Speaker, Mr. Guilbault, and youself as my neighbouring Member of Parliament in Montreal, the very best in your new positions. I thank all Hon. Members for the opportunity that I had to serve.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The kind remarks are appreciated even though they are not a point of order.
The Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail).


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, it is very appropriate that the Hon. Member who just addressed the House expressed good wishes, just as I want to do since it is my first opportunity to express my sincere congratulations to you in your new responsibilities and to wish you well. At the same time I would like to put on the record my best wishes to the new Speaker, His Honour, the Deputy Speaker and your colleague, the Acting Speaker, Mr. Guilbault.
Today we have an Opposition Day in which a motion was put forward calling for yet another royal commission. It seems that there has been a run on royal commissions in recent years or at least in calls for them. Today, members of the New Democratic Party have completely missed an opportunity to bring forward a subject that would be more germane to the problems in the country today such as employment, a subject that they tell the Canadian people is so important to them. Today, Member after Member in that Party has spoken as if he lived in another country, if not in another world. It certainly is not realistic for them to attempt to put forward the position they have taken of totally opposing the use of nuclear fuel energy in this country. Surely the positive effects and economic benefits derived by all Canadians since the development of this important fuel have not gone unnoticed, nor have all the

January 23, 1984
Supply
other important economic spin-offs that have accrued to Canada. From time to time one must wonder about the policies and the existence of this splinter Party in our system when motions such as the one before us today are set down on the Order Paper.
I shall certainly be saying some positive things about nuclear energy as it relates to Atlantic Canada and New Brunswick in particular. Today we heard the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) and Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) speak on the subject. The Hon. Member for Regina East was yelling at the top of his voice this morning, saying he is totally opposed to this. He was attempting to put fear into the minds of the people in Canada. Using such scare tactics, he would have people taking a negative view of this kind of energy.
Let me put the federal Government's clear and staightfor-ward position on record regarding nuclear power in Canada from the environmental point of view and regarding the peacetime use of radioactive materials. We do not close our eyes to the realities of life as the NDP does from time to time, nor to the advances of technology and the increasing understanding of the dangers and the benefits of this type of energy. We have a clear and workable position that enables Canadians to receive the benefits and to heed the warning signs. We take into consideration the public's concerns and rights as well as industrial needs and economic international pressures. Our position is that all activities and technologies connected with the development and production of such nuclear power, the production and sale of radioactive materials or the management and ultimate disposal of resulting waste products, should be regulated in an open and consistent manner by the federal authority that extends in partially to all parts of the country.
It is our position that those regulations must take full account of the environmental factors, both short term and long term, no matter what aspect of the environment, living or non-living or human, is involved. I am glad that in these debates we have an opportunity to set the record straight and to make some points that need to be made when a motion such as this is brought before the House.
Every energy source must be judged in terms of its contribution toward meeting Canada's energy needs and in comparison with other possible ways of achieving the same goal. Nuclear energy is no exception. We know that in the Maritimes, certainly in New Brunswick, much money has been spent by the province and by the federal Government to construct the Lepreau plant. Plans are well advanced for the construction of Lepreau II, in the not too distant future. In a recent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation program, a professor of economics from the University of New Brunswick used that project as one of the indicators that a boom could take place in the economy of that province and its neighbouring provinces, should it be constructed within a reasonable period of time. Over $ 1 billion was spent on the construction of Lepreau I and now it is in full production. The potential for sales to the
United States is great enough to satisfy the planners that they should approve the expenditure for Lepreau II.
This is taking place at a time of international crisis in the economy and a time when people are crying about high unemployment, Mr. Speaker. It would seem to be a good time to consider the ways and means of continuing with this kind of development. Those people who hold themselves out as the sole protectors of the worker and who seem to have taken that divine right upon themselves, ask for a royal commission and also ask, as did one Member from Ontario, that we shut down the Ontario plant and put all those people out of work, and that we not consider future plant construction. If the central elements of the motion before the House were adopted, it would have the effect of putting 36,000 Canadians out of work.
It has to be one of the greatest contradictions in the history of this country when men and women elected to a political Party that holds itself to be the saviour of the worker and which believes that it alone speaks for the Canadian Labour Congress-which we know is totally inaccurate-take such a position. By taking direct, positive action in constructing these plants to produce this important fuel, we are doing what we told the Canadian people we would do, that is, create jobs. 1 wonder what the New Democratic Party would tell the Energy Chemical Workers' Union of Canada? What they propose would put people out on the street, people who, through no fault of their own, are unable to find meaningful permanent employment.
The other important issue in the debate is the whole question of conservation and trying to become self sufficient in energy in Canada. We cannot do that without taking advantage of and advancing the controlled use of nuclear energy in our time.
Uranium burned in Candu reactors provides a safe, reliable and clean alternative for generating electricity. It is already economical in those parts of the country which have begun to exhaust low-cost hydro resources and do not have access to low-cost coal. It will become increasingly attractive in other parts of the country in the future. Nuclear energy is a resource that is high in Canadian content. It provides employment to a highly skilled work force and represents a symbol of Canadian technological excellence, the like of which we have not seen to date.
The problems of the industry are manageable and the benefits of generating electricity using this indigenous Canadian technology and resource outweighs the risks. Neither this energy source nor any other energy source can be judged in a vacuum. It must be judged first in terms of its potential contribution to the supply of energy necessary to support our industrial economy and to maintain and increase our standard of living, and, second, in relation to other possible ways of achieving the same goal. In the case of uranium, the goal in domestic energy supply is the production of a reliable and economical supply of electricity. The alternatives are coal,
January 23, 1984

hydro, energy conservation and unconventional alternatives such as solar, wind and so on. However, Mr. Speaker, we must stop and consider the benefits of such projects as I have mentioned, such as the construction of Lepreau II in New Brunswick, where we will see millions of dollars expended during the construction stage, creating thousands of person-years of employment.
The motion before us today, as I said earlier, does not seem to be linked at all to the reality of what we are attempting to do in Canada. Not too long ago, when I was speaking in the House, I talked about forestry and the creation of jobs in that important sector or our economy. I spoke about the need for the New Brunswick Electric plants such as CIP, and others which might be having difficulty, a break on their power rates. One of the reasons I put that suggestion on the floor of the House, and submitted the recommendation to the Premier of that province and to his Cabinet, to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister responsible for labour in that province, was to focus on the fact that since the federal Government has transferred funds to assist that province in the initial stages of the construction of the Lepreau plant, and in many other ways through transfer of funds from Ottawa and through funds we have allocated through DREE, it should now hold good to its word and position and assist these plants which are having difficult times in international markets and give them a break on their power rates to help them through this difficult period.
It is because of that very positive position we have taken, Mr. Speaker, in assisting provinces such as New Brunswick, putting them in the position of being able to produce a reasonable economically-priced source of power supply, that I would ask the Province at the same time to consider the well-being and welfare of some of its plants by giving them some relief on power rates.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that energy is important to our economy now. It will be even more so in the future. If the Canadian industry is to compete with foreign suppliers in the world market, and even in our own market, it must be highly productive. That will take energy. To an increasing extent, it will take electrical energy. I am not suggesting that our utilities should dash out and build all sorts of new generating plants. I am saying that if we want to ensure that we can supply low-cost electricity in the future when the economy requires it, we must make sure that we do not make a shortsighted decision now which could tie our hands in the future. We have a remarkably successful electrical supply system in Candu. We have taken the right steps. We know of the successes, and the kind of money which has come into our economy through the sale of this technology to other countries in the world.
I would just like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that, obviously, as is evident from what I have said, I am totally opposed to the motion which is before the House today.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments and one or two questions. I really have to ask whether the Hon. Member opposite who just spoke read the motion which
Supply
the New Democratic Party has placed before the House. It reads, and I quote:
That a Royal Commission of Inquiry be created to study the nuclear fuel cycle in Canada including the range of economic, social, medical, environmental and safety matters resulting from exploration, mining, production, transportation, storage and use of uranium and its byproducts.
Contrary to some of the statements which were made, we have not openly prejudged the entire issue. That is why we are asking for a royal commission, unlike that former Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, who was known for piling parliamentary committee upon royal commission, such as the Government has done by having a commission on Canada's economic prospects on top of another one held a few years ago, and having some of its Ministers ask for new investigations of foreign investment in Canada after we had a study a few years earlier. Government has done the same thing on numerous other topics. However, we have difficulty getting the truth from the nuclear industry when we ask them any questions, and even when the Government asks them questions.
There is no more appropriate a commission that this country should have in order to satisfy the many serious questions which reside not only in the minds of Hon. Members of the House of Commons, but in the minds of the people in our constituencies from one end of the country to the other. Seldom have we had an industry which has piled up expenditure upon deficit in every realm of its activities, from subsidy for exploration right through to selling the product overseas and payola to foreign agents, as has the nuclear industry. It needs an investigation from top to bottom more than any other single industry in Canada.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, it was very difficult through the political speech of the Hon. Member for Kootenay West to understand what his question was. He might have saved that for a New Democratic rally. I could not recognize any specific question which he had on his mind.


Mr. Jarvis:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Restigouche. I understand, and indeed share, some of his reservations about a royal commission. However, I wonder if we are to interpret his remarks as excluding the advisability of having either a special House committee or special joint committee of the House and Senate from examining the issue? It seems to me the Minister himself indicated what was, in his view, a certain amount of misinformation in the public domain about the particular issue and, indeed, the legitimate concern in the public domain. Am I doing my colleague an injustice by interpreting his remarks to mean that he might oppose that type of examination of the issue?


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Perth for giving me the opportunity to clarify my remarks. When I said that I was opposed to the contents of the motion of the New Democratic Party today, it is because I do not believe that what we need in this country are more commissions. I do not see any great salvation or satisfaction in just having royal commissions. It seems that in recent months not only the New Democratic Party but the Official Opposition

January 23, 1984
Supply
has called for royal commissions. They have called for royal commissions into revenue and royal commissions into nuclear energy. We want a royal commission into transportation. We have a royal commission under way on the economy, which could take into account a lot of these questions. I just wonder about the wisdom of having a royal commission on top of royal commission, in views of their related costs.
When there is an issue which needs a direct inquiry or investigation, I would be for that. I have consistently been supportive of this kind of inquiry. When we had riots in our prisons, I was a member of the standing committee which looked into that question. I think we should utilize the time and expertise of Members of this House in looking into these questions, but the last thing we need is to have another royal commission. That is not to say that I exclude all other inquiries or that when a matter is of such magnitude or importance that we cannot have unanimous consent here in the House or in the Government to look into some aspect of a given problem in the country.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Can the Hon. Member tell us whether or not he thinks it is adequate to have legislation which was passed in 1946, some 38 years ago, when the technology has changed so dramatically? This motion is an attempt to join in public debate. If the Hon. Member would go back to October 24, 1979, he would find that the Conservative Government proposed the kind of joint standing committee which I think the Hon. Member would favour, to really look into all aspects of this matter and get back to the House with proposed modern and updated legislation. Would the Hon. Member give his personal commitment to the House to raise in his caucus this week the need for the Government to provide the House with a reference to set up that kind of joint committee? If he does not like royal commissions, will he personally commit himself to pushing inside his caucus the establishment of a joint committee of the House and Senate to move us as quickly as possible into 1984 legislation, technology and understanding of the problem, as we tried to do in 1979 when his Party along with the NDP blocked us?


Maurice James Harquail: I have no difficulty with that, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the Hon. Member has been here long enough to know that the committee concerned with energy already has the authority to do the work he asks me to support. I have already said I would support any kind of inquiry or good work which might be carried out by the existing committee relating to this question. That committee has the power to look into all aspects of this question at any time it wants to obtain the necessary approval from the House. I suggest to the Hon. Member that he and his colleagues who sit on that committee could make that kind of request so the committee could do the kind of work he is concerned about. He agrees with me on that point.
On the second point, Mr. Speaker, I do not discuss with anyone nor have I ever done so, what goes on in our caucus. I am consistent on that. I will not indicate to him one way or
another whether I will raise that or any other matter before caucus. I will not be telling the Hon. Member or anyone else what we have discussed there or what we will not discuss there.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order! It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Administration	of	Justice-Official	languages-
Whether or not Crown attorney in Toronto represented Government policy; the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes)-Labour Conditions-(a) Employment of foreign nationals in universities-(b) Symons Page Report recommendations; the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave)-Western Grain Transportation Act-(a) Rates charges on container shipments of alfalfa pellets (b) Railways' interpretation of Act's provisions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton:
That a Royal Commission of Inquiry be created to study the nuclear fuel cycle in Canada including the range of economic, social, medical, environmental and safety matters resulting from exploration, mining, production, transportation, storage and use of uranium and its byproducts.
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on the subject of nuclear energy. The motion requests the setting up of a royal commission of inquiry into just about all aspects of nuclear energy. It is certainly a very important issue, worthy of consideration, and we appreciate the opportunity of debating it today in the House. However, I am a little surprised that this subject is perhaps the most important one on the minds of the NDP Members. There are the difficulties with Revenue Canada which affect nearly all Canadians, certainly all tax-paying Canadians. We have our economic problems, unemployment problems and all these other problems, and then we find the NDP willing to use up the whole day on a subject which
January 23, 1984

affects, relatively speaking, only a few Canadians. It makes me think that Mr. Laxer, in his treatise, has certainly got to them and they are a little bit afraid to get on to the subject of economics and unemployment. Instead, they get into this very nebulous area of nuclear energy.
I recognize that the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) is a cleric and we should listen to him with some degree of concern. He raised the subject of morality and dealt pretty well entirely with the matter today. I do not want to take away from the importance of morality in the work of all of us here in this House with respect to issues we deal with. I do not pretend to be a cleric, although I am the son of a cleric, but I am a family physician, so I want to deal more today with the medical aspects of this problem. Before I do that, however, I want to touch on the issue of morality because it is a very important issue. I realize that from time to time one is confronted with difficult problems arising from moral considerations. However, something I have learned since being here is that the churches are increasingly speaking out allegedly on moral issues but they do so without having the information and adequate background to give credibility to what they say. This has been reinforced when I had occasion to travel in other countries and talk to our ambassadors. The enlightenment we get from some of our ambassadors points to the same problem that some of our churches have here in Canada. They come out with very strong views on certain issues, yet they do not have the background to support them. My own church, the United Church of Canada, is not immune to this problem. I am rather disappointed at times, as are some of my clergy friends in the United Church, that some of the people speaking on behalf of our churches do not have the scientific background, as in this case, for example, to be speaking out in such strong ways regarding the issues behind the use of nuclear energy.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me point out that this motion implies there are a lot of problems connected with the use of nuclear energy. Not having heard the lead-off speaker for the NDP, I hope he dwelt at some length on the good things being done as a result of nuclear energy, particularly in the medical field, and the number of lives which have been saved here and around the world solely because of developments in the nuclear field. I think we have to measure those advances against the disdvantages we see from time to time with respect to the use of nuclear energy. There is a parallel here with that of gun powder. Obviously gun powder carries with it problems and the world would in some ways be better off if it had never been invented. However, I think that is a very childish and immature way of looking at any problem. As the days and years go by, we will be shown to have been expressing concerns about the hazards of nuclear energy in much the same way as concern was expressed about gunpowder and what bad things it can do. Certainly we have to be on our toes with respect to nuclear energy and its by-products, but I think that the human mind and the human being is capable of addressing those problems and handling them appropriately.
Supply
I would like to deal with the medical aspects only of these various stages in the uranium cycle that we mentioned, from the prospecting stage right down to the disposal of the waste products. It is fair to say that as far as prospecting goes there is probably little in the way of hazard apart from the hazard that goes with any kind of prospecting with respect to searching for sources of uranium. We will dispose of that particular point right now. The second aspect in this cycle is mining. We have to agree that hard rock mining, of which this is a type, certainly has its hazards. The hazards which are common to any kind of hard rock mining are common to those who are involved in the uranium mining industry as well. Those hazards include accidents and so on which are common to all these hard rock miners.
Of specific concern in the field of uranium mining is the effects which workers may have in the mines because of exposure to radon gases or, as they call them, the daughters of radon gas, which are very toxic to the human being and tend to be carcinogenic. One of the main complications that arise from that exposure is the development of carcinoma or cancer of the lungs, which is not unlike the effects in many cases of the use of tobacco. We are not unaware of the problem of lung cancer due to exposure to the radon gases and its daughters. There have been a number of studies done on this which have documented the problem fairly well. There is the report of the Ham committee. In addition, the Ontario Ministry of Labour has done a rather extensive study on the exposure to radon and its daughters that uranium miners suffer. Because of that all efforts possible are being made to minimize these hazards and exposures. We have to maintain our vigilance and try to proceed in furtherance of that as much as we can.
I would like to move on to the milling and production end of the total problem of the uranium cycle. We have some interesting problems of a medical nature here. Attempts are being made by the present Government to do something about that. I want to give credit where credit is due. There is no doubt that in the milling process we again have exposure to uranium dust. The type of dust that you have is present with uranium in different types of compounds. These dusts get into the human body by two routes, by inhalation through the lungs and by ingestion through the oral cavity, the mouth. There is no question that there are potential dangers from those two sources of injestion. The metabolism of these uranium compounds that takes place once they enter the body is somewhat less known. If there is any one area that we know least about it is this area of the metabolism of the various uranium compounds once they enter the body. It is possible to monitor the excretion of the waste products of the body that contain uranium compounds. One can measure that coming out of the expired air, the urine, and I daresay the stools, and certainly in the blood. This does not give the whole answer to the problem. It does not give the correlation that exists between the findings in those body fluids, whether air as a fluid, or blood or urine, and what you find in the laboratory when you do those tests, with what is actually going on in the body in a biochemical

January 23, 1984
Supply
way and where it is taking place and exactly what is happening. This is where we are falling down.
The Americans were aware of this and about five years ago they established a study to try to research that in a more effective way. Quite recently in Canada, the Department of National Health and Welfare has attempted to do that as well. In collaboration with the Atomic Energy Control Board it has established what it proposes as a program known as the National Uranium Tissue Registry. This program, Mr. Speaker, was developed and refined by officials in National Health and Welfare and presented and approved by officials also in AECB. It was then presented to the senior people in both management and labour in our uranium industry. It is my understanding that that program received rather good support from management and they felt this was something they should look at more closely and support.
The Globe and Mail issue of January 9 carries a headline on page 1 which says: "Mining union angered by request for organs for study on radiation". This certainly gave me cause for concern. The article goes on to quote from the person they call the specialist, a Mr. Ed Vance, who is stated in this article to be a health and safety specialist with the United Steelworkers of America in Elliot Lake. The paper quotes him as saying:
"When they asked for our urine for analysis, we co-operated. When they asked for our sputum for analysis, we co-operated. Now they say, 'We want your bodies, too.' "
Interpreting what that union official is saying there, Mr. Speaker, causes me some dismay. He seems to be suggesting that this is some new and unreasonable demand on members of the union. I would hope that many union members would feel rather upset that one of their senior officials, described as a specialist, would attack that sort of request which has been made. Anyone who is familiar with the advance of medical science realizes that one of the main reasons we have advances in medical science is that over the decades of modern medicine we have been able to correlate, with the co-operation of society, the findings at post-mortem with the clinical findings before death. It is because of the ability to do that that we have had many advances in the scientific and particularly the medical field. I am rather appalled to think that a man who is a specialist with a union in the area of health and safety has failed to understand and recognize the importance of that. The program is being presented by Health and Welfare and AECB. All that the program is requesting is that they, as miners, submit themselves to the very same request to which patients are submitted day after day in various hospitals across the country.
There is no hospital in the country, Mr. Speaker, that can be fully accredited if it does not have a certain percentage of its deaths submitted to autopsy or post-mortem examination. It is a routine almost. I have had the unhappy experience, as is mentioned in this article in the Globe and Mail, of having to go to the relatives of a patient who had died of some relatively obscure disease where it was very important, scientifically and medically, to have a chance to observe what had actually transpired in a particular organ in the deceased body. Usually
one gets very full co-operation from those relatives. They feel that the deceased person would want to do anything he or she could do to advance medical knowledge. In the medical profession we tend to get a good response to that.
When I see somebody who is speaking on behalf of one of the unions saying this it really appals me because I cannot believe that that person is speaking for the average man and woman who belongs to that union. I see that two or three of my colleagues in the NDP are ready to speak. I would hope that one of them would address this problem when he gets up to speak in a few minutes.
I would like to quote something else from this same article in the Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker, to justify the necessity for having this kind of program put into effect. The Globe and Mail is quoting an AECB official by the name of Mr. Aladar Dory as saying:
"Existing data on the deposition and distribution of uranium in humans are not very extensive."
That is the case, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is so important that all of us as Canadians who are concerned about this problem co-operate in efforts like this to try to expand the existing knowledge of the effects on the various organs of the body of the ingestion of that dust, whether by mouth, into the gastrointestinal tract or by air into the lungs. We can then begin to co-relate what we find in the laboratory findings on the body fluids with what actually happens in the body tissues and what we find in the body tissues at the time of death.
I want to touch on the medical application to the other components of this motion. One of them concerns transportation. I believe one can safely say that there are very few implications medically on transportation. It is true that if some container of radioactive material falls from a truck it will present a hazard, but that is human error and will happen no matter how careful we are. There will always be some human error from time to time. Furthermore, I understand that this question has been researched quite thoroughly in the past by the Bayda Committee of Saskatchewan and the Bates Commission in British Columbia.
Finally, I would like to deal with the medical implications of wastes and waste hazards which exist in the deposition of waste products. I think we are very fortunate in Canada to have our type of Candu nuclear reactor. The volume of wastes in Canada, to my knowledge, is relatively small from that particular operation when compared with other nuclear operations. Therefore, the actual mechanics of trying to dispose of large volumes is not such a problem. However, the problem of safely disposing waste, however small the quantity, still exists. I am convinced that our researchers at AECL are addressing this issue quite intensively.
Some of us have had occasion to visit the operations at Chalk River and Deep River. I am convinced that they are addressing these problems as best they can. I see the Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) here. He would be very knowledgeable about this subject and I think he would agree
January 23, 1984

that efforts are being made to address this problem as effectively as possible.
In conclusion let me say that 1 think the population of Canada at large is not at risk with respect to the nuclear cycle as it applies to the use of its various components and by-products. I think there are hazards which put the workers at risk, but I believe those professionals who are trained and capable of dealing with the problem are addressing it quite effectively.
I do not take exception to the House of Commons or a parliamentary committee studying this in the form of an inquiry. I am surprised that the NDP has asked in this motion for a royal commission of inquiry. If the person responsible for writing this motion had taken the trouble to speak to their NDP Whip, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), he would have been convinced that the proper way to handle this would be within the House of Commons. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) and the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) spoke about the mechanism of a royal commission that is being proposed in this motion. I think we are fed up with royal commissions in this country and we are beginning to realize the opportunity that exists for Parliament to study these contentious issues. If the NDP had consulted its own Whip, it would have realized that probably we have never had a more effective parliamentary committee than the one which studied the disabled and the handicapped. I think one of the strongest proponents of my assertion would be the Member for Beaches who is fully aware of the effectiveness of that type of committee in approaching these issues. I am appalled that the NDP did not realize it was missing a grand opportunity to have Parliament study this rather than a royal commission.
1 am grateful for this motion being raised today. If the next Member to speak is from the NDP, I hope he will address the issue of why Parliament was not asked to study this question, and also indicate the official position of the union with regard to the special program called the National Uranium Tissue Registry. I hope the union will reconsider it and fully endorse the program in order to support the advancement of medical knowledge in this country.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, during the question period I will not undertake to answer all the question that were just raised by the Hon. Member for Oxford. However, I want to touch on a couple of points which he raised.
I wish to say that I appreciate the very careful presentation of the medical information which the Hon. Member has given to us. I know that he is entirely sincere because I have met with the Hon. Member previously on a related subject and was quite impressed with the conscientious way he handled the debate at that time. However, there are a couple of things in his presentation that surprised me. At the end of his remarks he acknowledged, as others did, that it was beneficial to have this subject raised since it has not been raised before.
He talked about the benefits of cobalt treatments as though a royal commission would somehow eliminate those benefits. I do not understand why he is opposed to that commission. I
Supply
remember the time when radiation treatments for cancer were available before World War II, before the atom bomb and the big uranium industry. I do not understand why he brings that subject into the debate and implies that an inquiry would mean that no one would have the benefit of the cobalt bomb.
Second, I was quite surprised when he said that this issue concerns only a few people when it is compared to unemployment, for example. I understand that he may be concentrating primarily on certain medical aspects such as the health of miners, of whom only a few are affected, but surely he would acknowledge that there is a horrendous unforeseen cost. For example, Ontario Hydro went into debt for more than $16 billion for equipment and plant, much of which now may not be fully useful. Ontario Hydro wildly overspent, and this is only part of the cost.
Surely he would acknowledge that in the last 40 years we never succeeded in separating the peaceful use of atoms from the weapons' use. Argentina received our materials and said it would make the bomb if it chose to and would give it to Libya if it chose to. We have not succeeded in avoiding contributing to proliferation.
Surely he understands that the health hazard is more widespread than only as it applies to miners. He must be aware of what Sister Rosalie Bertelle revealed about the many deaths and continuing deaths of islanders in the western Pacific where tests have been conducted on uranium products, including, originally, some Canadian uranium. Finally, he must be aware of the problem of centralization and the difficulty of obtaining information and therefore the necessity of having a royal commission which can require evidence under oath. Would he consider whether this is not really a very important and timely issue that should not be brushed aside, as he seemed inclined to do?


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the comments made by my friend from Spadina. I did not mean to brush aside the importance of the medical hazards as they exist around the world where this technology has been used in an indiscriminate fashion in some cases. This is something we have to study.
I believe that we are dealing with a subject that is of primary concern to Canadians presently and, like two of my colleagues have suggested this afternoon, I would support a parliamentary committee looking into it. I do not preclude that at all and I suggested in my comments that I would welcome that happening. I am opposed to a royal commission, and my hon. friend from Spadina did not suggest, unfortunately, why his Party was asking for a royal commission instead of a parliamentary committee. If he could convince me that a royal commission is better for some reason, I would be interested in hearing it. I happen to be convinced that those of us who served on the special parliamentary committee have been able to obtain answers to many problems. Where necessary, we can have people present evidence under oath; that is my understanding. I would be prepared to see this issue brought before the House, if that were the wish of the House.

January 23, 1984
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Any more questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opporutnity to congratulate you on your appointment-


Mr. Tousignant:: A good choice!


Ian Watson: Yes, a very good choice!

While I support and sympathize with the efforts of individuals and groups who have raised and are raising the level of public awareness of the dangers of nuclear war and the absolute urgency of convincing the nuclear powers to move toward at least partial nuclear disarmament, I never cease to be astonished by the near and often real hysteria which is engendered every time a problem occurs relating to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. I cannot understand why there is so much consternation about minor problems when real problems go totally ignored.
Let us look at the situation with regard to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Not only do we have the five major nuclear powers, but we have two other countries-South Africa and Israel-which possess substantial numbers of nuclear weapons and both of which are at the centre of regional controversies. The potential for nuclear conflict involving or related to either the Middle East or South Africa is very real. Yet the people who make the most noise about the dangers of peaceful nuclear energy never seem to raise the issues of the dangers relating to the nuclear weapons possessed by small countries, because officially they do not have any nuclear weapons. In reality, Israel has more than 100 nuclear warheads. I do not know how many South Africa has.
All of us appreciate the dangers which exist in the Middle East. It is totally abnormal that we should be completely ignoring the real danger to makind while raising at the drop of a hat or at the leak of a few drops a huge controversy each time something happens relating to one of the Pickering generators near Toronto. I do not understand it.
When we decided a few years ago to put a lot of money into Candu, there were reservations. There are still many reservations. I happen to believe that it was a good decision to continue investing in the Candu. It is one of the world's better, if not best, nuclear generating systems. There are examples around the world of countries which have taken the initiative and for internal reasons decided to go all the way with nuclear generation. France is one of them. France, 20 years down the road, will be a more powerful country than it is today because it made the decision to go all the way for nuclear. Unfortunately, I am sad to say, our neighbour to the south will be terribly regretful 20 years down the road that it had this lapse in its movement forward in developing nuclear energy. This lapse in forward movement will have been caused by public
hysteria south of the border which has run on almost unabated for the last 10 years or 12 years. It has resulted in a tremendous slowdown in the construction of new nuclear facilities. When a new energy crunch hits the United States 15 years or 20 years from now, we will be in more danger because we will have the energy sources which the United States may need in a hurry. We will be threatened then in a way we would not be threatened if the United States nuclear program had moved forward at the pace we could have expected 15 years ago.
It is in our interests to be doing what we are doing at Lepreau, New Brunswick. It is in our interests to build facilities which will be able to export electricity to the United States and to help the United States overcome any future energy shortage. There is no contradiction and no need for alarmist cries from the Province of Quebec that nuclear energy will replace some of its potential sales of hydroelectric energy to the United States. I think there is room for sales of both. We should be encouraging our companies and our nuclear industry to move in that direction. It makes a lot of sense for our independence as a country to have the United States fully satisfied in so far as its energy needs are concerned. We can help do that via our nuclear generating system. At the same time we could supply tremendous numbers of Canadian jobs. We could do it safely and in a way which is good for mankind-good for our people and good for the world in general.
In this debate I will deal specifically with radioactive waste management. There has been much controversy about how effective it is, but I believe that we are doing most of the things that could humanly be done. Within a few years it will be possible to say without any shred of scientific doubt whatsoever that the problem is in hand.
Waste management problems are particularly difficult ones to resolve because it is not sufficient to have solutions which are adequate in technical safety and environmental terms. They must be politically acceptable as well, in terms of both process and outcome.
People who live near existing wastes want them dealt with. Even when there are no significant health or safety risks, the wastes often carry a stigma, which has real effects upon property values and the ability of a town to attract new businesses or people. The general public also wants the problem solved. The media find that waste often makes good stories and may sometimes exaggerate its potential hazard in the public mind. Finally, people who live near proposed storage or disposal sites do not want the wastes moved into their backyards. Their resistance is often more intense and more concentrated than the more general and diffuse public pressures to find the site. Perhaps society at large will have to find some way of compensating people who accept waste disposal sites in their communities above and beyond the normal benefits they will receive from the activities which produce the waste.
Radioactive wastes seem to be regarded as a uniquely hazardous form of waste. In fact, the low levels of most radioactivity in most large volume waste is such that they do
January 23, 1984

not present a significant health hazard. Nonetheless, public perceptions cannot be ignored.
Radioactive materials are not a new or man-made phenomenon. They occur to some extent in all the materials in the biosphere, in rocks, soils and building materials. The Parliament Buildings are significantly radioactive. I suppose those of us who have been around here a long time are in some danger. The level of radioactivity here is considerably higher than that from some low level radioactive wastes. This background indicates that people in industrial countries, especially, receive a significant dose on average. For medical purposes we know that the benefits of radiation far outweight the slight additional risk it imposes.
Radioactivity is one of the most thoroughly studied pollutants known and one of the easiest to detect and monitor. The health impact of very low levels of radiation is so small that it is extremely difficult to measure. As with many other potential carcinogens, including sunshine, it takes a significant dose of radiation to pose a significant risk of cancer. Thus the risks of radioactivity should be looked at in the context of the other risks we face. They should also be seen in the context of the benefits derived from the activities which produce them.
The Government has a number of objectives with respect to radioactive waste management. The over-all aim is to ensure that they are safely and economically stored and ultimately safely disposed of in a safe, economic and permanent way.
The owner or producer of the wastes has the primary responsibility for their storage and disposal, according to the principle "the polluter pays". The polluter pays theory is still not totally acceptable to industry, especially in the United States where, as all Hon. Members are aware, there is a great deal of reservation on the part of industry to being forced to pay the consequences of sulphur emissions. The polluter pays principle in the nuclear industry has never been questioned. Everyone accepts it, including industry.
Where this responsibility can no longer be carried out, for example if the company no longer exists or lacks the capability or cannot be held liable, the Government must accept the ultimate responsibilities. In this context, Canada's objective policies are as follows: First, to ensure that organizations and funding exist to carry out federal responsibilities in the area; second, to reach agreement with the provinces on a distribution of responsibilities for radioactive waste and to co-operate with them to solve existing problems; third, to ensure that regulatory and political processes exist for determining the acceptability of the concepts, sites and facilities required for effective waste management.
I would like to describe the situation with respect to the three kinds of radioactive waste in Canada: irradiated fuel, or high-level wastes, uranium mine tailings and low-level wastes. I will also indicate what the federal Government is doing in each area.
Dealing first with high-level wastes, since 1978 a joint Canada-Ontario research program, managed by AECL and
Supply
Ontario Hydro, has been investigating all aspects of used fuel management. AECL is assessing the generic concept of deep geologic disposal in the stable rocks of the Canadian Shield. This program has been approved in principle by the Canadian Government and funded at a level of about $30 million per year. A process has been established for the evaluation of this generic concept. It will require review by the regulatory authorities, in this case the staff of the AECB and the environment departments, then public hearings and, finally, approval by the AECB and by governments. Performance criteria for repositories are being developed by the AECB on an interative basis.
No site selection for a repository will occur before the concept is approved. This decision was taken in order to de-couple the research activity in particular locations from the possibilities of respository siting there. We hope the approval can be obtained the early 1990s, although research will undoubtedly continue beyond that date. That is the kind of timetable we are talking about. We are not rushing into anything. We are going to do it thoroughly, in a fashion which will be scientifically defensible anywhere and any time.
There may not be any material defined as high level nuclear fuel waste until well into the next century. The utilities will wish to store their used fuel until it is decided whether to re-process and recycle it or not. Only after that decision will we actually have high-level wastes, either used fuel to be disposed of or a roughly equivalent amount of reprocessing waste.
With the present relation between nuclear power growth and uranium supply in Canada, that decision point appears a long way away. We may not need either a site or a repository for 30, 40, 50 years or more. If we build one earlier, we may have no waste to put in it. Thus our used fuel management policy is essentially one of long-term storage. Canada has always planned to store used fuel for a fairly long period. The period is simply longer now than it first appeared.
Several hundred years after the irradiated fuel or the reprocessing wastes are disposed of, their radioactivity will have decayed so that in the repository they will have levels of radioactivity roughly comparable to the original or deposit from which the uranium was mined. The longer term hazard from nuclear fuel wastes should be seen with this comparison in mind.
To the extent that safe and acceptable disposable methods are found for Canada's nuclear fuel wastes, we may wish to contribute to the establishment of international centres for spent fuel management. This would ensure that the spent fuel would be in a secure location. However, our primary aim is to find acceptable methods of managing our own wastes.
Let me turn to the low-level wastes. There are several hundred thousand tons of historic low-level waste in Canada, much of it in the form of lightly contaminated soil. These wastes do not present a significant threat to public health and safety, but they are often problematic because they have turned up within established communities and sometimes even in people's back yards, having found their way there by fill

January 23, 1984
Supply
operators. People and communities who are burdened with this waste have a real problem. Like the nuclear industry, they are the victims of perceptions.
Several thousand tons of low-level waste is produced in Canada each year under licence by utilities, fuel fabrication plants, hospitals, laboratories and so on. This waste is safely stored either by the producers or by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at its Chalk River site.
Various kinds of disposal facilities for low-level waste will be required, depending on the level and type of radioactivity they contain. Land fill will take care of much of the soil. Engineered shallow burial may be needed for the more concentrated wastes. The engineered sites will probably^require thorough environmental assessments, public hearings and AECB licences.
A new office was set up within AECL last year to carry out federal operational responsibilities in this area. We are close to agreement with the provinces on jurisdictional responsibilities, and we are working closely with them to resolve the historic waste problems. We have reached an agreement with Ontario on the Malvern wastes and I hope that they can be moved soon. We are co-operating with the Government of British Columbia on the wastes at Surrey, B.C. and I am hopeful that a solution can be found there are well fairly quickly.
The third area is uranium mine tailings. There are about 120 million tons of uranium mine tailings in Canada, representing about 2 per cent of all mine tailings. Most of this material is in tailings licensed by the Atomic Energy Control Board. Some of it is from mines that were abandoned 20 years ago, before the present regulatory regime was in effect. While these older tailings present no significant risk to public health and safety, some remedial action may be required. Production under AECB licences continues at a rate of about 10 million tons per year.
A research program was established in 1982 to be managed by CANMET within EMR which will look into the long-term behaviour of the uranium tailings and the possible need for remedial measures beyond the current practice so that the tailings can be considered effectively disposed of after they are closed out. We hope to begin discussion with the provinces soon about the question of ultimate responsibility. Because of the large volumes of the tailings, remedial actions, if they are required, will most likely involve in situ treatment. However, each site will require specific consideration.
The level of radioactivity in the tailings is higher than the normal background level in most soils and rocks. The tailings also emit radon gas at higher rates than is emitted from normal soils and rocks. However, the presence of the tailings cannot be distinguished above background radon levels at distances more than a few hundred metres from the tailings' boundary. Despite their large volume, uranium tailings comprise only about 2 per cent of the total mine tailings in Canada.
In terms of environmental impact, they have much in common with tailings from other mines, for instance potential acid seepage, which does occur with uranium tailings but also does with a lot of other mineral tailings. I hope that this short review will show that the federal Government has taken initiatives in each of the areas of radioactive waste management, and that it is working hard in co-operation with the provinces to resolve the outstanding problems.
We are on the way to solving problems and we are doing it with great care and with absolute scientific precision. Step by step we will get the solution and we will do it in a way that is scientifically defensible.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend the Hon. Member on his analysis. I do not necessarily think that we are going quickly enough and far enough. But I doubt very much if anyone would disagree, as a result of the debate that has been going on today-in spite of what was said by the Hon. Member for Oxford who thought we ought to be spending our time doing something else-that this is an important issue. This is an issue that has to be faced up to and dealt with. How one deals with the distribution or the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste continues to be and has been a problem of some major consideration right around the world. When we look at what has happened in Saskatchewan, at Douglas Point and at Pickering of late and at our inability for one reason or another to come to grips with what could be very serious problems, I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that to spend one day in the House of Commons out of the full year talking about it is a day reasonably well spent.
I note, however, the hour. In the interests of allowing the debate to continue I wonder if I might be allowed to move, under Standing Order 8(4)(a), seconded by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of the supply motion being debated today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I doubt that this motion would be receivable since today is not an ordinary day of proceedings. We are debating an Opposition motion. I will take the matter under advisement for a few minutes. Meanwhile the House will continue with the question period.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I will take the matter under advisement.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I will hear the point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, you understand the consequences of taking the matter under advisement. You are now giving the Government the opportunity to lug in its 25 members in order
January 23, 1984

to stop the debate from proceeding. I am not suggesting that is the intention. I am suggesting that is the consequence.


An Hon. Member:: Apologize.


Ian Deans: Don't be ridiculous. I am saying that is the consequence. It is clearly in order for any Member to rise during a debate within the last hour prior to the hour of adjournment and to move that the debate be continued in order that other Members be heard and the debate be concluded. There is absolutely no indication anywhere in Beauchesne or in Erskine May to indicate that a motion such as this would be out of order. It is therefore quite clear on the face of it that if a Member rises at the appropriate time and moves a motion that is acceptable within the Standing Orders and if the timing of the motion is in order, then the motion itself must surely be in order. The consequences of delaying the decision would be simply that the Government would have an opportunity to bring its members in to forestall any further consideration in the debate.


William Herbert Jarvis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the concern of the House Leader for the New Democratic Party. He moved that motion and wants to have it dealt with immediately. That is the nature of it. There is another side that bothers me and some of my colleagues. It is twofold. First, we are taking advantage of you, Sir, to some degree, and I understand that might be an uncomfortable position. On the other hand, you are a servant of the House and you deserve to be put in uncomfortable positions from time to time. Second, why would one not do this on every Opposition Day? It is so self-serving, and I am not sure that is the kind of precedent we want to set. As the Hon. Member well knows, we in this Party have numerous more Opposition Days than his Party. I would think that, as a matter of strategy, he would try to wait until that last hour, then count heads and move his motion fast, but I am not sure that is in anyone's best interests. It could be almost routinely done whenever one saws a diminution in the number of Members opposite. This is an NDP Opposite Day. It is for the NDP to do with as it will. I would be less than frank to the House if I did not say that in principle it gives me some problem.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the NDP House Leader is so anxious to have the hours of the House extended on that important issue. For almost one hour there was no member of the NDP here. I am surprised he is so anxious now to extend the hours of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair is now ready to render a decision. I hope this delay has not been too long in the eyes of the mover.
My decision will be based on Standing Order 62(11) which reads as follows:
Proceedings on allotted days on opposition motions which are not "no-confidence" motions shall expire when debate thereon has been concluded or at the ordinary time of daily adjournment, as the case may be.
Based on this, I would say the debate today has to expire with the last speaker, if it is before six o'clock or at six o'clock.
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I do want to participate in debate but I think there were two or three minutes left in the period allotted for questions. Could I ask a brief question first before I am recognized for participation in the debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: That would be in order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke presented us with a rather careful review of some of the things in which the Government was engaged relating to nuclear waste. It struck me while listening to him that the common characteristics of those initiatives were that an inquiry was conducted in secret or inside the bureaucracy and that discussions were to take place probably among bureaucrats rather than elected people. I see on this issue, particularly when there is a great deal of public concern about nuclear power and nuclear energy, a place for public discussion where evidence is laid out on the table which can be communicated through the news media and so on. Is the Member troubled by the principle that whatever the federal Government is doing is being done in secret rather than in public? We have had so many difficult experiences with being able to examine government documents of one kind or another. We can never examine a discussion that takes place unless there is a record. Would the Hon. Member support a move to a more public examination of that issue?


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who asked the question might remembers that at one point during my remarks I mentioned the kind of process which it would be anticipated would take place once a determination was made that a certain locale would be used even for testing long-term facilities for the storage of nuclear waste. That process would include public hearings and consultation with the local people. As a matter of fact, in its efforts to test some of the theories about long-term storage of nuclear waste since 1978 or 1979, and in determining sites, the Government has had to go through a long process of consultation with local councils and so on. There has been all kinds of panicky public opinion resulting from a given area being designated for tests, let alone for permanent storage. We are 10 or 15 years away from permanent storage. The temporary testing facilities have engendered such public hysteria that the various agencies involved were forced to go through a public process.
Perhaps the Hon. Member has a case for arguing for further public hearings on this subject. It seems to me, though, that this public process is available through Parliament. We have had some meetings on the subject but, if there is enough public interest, the committee which I chair could go into the issue. If Hon. Members feel strongly enough about it, we should be able to bring about a better public awareness of the problem through meetings of the committee in different parts of the country.

January 23, 1984
Supply
Frankly, I think a lot of this has been studied to death. I think there is far more hysteria than genuine scientific concern. We are dealing with the problem in an acceptably scientific way. If we were going to do something about it publicly through the hearing process, then we would have to do it in a way to help the public understand the whole process- the necessity for energy sources, the necessity for alternates to hydrocarbons and the necessity of providing energy sources to our neighbour to the south. We will be threatened far more by a crisis down there than by anything else. As Chairman, I would be in favour of the committee dealing with these things, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: We are now 11 minutes into the question and comment period so I will recognize at another time the Hon. Member who is rising. The Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter this debate today. The Member who spoke previously dealt with the issue of public hysteria, and I think he is correct in saying that there is a great deal of misinformed public concern about the impact of this industry. That is why I feel strongly that a public inquiry has a role in Canadian society for many reasons, one of them being its capacity to inform the public on an issue. A public inquiry conducted by elected people tends to be covered by the media, and this contributes to public understanding. The resulting reduction of hysteria could be immense.
I was glad to see the NDP motion on the Order Paper today. The Canadian public will have to judge whether this is the most important issue that we could be addressing in Canada on this Monday in January, 1984. I think a case could be made that there might be more important issues, but this certainly is one important issue.
I am always bothered about the discrepancy between what political Parties say they stand for and how they act. Today I expected to see Members of the Liberal Party stand and support, in whole or part, the thrust of this motion. I have not been disappointed. I think I correctly used the words "in whole or in part".
I looked through Hansard for recent comments by a Member on the Government side in another context in February, 1983. At that time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) said that he agreed that the subject of nuclear energy should be discussed in greater depth. He said that with a great deal of feeling, but then he tagged on the words "on another occasion". That has been the contribution of the Liberal Party of Canada almost without exception, since 1946, 38 years ago. With the knowledge we possessed at that time we put an Act in place that related to the nuclear industry. Some minor modifications have been made to it since, and at one time a Bill was even brought before the House. To all intents and purposes, we are dealing with a piece of legislation put in place 38 years ago, and for most of that 38 years the Liberal Party of Canada has been the Government.
Looking back in Hansard I discovered that the last time a Government took action on this subject was in October, 1979 when the Conservatives formed the Government. I will not read the motion in its entirety, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is important to put on record that a brand-new government, as one of its early initiatives, proposed as follows:
That a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to inquire into the economic, social, environmental, health and international considerations bearing upon the role of the Government of Canada in the development, use, regulation and export of nuclear energy, including but not limited to:
(a)	Energy and economic policy considerations:
(i)	the costs, risks and benefits of nuclear electric generation in comparison with practical alternatives;
(ii)	the role of fission power in the national energy economy;
(iii)	the allocation of federal research and development funds for nuclear energy matters, including the potential for a Canadian role in the development of fusion technology;
(iv)	the relation of Canadian nuclear science and technology to industrial strategy and quality of employment objectives;
(b)	Social and environmental policy considerations:
(i)	the basis for and adequacy of national nuclear, health, safety and environmental standards and of compliance monitoring;
(ii)	the responsibility for and adequacy of radioactive waste management, both high and low level;
(iii)	public rights of access to information in nuclear matters;
(c)	Federal-provincial considerations:
(i)	an examination of federal instruments, structures and responsibilities for the development and regulation of nuclear equipment, technology, materials and facilities;
(ii)	the role of federal agencies and the adequacy of federal legislation in the event of a nuclear accident and in the prevention of harm to man and the natural environment;
(iii)	the evolution of intergovernmental arrangements for, and views of the provinces on, the financing of nuclear energy;
Another section, Mr. Speaker, is headed "International Considerations". It reads:
-an examination of Canada's nuclear export policy.
We have a policy. It is central to the trade policy. It has never been fully examined by the Canadian public. It goes on:
-an examination of Canada's safeguards requirements for the export of materials, nuclear materials, equipment and information in the context of the development of an effective international non-proliferation system.
That is the last time, Mr. Speaker, on October 24, 1979, that the Government, the Cabinet of the country, took action on this issue. That was over four years ago and that was a Conservative Government, Mr. Speaker, which had been out of power for years and years. Yet this Conservative Government brought forward to this House of Commons an action step. At that time, Mr. Speaker, responsible people on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada told us it was a good initiative which was long overdue. The New Democratic Party of Canada told us it was long overdue. But that committee was not formed because it was blocked, Mr. Speaker. It was blocked by Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party. It was blocked by Hon. Members of the Liberal Party of Canada. That concrete action step was blocked.
January 23, 1984

When I read the NDP motion today, Mr. Speaker, I could not help but remember that the principal reason the NDP was obstructing-and the then Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody was the lead person for the NDP at that time-was that-Hon. Members of that Party have an opinion about the Senate of Canada, a negative opinion about its utility as an institution. Many of us on this side of the House share a lot of negative opinions about the utility of that institution. What this tells us is that the New Democratic Party believed that its principal objection to the institution of the Senate of Canada was clearly more important than the public examination of the nuclear issue. That is the sense of the reality of the New Democratic Party, that it would block a public inquiry of the energy issue some four years ago, an action step, because of an objection to the functioning of the Senate of Canada. It was not an objection necessarily to the individuals from that Senate who would have been named to that committee, but simply on principle an objection to the Senate of Canada. That tells us a fair amount about that Party's commitment to action is something different than its commitment to politics.
Every time I stand on my feet, Mr. Speaker, to debate an NDP motion or action plan, I hear the NDP express concerns about jobs, about health care, about the poor people in the country, about nuclear energy. I watched Hon. Members of that Party stand in this Chamber in December, 1979 and throw a government out of office which was producing more than 30,000 jobs a month. I saw them throw out a budget which was judged by the Canadian Welfare Council as the fairest to poor people in the generation of the seventies. I watched them block a public inquiry into the nuclear energy issue and throw that government out of office before it could overcome the blockage. I heard members of that Party talk about their concern for western Canada and I watched them throw out a government which had reasonable representation from western Canada and produce a government in which that representation is virtually nonexistent, much less than adequate. That government has given us a constitutional battle which is not over. It has given us an energy program which is close to bankrupting the nation because it is a Government which never understood the industry. It has given us the Crow rate which is in danger of bankrupting the western agricultural community.
The first time I was in Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, at a nomination meeting, I heard the speaker, a provincial politician, stand up and lay out for that audience the western agricultural policy and the eastern agricultural policy of the New Democratic Party. They almost did not belong in the same room together, there was so much difference between them. That is the part of this motion which bothers me the most. It is really the hypocrisy of a Party which could not get its act together to support an action step in this direction and now wants the country called Canada and the people in it, four and a half years later, to believe that on an Opposition Day, with its motion, that Party is concerned about the issue. When that Party blocks an action step which could lead to resolutions which in turn could lead to improvement, then tries to create
Supply
the impression that it is concerned about it on a day when action is not possible, I suggest it is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian people.
1 would like to ask-and I did ask the question of the last speaker of the NDP-why a royal commission instead of a House of Commons committee? What do we know in this Chamber about royal commissions? Our knowledge begins with the understanding that the chairman of the current commission in place receives more than $800 a day and the members of that commission receive something approaching that. It is a job-creation project, Mr. Speaker, but for most Canadians, one day's salary would be a very good wage for a week. That is what we do when we create a royal commission. Would a royal commission do something very much different from what the bureaucracy now does? On the positive side, it would do a little more, it would create a slight amount of public awareness. However, after a royal commission gets itself a set of offices and a bureaucratic staff and begins to dig into an issue, it is not much different from an internal inquiry.
I suggest to the New Democratic Party that if it is really serious about the need for a public inquiry into this issue, the next time it is presented with this kind of opportunity, it reconsider the mechanism and whether or not a royal commission on this kind of issue, another technical group, is as important to the political resolution of the issue as a House of Commons committee, a body with elected people in it. Which is the better mechanism?
The other inadequacy of the motion which leaps out at anyone who has a real concern for issues such as disarmament and the nuclear threat, is the complete absence in the motion of the New Democratic Party of a single word which would lead the Canadian public to believe that it has any concern about the international situation and the proliferation of nuclear technology. It treats the nuclear issue as a totally domestic issue. We have heard speeches to the other effect, Mr. Speaker, but when it comes to the crunch, in framing a motion to bring to the House, it ignores completely the disarmament issue which it claims is its territory and an important part of NDP policy. How can those two things co-exist? That Party claims a sincerely felt deep commitment to disarmament in the nuclear area, but there is not indication in the motion dealing with nuclear energy that it has any concern about international proliferation. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is a slip. Perhaps it is just a very clear indication of schizophrenia in both the Liberal and the New Democratic Parties, an ambivalence between what is good politics and what those Parties really care about. This identifies for us that they are into playing politics and that real caring is not there. When the New Democratic Party is confronted with the possibility of acting, it does not act, it blocks. When it is confronted with the possibility of putting forward a political resolution, it does so in that spirit and forgets that there is another part of its politics which is concerned with disarmament, and so it is not included in that Party's resolution.
670

January 23, 1984
Supply
What we need in this country, Mr. Speaker, is a general election. Canadians from coast to coast, in every region, every city, every small town, have lost confidence in the Government of Canada. It is worn out, tired, it has been here four years and that is four years too long. Canadian tradition requires an election this year, but we have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), a Liberal caucus and a Cabinet who will resist that and try to tell us that it is Canadian tradition for an election to be held every five years. Well, it is four years and it is time to go.
In the words of the Liberal Member who spoke last, Mr. Speaker, there is a kind of hysteria out there, a kind of nervousness. You say "nuclear" and people are afraid, in part because it does not matter what the Prime Minister, his Cabinet or Liberal backbenchers say, Canadians do not believe. The information they give could be accurate, and sometimes it is. But the Government has worn out its welcome, and when Canadians do not believe, they do not act in concert and the problems grow.
Whether we talk about the confidence a small businessman in the corner grocery needs, or a corporation president, a general in the Armed Forces or a deputy minister in any Department of Government needs, when you have confidence in the Government of the country that is eroded, you see available energy sapped and talent gone to waste. The way to correct that, Mr. Speaker is through a general election. That is no different from the need for a public inquiry of the whole nuclear energy issue. Through a public inquiry Canadians can review the evidence for themselves. If we were in another ara and another place, if we had had decade after decade of leaders we could trust, leaders who spoke the truth and were believable, we might not have the hysteria which exists today. We might not need a public inquiry. But when we are confronted with a government which was elected by telling Canadians that 18 cents a gallon was too large an increase in the price of gasoline, and then gave them a one dollar increase, a government which said in 1974 that wage and price controls are a bad idea and 90 days of controls is a tragedy for the country, and then gave us three years of controls, when we have a Minister responsible for sport who reaches an agreement in December, 1983, and then Ministers are changes and the Cabinet overturns that decision in January, 1984, then we have a Government which is not trusted. Trust is the root cause of our unemployment and of every other problem in this country. We need an election, we need it now, and we need it more than a public inquiry on this issue.


Mr. Miller:: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the Hon. Member speak. He still has not realized it is 1984, not February, 1980. He is still living in the past and in his short term in Government.
This motion deals with the international aspects regarding the storage and use of uranium and nuclear by-products. Certainly by-products are used in nuclear weapons, and it is this Party which has led the debate in this House against nuclear weapons. The Hon. Member seems ambivalent about a
public inquiry, whether it be a royal commission or a parliamentary committee. If his Party were sincerely concerned about the nuclear industry and an inquiry, at the time it was in power, and had it appointed a royal commission, would he not agree that the royal commission would have continued in existence despite the future of that Government? Is this not a good reason to have a royal commission rather than a parliamentary task force when we are on the eve of an election?
It seems to me the reason we are talking about a royal commission is that it could witnesses under oath, including witnesses from the AECB and the AECL, government bodies which are secretive. Would the Hon. Member like to comment on the advisability of a parliamentary committee which may not last another year?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Yes or no?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: As quickly and briefly as I can, Mr. Speaker, if the NDP trusts that Government to pick the people to run the inquiry, it is even more naive than I thought.


Edward Allan Miller: We do not trust this Government much more than we trusted the former Government.
The Hon. Member is still concerned about the defeat of his Government in 1979, not only in the House of Commons but in 1980 at the polls as well. If the Hon. Member is so interested in defending western Canadian rights, why did it take his Party another three years to determine that a leader from western Canada should be replaced by a leader from eastern Canada?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Time will tell, Mr. Speaker, whether or not we have selected a leader who really believes in the regions of this country. That was and is the most important public policy issue that this country faces. We have had far too many years of centralization, of growth in Crown corporations, far too many years of socialistic principles. We need individual initiative. We need to respect the nature of provincial governments and regional concerns.
I believe we have selected a leader and I believe we had a leader before that and before that and before that who respected all of those concerns each and every time. That is a claim which neither his Party nor the Liberal Party can make.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in debate on this important issue, one which the NDP feels is long overdue. I am surprised that the members of the Government who have spoken today have really not reflected the seriousness of this question, nor have they shown willingness to open up to public scrutiny the policies of the federal Liberal Government, a Government which has not been forthcoming in terms of opening up the whole question of the nuclear industry in Canada, an industry which has over the years come under much questioning from environmentalists, economists and people involved in the energy field in general. The whole question of the nuclear industry as it relates to the Canadian economy, energy exports, health and safety in the work place, export of nuclear tech-
January 23, 1984

nology to developing countries, and the use of those technologies in those countries in the proliferation of nuclear arms, is a very important and significant question with which most Canadians are trying to deal. They are trying particularly to deal with that today and with the spectre of the greater and greater risk of nuclear war, more Canadians are taking an active role in protesting the escalation of nuclear armaments throughout the world. I think this concern is reflected in this motion put forward by the Eton. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
Liberal Members have tried to deflect the debate into a question of jobs. It certainly was not the intention of this motion to advocate the curtailment of 36,000 jobs in the nuclear energy field. Those are important jobs for those workers. It is important that this House and the public in general have a look at what those jobs are doing to the workers in the industry and what they are doing to the morality of Canada as an exporter of nuclear technology.
In regard to the question of health and safety, we all know that there is no safe limit of radiation. Any amount of radiation is dangerous if it happens to strike the right organ in the body or the chromosomes that could lead to the proliferation of cells, including the creation of cancer cells. Despite the knowledge that no level of radiation is safe and despite the hazard it presents to miners, we continue to expose our miners and workers in the nuclear energy field to higher and higher levels. Many questions remain about the scientific basis for the levels that we set for safety. The Atomic Energy Control Board, the federal Government's nuclear watchdog, says a worker exposed to the limit runs a risk of dying of cancer caused by radiation seven to eight times the average risk for workers in safe industries and two and one half times the highest accidental death rate found in mining and quarrying. Even these figures are now considered to be conservative. Much of the evidence for risk comes from the study of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In the past three years new evidence indicates that survivors were exposed to less radiation than previously believed. I quote from a report in the Globe and Mail issue of July 29, 1983 entitled, "Radiation Risks Higher Than Estimates". It reads:
"Ever since the early post-war years, scientists have been meticulously recording the development of cancer and other diseases among the 80,000 survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and have been relating the cancers observed to the doses that the victims received. The original estimates of those does are now recognized to be too low, which means that the cancers observed among them were caused by lower doses than originally thought."
Even that brief statement, Mr. Speaker, warrants some consideration and the call for a royal commission into the health and safety aspects of the nuclear industry. The AECB has recently proposed an increase in acceptable radiation levels for women of 500 per cent and the placing of the onus on female employees to notify their employer of a pregnancy in order to have a lower dosage level applied. That is the controlling body of the energy industry in Canada which is unilaterally raising the acceptable dosage in the nuclear industry.
Supply
The whole question of health and safety requires an investigation, Mr. Speaker, but beyond that there are other fields with which this motion attempts to deal in a brief introduction to a very important motion, that is, the whole question of mine wastes. We have heard a Member from the Government side indicate that he feels confident that the federal Government and the nuclear industry are adequately coping with tailings, mine wastes and uranium production wastes. If we look at the amounts of mine tailings in Canada we find that there are 99.3 million tonnes of mine tailing wastes in Ontario alone, 19.2 million tonnes in Saskatchewan and 1.1 million tonnes in the Northwest Territories. Altogether, there are 120 million tonnes of radioactive tailings covering 87,400 acres of which Canada does not know how to properly dispose. The disposal of those mine wastes and the associated nuclear reactor wastes is still causing scientists in Canada and throughout the world real concerns. We know that the half life of many of the radioactive materials is somewhere in the neighbourhood of
250,000	years. Today's scientists, with whatever technology we have, cannot possibly determine how those particles may get back into the environment in the future.
Nuclear reactors are also producing deadly wastes. Ontario reactors are producing 800 tonnes of deadly used fuel every year. Already the total amount of this waste is enough to fill a hockey rink waist high. In Ontario there are about 6,000 tonnes of nuclear waste so deadly that an unprotected person would die instantly if exposed to it. His central nervous system would be destroyed.
It is not our intention unduly to create fear in the public with this debate, Mr. Speaker. We are raising concerns that have been raised with all Members of Parliament and with governments both provincially and federally. It is our contention that the nuclear industry and its regulatory bodies have not been opened to public and parliamentary scrutiny. There are great concerns that the AECB and AECL are not entities that are responsible to Parliament. That is one of the reasons that we want a royal commission rather than a parliamentary commission to look into the nuclear industry in Canada. Not only will it give Members of Parliament an opportunity to determine the economic feasibility of the nuclear industry and allow us to look at the cost of that industry in terms of the production of jobs, but it would give us an opportunity to look at expenditures other than in the nuclear industry, expenditures in alternate energy, hydrogen gas production or solar energy, and to look at the number of jobs that could be produced in energy-related fields outside the nuclear energy field.
The Darlington plant in Ontario, which will come on stream in 1992, had an original cost estimate of $3.4 billion. Recognizing that it is going to be one of the largest nuclear power plants in the world, producing some 3,500 megawatts of electricity when on steam, the costs are now estimated to be $12 billion. In an age when Ontario Hydro has overestimated its need for energy and the United States has overestimated its need for energy and is in fact reducing the number of plants that it is going to bring on stream, it would be feasible for the

January 23, 1984
Adjournment Debate
House of Commons, through a royal commission inquiry into the nuclear fuel cycle, to look at the economics of the nuclear industry and to look at job associated industries which are less polluting and make more efficient use of energy. We should look into the possibilities of conservation of energy, as many environmental groups have suggested in the past. Without a royal commission we may find the same kind of future for an inquiry as did the former Conservative Government which attempted to get an inquiry going, that is, a change in Government without adequate consideration having been given to all the implications of the nuclear energy field.
The motion today, Mr. Speaker, is an important one for the Canadian public. It is an industry that has been functioning in secret. It is an industry that has put tremendous economic burdens on the provinces. It is an industry for which we have failed to market the product or the technology, that is the Candu reactor. When we have produced and been able to sell the Candu reactor, we have lost jobs in Canada on tradeoffs for trade, particularly the Romanian nuclear reactor where we have had to trade off jobs in farm equipment, produce and other areas of job creation in Canada.
We are appealing for this royal commission to be set up so that Canadians can get a good sense of what their nuclear industry is doing for them and doing against jobs in the Canadian markets and other fields.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 is deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the question I asked the Minister of Justice last Friday, January 20. It concerned the referral of constitutional matters to the Ontario Appeals Court, and more specifically, the interpretation of Section 23(3)(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The point was to determine whether this section gave official linguistic minorities the right to manage and control their educational institutions. The representatives of Ontario francophones maintained that they had this right while those of the Province of Ontario and a few other parties involved said that they did not, thus defending the status quo.
Many people in Canada, Mr. Speaker, were very much surprised last Thursday to hear the counsel for the Federal Government, Mr. Brad Smith, state before the Ontario Appeals Court that, under Section 23(3)(b), the Canadian Constitution did not go as far as to entrench an absolute obligation to grant to linguistic minorities the right to control and manage their own educational institutions.
And according to this Mr. Smith, the Ontario Appeals Court should merely tell the linguistic minorities that it is incumbent on them to bring their case before the court whenever they believe their constitutional rights have been breached.
In answer to my question, the Minister of Justice said that he could not comment on the case before the Court and added the following:
However, I can say that the wording of the Consitution may be ambiguous, or rather, as we see it, overly flexible . . . anyone given a right must also have the means to exercise that right.
I am in complete agreement with that statement.
The Minister also recognized before this House that the Canadian Constitution is ambiguous and provides a lot of flexibility in its interpretation.
While being incomplete, this answer was not too unsatisfactory. We all know that a piece of legislation, all the more so a constitutional act, must be discretionary, i.e. open to interpretation. This is why, in a democracy, when politicians pass legislation, such legislation may be interpreted by the courts.
On leaving the House, the Minister of Justice said something quite different. He told the media that he supported completely the comments of his counsel, Mr. Brad Smith, and said the following:

The Constitution does not guarantee that English or French minorities should control their own school boards to protect their language rights, Justice Minister Mark MacGuigan said Friday.
'The Constitution doesn't make that a requirement-and we're saying the logical implication of the Constitution is that (control) might be required in many cases but not necessarily in all cases,' MacGuigan said in an interview.
Mr. Speaker, I deplore the remarks of the Minister just outside the House. By supporting his official spokesman, the Crown attorney, the Minister gave his interpretation of the Constitution, something which he should refrain from doing. It is up to the courts to interpret the Constitution, not to the Minister of Justice or to his spokesman who want to supersede the bench.
Mr. Speaker, it is a question of determining the intention of the legislator when the act was adopted, and I would point out that the Constitution, including Section 23(3)(b), was adopted by Parliament. It has to do with the acknowledged right of Canadians to have their children educated, at the primary and secondary levels, in the French or English minority language of a province.
January 23, 1984

1 quote Section 23(3)(b):
-includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds-
The use of the words "minority language educational facilities" is very important in that Section.
According to Le petit Robert, a French dictionary, the words "public facilities" mean a moral administrative person responsible for administering a public service.
That is why the Parliament of Canada, by adopting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, gave every individual the right to have his children educated in the minority language in the facilities of that same minority.
In his reply, the Minister continued: "I can only agree with the suggestion of the Hon. Member, that anyone given a right must also have the means to exercise that right. However, the real question is what is a fair means of exercising that right, and that is the question on which the court will rule".
The Minister was right. But he lost me when he made the following statement to representatives of the news media outside the House:
There can be a range of possibilities. In some cases, it might be necessary for minorities to manage and control their own school boards. But that would not be the case if 'very few' students were involved.
Why drag the numbers game into the debate? Why do we continue to hammer away at minorities so that "when your numbers so warrant, we the people will give you certain services."
The Province of Ontario, where this case is being heard, did away with the numbers game in a paper published in May, 1983. It is entitled: "A Proposal in Response to the Report of the Joint Committee on the Government of French-Language Elementary and Secondary Schools", and on page 5 it states:
The Government, therefore, intends to recognize the right of every Frenchspeaking pupil to an education in the French language. The proposed legislation will, in effect, remove the condition "where numbers warrant" in the provision of education for minority language pupils in Ontario.
[ Translation]
Which means, therefore, that the Minister surely said more than he meant, Mr. Speaker.

The reasons many Canadians are worried tonight with the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) is that the impact of the testimony of the federal Government before the Appeal Court of Ontario will be damaging to the case put by linguistic minorities. It will impact upon the decision of the learned judges. It will have serious consequences for the Englishspeaking minority in Quebec and the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec.
Adjournment Debate

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I can say that I take heart in spite of all that. I remain optimistic that judges and not politicians will be called upon to decide what our Constitution will mean really in the final analysis, judges who hopefully will be both generous and fair.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, my remarks are not related to the position taken last week by the Attorney General of Canada before the Ontario Court of Appeal since it would be highly inappropriate to comment upon this case when the court has reserved its opinion. Rather, my comments are related to our interpretation of Section 23 of the Charter, not only in relation to Ontario but to all possible situations.
We believed that Section 23 ought to be interpreted liberally and in a flexible manner consistent with the end sought to be achieved. That end is the education of minority language children in their mother tongue on the basis of equality with the children of the majority. Our position is that in guaranteeing the right to receive minority language instruction in minority language educational facilities, the Charter requires that where numbers warrant minority language children must receive their instruction in facilities which can be objectively considered to appertain to the minority.
In referring to minority language education facilities, the Charter establishes a norm that must be met in all circumstances; that is, that the instruction must be provided in facilities in which the educational ethos will be that of the linguistic minority and that can be considered to appertain to the minority. Various factors can come into play in applying this test, the most important being the rights or powers exercised by the majority in relation to the local school board. Other factors include geography, minority language population, the numbers and qualifications of teachers, the physical facilities made available, the role played by the Ministry of Education, and the involvement of parents, among others. In most cases in our view some decision-making power must be given to the minority to meet the constitutional test. However, it is impossible to state in the abstract the exact measure of decision-making power which may be required in all circumstances to meet that test.
In our view the right to instruction in the minority language and to minority language facilities under Section 23 casts a duty on the legislature and the Ministry of Education to ensure that minority language facilities can be truly considered to be those of the minority.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN NATIONALS IN UNIVERSITIES. (B) SYMONS-PAGE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the Adjournment Debate tonight to try once again to obtain more complete answers from the Minister of Employment and

January 23, 1984
Adjournment Debate
Immigration (Mr. Roberts). The issue is really employment for highly-qualified manpower.
I remind the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary that everyone who pursues a higher education, such as the doctoral level and beyond, is really a small business. When we think of business and the expansion of business generally, we tend to think of the need to invest money into a facility-a building, a piece of equipment or something of the kind. Another place to put that money is into education. If we look at doctors and dentists who have put a lot of money into their personal education, we see that they are assisted by several others. They really constitute a small business. They need receptionists, dental technicians and other kinds of people. It is in that context that I become increasingly disturbed about the attitude of the present Government toward highly-qualified manpower.
Much against our objection, some two years ago this Government cut out part of the money which would normally have gone to the provinces for the post-secondary educational system. We sit here today in this House of Commons with certain knowledge that enrolment went up and that there is overcrowding. Many young people are being discouraged in terms of pursuing their personal education.
The specific issue I raised in Question Period the other day dealt with the fact that in Canadian society as a whole we are turning out three Ph.D. graduates for every university vacancy, three times as many Canadians as we need for the total system with that level of education, yet some 27 per cent of those jobs are going to foreign nationals.
It is worth while putting some statistics on the record that come under the Symons-Page report. In Britain, 92 per cent of the university faculty are British; in the United States 98 per cent are American; in France very close to 100 per cent of the faculty are French; in Sweden, 99 per cent of the faculty are Swedes. In this country it is very different.
Let us look at the senior levels of our academics in our institutions. The latest statistical basis gives an average from 1978 to 1981. It includes both English and French-speaking universities. The record is better in the French-speaking universities. Forty per cent of the full professors are not Canadian. At the associate professor level, it is 33 per cent and at the assistant professor level it is 30 per cent.
When we dig into those numbers and look at the kinds of careers and occupations that we really need to get the Canadian economy going, we find out some really strange things. In some very critical fields, between 1974 and 1981 the following has happened. The number of doctorates awarded to Canadians in agricultural and biological sciences fell from 202 to 163. That was a 20 per cent drop. In engineering and applied science the number of Canadians who received doctorates in 1974 was 229. In 1981 there were 118. In engineering and applied sciences, fields important to the future of this country, we had half as many people graduating with doctorates. In health science, there was a decrease from 138 in 1974 to 94 in
1981. In math and physical sciences, the number went down from 478 ten years ago to 232 three years ago. All those fields are vitally important to the economy of this country and the number of Canadians students going forward to the doctorate level is declining.
If we look at current enrolment in Canadian universities, we find that 55 per cent of the doctoral candidates in our engineering faculties are non-Canadian. Over half of the students pursuing doctoral work in those universities are non-Canadian students, 33 per cent in math and physical science and 25 per cent in agricultural and biological sciences. We have slid and somehow Find ourselves in what I would think is already a crisis situation that needs correcting as quickly as possible through public policy. That correction can be led by a physical presence. It is not led when we start cutting funds to education.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary tonight in his expansion of the earlier answer given by the Minister if he can deal with the following three questions. What is being done to increase the level of Canadian enrolment in these areas vital to our future? What policies has the Government explored to encourage greater post-graduate studies by Canadian citizens? What studies have been undertaken on the long-term impact of these very disturbing trends? We need the federal Government to act and to support the idea that Canadians get themselves educated. The economy depends upon it. I am looking forward to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to these questions.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to elaborate on the reply given on January 17, 1984, by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) to the Member for Calgary-West (Mr. Hawkes). The four recommendations mentioned by the Hon. Member are among twelve submitted by Messrs. Symons and Page. The first recommendation for the establishment of a consultative committee on academic relations is a very valid one. The Committee would pave the way for regular consultation with bodies representative of the academic community. It could also be a way to encourage universities to work together to ensure compliance with the spirit and the letter of existing regulations. As for the recommendation that the committee or a part thereof would advise the Minister on appeals or complaints arising from certain cases, we feel that a Committee of senior officials of the Commission should not be called upon the judge cases in which the original decision was taken by the Commission itself.
Furthermore, any other aspect of the process, such as the suitability of candidates who feel they have not been properly evaluated, involves passing value judgments on the applicants. It is a policy of the Commission not to take part in assessments which are, in fact, an evaluation of academic merit and
January 23, 1984

competency. However, it is important to note that implementing recommendations 6 to 11 made by Mr. Symons would promote considerably the creation of an appropriate review body within the university context. Recommendations 6 to 11 inclusive, such as the proposal for establishing university-wide appointments review committees, are in line with the Commission's policy on foreign professors. In fact, the standards they would impose on universities are stricter than those presently in effect or being considered by the Commission as part of its policy.
The recommendation for establishing a Canadian Centre falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada. We feel it would be necessary to proceed with thorough consultations with the provinces before judging the merits of a Centre of this kind. We would also need the assurance that establishing such a Centre would constitute a positive contribution by providing more information, not only on the field of education but also on the important links that exist between the world of education and the labour market. The idea of forecasts is, however, a valid one and some work has already been done in this respect. In fact, in order to provide for more extensive discussion on the immigration policy for foreign professors, the Commission is now discussing with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada the feasibility of establishing a database in this field that would be mutually acceptable.
While listening to the Hon. Member's comments, I was wondering whether he agrees that immigrants who have the qualifications may teach here in Canada. He will have to make himself clear, since from the comments I heard, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member is agreeable to qualified immigrants and also new Canadians obtaining these jobs, but especially immigrants.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT-RATES CHARGED ON CONTAINER SHIPMENTS OF ALFALFA PELLETS. (B) RAILWAYS' INTERPRETATION OF ACT'S PROVISIONS
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, the question I am bringing forward to the adjournment debate tonight was asked last Friday, January 20, 1984. It is to be found at page 591 of Hansard. My question deals with the application of the new railway freight rates now in place since the beginning of this year, January 1, 1984. These, of course, were the rates that emerged after the lengthy Crow rate debate on Bill C-155 last year.
The point of my question is that the products of alfalfa in the form of meal, pellets or cubes do qualify for the new rail freight rates beginning this year. There was unanimous agreement for this during the committee stage of the long Crow debate. I should point out that prior to these new grain freight rates, alfalfa products shipped by rail had to be shipped at the full commercial rate. Such products had not been eligible for the lower statutory Crow rates prior to the C-155 legislation.
Adjournment Debate
The problem is that both railways began a new era of railway rates this year by continuing the full commercial rates for these alfalfa products.
Here are some background details of this problem that developed in my own constituency of Medicine Hat. Alfalfa forage is a major irrigated crop on the intensive irrigation districts throughout most of southern Alberta. In the form of traditional hay, alfalfa is too bulky to move to any markets except those that are very close and local. However, in the form of dehydrated meal, pellets or cubes loaded into the new containers, such products can be and are being shipped to Japan. More recently a potential for shipment to the Korean market has developed.
Tirol Dehydrators Ltd. of Tilley, Alberta, are presently operating two plants within the Eastern Irrigation District centred around Brooks, Alberta. They have been producing mostly dehydrated alfalfa cubes over the last eight years. Last year they exported 30,000 tonnes to Japan, supplying about 10 per cent of Japan's total requirements of 375,000 tonnes. Tirol tried to use hopper cars for shipping to tidewater but found them to be quite unsatisfactory. It is successfully using 20-foot or 40-foot containers that are available and moving empty on a backhaul from eastern Canada west to Vancouver and Seattle. Last year this plant exported some 1,500 containers to Japan to a ready market that has a potential to further expand to
500,000	tonnes annually. That might take a few years but it is the potential.
The Tirol people have emphasized that the key to the success of the whole enterprise is freight rates. It is absolutely essential that the end product of alfalfa shipped by rail in containers be eligible for the new Crow Rate structure, and not be moved under the higher commercial rates.
I very much appreciated the prompt and favourable response to my question of last Friday given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). I wish to acknowledge the quick action of the Canadian Transport Commission as well in contacting both railways and requiring them to cease charging the higher rates as explained in Section 50 of the new grain transportation act and further, in requiring the railways to make immediate refunds of any excessive freight charges. Tirol Dehydrators Ltd. sees an opportunity to double their export production in the near future provided that railway freight rates are reasonable and competitive.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey my genuine appreciation for the very prompt action the Minister took immediately after my question of last Friday, not only in his own Department, but in alerting the Canadian Transport Commission about this issue.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to respond to the question of the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave). Having regard to his statement that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) took prompt

January 23, 1984
Adjournment Debate
action and made a good decision, I hope he will put that in his next Householder so that the people in Medicine Hat can see that we have a good Minister of Transport.
The Hon. Member for Medicine Hat should be very happy with the Minister of Transport since the Western Grain Transportation Act significantly expands the list of crops which are eligible for shipment under the statutory rate, alfalfa meal, pellets or cubes, beans and their derivatives, canary seed, flax seed, lentils, mustard seed, sunflower seed, triticale and peas, as well as, canola meal and oil, have all been added to the list of crops which previously could be shipped under the Crow rate.
Most products move in boxcars, hopper cars or tank cars, but some of these new crops do move in containers. It is the Government's position that Section 50 and Section 51 of the Act are clear. Alfalfa or any other eligible crop is entitled to move at the statutory rate whether it moves in containers or by other more traditional means.
The railways under Section 50 and Section 51 are permitted to charge a higher tariff where cars other than boxcars, hopper or tank cars, are used. However, the increase above the statutory rate may only be the amount of the actual additional costs incurred as determined by the CTC. In any event, such
increased charges require application to the CTC. As the railways to date have not applied to the CTC for the right to charge higher tariffs for container movements they are legally entitled to charge no more than the statutory rate for shipping alfalfa in containers. If they are in fact charging more than the statutory rate, it is a clear contravention of the Act. In this regard, the Minister of Transport has sent a telex to the presidents of the railways indicating that unless or until the CTC grants higher tariffs, the Government expects the railways to move alfalfa and similar commodities at the statutory rate.
It is understandable that in this initial period of adjustment under the new Act there will be some problems and misunderstandings by the various parties involved. But hopefully, with everyone's co-operation, they can all be resolved. I read the answer of the Minister in Hansard of January 20, and I know that the Hon. Member appreciated that answer. He quickly moved to settle the situation at the request of the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat.
[Translation}


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.28 the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, January 24, 1984