1987-02-06

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Declaration of Intent to cut in half the nine tonnes of toxic chemicals flowing into the Niagara River is a good start. However, there are some disappointing aspects to the declaration.
First, there is no commitment to carry the reduction to the logical and safe objective of zero chemicals in the Niagara River as expressed in Article II of the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Otherwise, the assumption will be made that we are willing to live with the prospect of 4.5 tonnes of toxic chemicals flowing daily into the Niagara River, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence River, for eternity.
Second, the reference to excavation and destruction of the toxic chemicals in dumps lining the Niagara River is only to "review and report in depth-on the state of the new and emerging technologies".
This is a far cry from what the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) said in the House on May 15, 1986, when, in quoting from the work plan "the basic objective is the extraction and destruction of the toxic contents of the dump sites", as reported at page 13317 of Hansard, he led Canadians to believe that extraction and destruction would be part of the clean-up plan. Clearly the effort to clean up the Niagara River has just started and a lot of political will is necessary to do the job properly.
*
* *


CANADIAN FIGURE SKATING CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the Nepean Figure Skating Club together with the Cities of Nepean and Ottawa has twice in the last decade hosted the World Figure Skating Championships and Skate Canada. That tradition is continuing this week as they host the
Canadian Figure Skating Championships which were officially opened by our Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek). Some 350 volunteers, mostly from Nepean, have been involved in planning this competition. More important, the 241 competitors have competed in local and regional competitions in order to compete in the Canadian Championships.
This year's contest is the largest figure skating competition ever held in Canada. The winners will go on to represent Canada next month in the World Championships and form the core of next year's national team.
Figure skating and amateur sport are healthy in Canada, thanks to Sports Canada's "Best Ever" program, good coaching, and the dedication and skills of our athletes.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, once again one of the big five Canadian banks is turning its back on a small Canadian community. I am shocked to learn that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is shutting down its last remaining offices in Sandspit and Queen Charlotte City. The Commerce is the last chartered bank on the Islands. This closure will mean the loss of 11 jobs. For small businesses, loggers, and fishermen it means the elimination of access to a financial service.
The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is the third largest bank in Canada. In 1985 the Commerce registered a whopping 28 per cent profit increase, the second best increase among the majors. Last year it had a net income of $341 million taken from the pockets of ordinary Canadians like those who live on the Queen Charlotte Islands.
Members of the Liberal Party and members of the Mul-roney Conservatives know how wealthy the Commerce is. It gave those two political Parties $35,000 each in 1985. Surely it can afford to put this money to more productive use by keeping these small branches open.
The scheduled date of withdrawal is Friday, March 13. It is like a rerun of a bad horror movie. I call upon the Commerce to place a moratorium on this closure, to meet with local businessmen, workers and their families. The Bank has made a lot of money from the Islands and it is important that the people get some service in return.

February 6, 1987


S O. 21 HOUSING NEED FOR RENTAL ACCOMMODATION
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, last year housing starts exceeded all expectations. In fact home builders had their best year since 1978.
The real estate market, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, has been red hot. Without the housing boom, however, the rental vacancy rate in Toronto presently at an historic low of 0.1 per cent would be lower yet. With interest rates declining and continued economic growth, housing starts in 1987 should be even better than last year. But we need more rental housing as well. The main responsibility for this, of course, lies with the provincial and municipal Governments. However, our Government could help too if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would allow rental apartment builders and owners to write off their depreciation against other income as they could prior to 1970.


WINTERLUDE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind Canadians that noon today marks the opening of a festival which takes place in the National Capital here in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier. I am referring to festivities which have gained international recognition, Winterlude, organized by the National Capital Commission on the Rideau Canal and the National Capital Region.
As the scene of a wide variety of events, Winterlude offers all National Capital residents and thousands of tourists an opportunity to enjoy winter activities with their families.
On this occasion, I want to pay homage to the many people who worked tirelessly to prepare everything and make sure all facilities are ready so as to guarantee the full success of this Winterlude festival which will rank among the major attractions of the world, Mr. Speaker. Welcome to Winterlude, have fun!


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness and regret that I draw to the attention of the House an unbelievable attitude emerging from the Liberal caucus
toward the highly regarded Canadian Jewish community. The election of their new Caucus Chairman prompted within one hour-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair is very hesitant to interrupt any statement of a Member and particularly at this time, but I wonder if the Hon. Member could defer the statement, consider his remarks, and perhaps come back on Monday after having given it some very careful consideration. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, at least two months ago, the Conservative Government put a stop to installing the so-called superboxes because they were defective.
They were the second version being installed by Canada Post. Both kinds have caused serious problems, and one fatal accident has already occurred.
On July 31, 1986, a six year old boy, Dany Di Pietro of Saint-Louis-de-Terrebonne in Quebec, was killed when a post box fell on top of him.
Instead of insisting on having the mail delivered to these boxes, the Government should let Canada Post deliver the mail to our homes.
Canada Post lettercarriers don't kill but post boxes do!


FORESTRY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, a very serious epidemic is sweeping through the forests of central British Columbia and is quickly approaching a crisis situation. Western spruce budworm infested more than 400,000 hectares of prime forest land in 1986 and will infest another 400,000 hectares this year, with another 1.4 million hectares at risk. The potential loss of the forest resource is frightening, but what is even more astonishing is that with an environmentally safe biological control agent available, the British Columbia Government says that it has no money and cannot afford it.
Twenty-one million dollars are required to control this infestation, and with the British Columbia Government now
February 6, 1987

receiving $400 million from the softwood export tax this year alone, how can that Government claim to have no money to combat this threat to B.C.'s forestry resource? I urge the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) to intervene immediately in an attempt to bring the British Columbia Government to its senses and to ensure that hundreds of millions of dollars worth of prime British Columbia timber is protected and preserved.

[ Translation]


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, there is good news for the unemployed. Yesterday, in a magnificent show of co-operation, Quebec and Ottawa signed a new agreement on employment programs.
Under the agreement Quebec will receive $139 million annually in federal funding. It will be up to the province to approve or turn down the training plans submitted by companies with 200 employees or less. Our Government will take care of the other manpower training projects. It is expected that annually about 90,000 people can be reached under these agreements. It is good news for the people of Quebec.
The Canadian economy has been showing increasing signs of vigour in the last two years. I am thinking of the drop in interest rates, the drop in unemployment, the improved state of our public finances, and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, I would rather not go back to those black days in 1982-83 when the Liberals were in power in Ottawa and interest rates were up to 23 per cent. It was a disaster.
In fact, Canadians are doing pretty well with the Conservatives!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, five years ago officials of the Anglican Church of Canada asked Canada Post to issue a commemorative stamp in 1987 to mark the 200th anniversary of the establishment of the Anglican Episcopate in Canada. That request has been refused. It is beyond comprehension, but I speak of it not only because it has given offence to two million Anglicans in Canada but because it is a loss to all Canadians.
The consecration of Charles Inglis as Bishop of Nova Scotia in 1787 was significant not only to members of his church and the people of his province but to all of us. The establishment of a bishopric to serve the English-speaking settlers of Nova Scotia was a sign that those people had sunk their roots in this country and that they were here to stay. It was the beginning of what Canada is today, two traditions living in friendship side by side. What we are as a country today goes back to what those pioneers established, and it is a shame and a loss that this great event is treated as a non-event by Canada Post.
Some of us in this House worry about protecting Canadian culture against the Americans. Who will protect it against Canada Post?


DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the members of the Canadian Advisory Council to the Department of Employment and Immigration, established in the late 1970s. There will be seven vacancies on that Council by this fall, and by the end of March only six of the 21 members will be women. There will soon be no native Canadian, no advocate for the disabled, no advocate for nongovernmental organizations, and no one from Manitoba or Saskatchewan. In addition, there is now no advocate for older workers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see equal representation of men and women on the Council. I would like to see representation of native groups. I would like to see representation of the disabled and non-governmental organizations and older workers.
Mr. Speaker, last year we passed employment equity legislation. It is time we had equity on this very important Council. Now is the time to act.


THE SENATE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately Canadians are losing faith in the Senate as an institution and it is high time we made some changes to the outdated manner in which Senators are selected. If we are going to retain the institution the public should decide who holds those

February 6, 1987
Oral Questions
much sought-after positions. The only way to restore public confidence in that body is to elect its members. Moreover, a Senator's term should be limited to six years so a broad range of ideas are represented there.
It is very important that different regions of Canada should be equally represented in the Senate. This would not only make the system more fair but it would appear to be more fair than the present system where western Canadians and Atlantic Canadians particularly all too often feel they are shafted in the decision-making process because they do not have many Members either in this House or in the other place.
Over the next two years I hope we will see more changes in the Senate than we have seen in the last 100 years. Unless we do, the public will soon be demanding the abolition of that body rather than its reform.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, it is my respectful submission that the Government is in trouble. I came to that conclusion when I was reading the newspapers this morning. The headlines today read as follows: "Fourth friend of PM linked to Oerlikon". "PM accused of intervening in lawsuit". "RCMP conducting criminal probe of influence peddling by Tories". "PM to axe error-prone Ministers, insiders say". "Ottawa trying to make us look bad at constitutional talks, Indians say". "Justice Minister misled Canadians on appointment of Lyon, MP says".
It is quite clear that the Government has lost its moral right to govern. It has been plagued by scandals, ministerial resignations, influence peddling, patronage, and corruption. It is rotten to the core. The RCMP are so busy investigating Conservatives that they have no time to investigate murderers, rapists, and bank robbers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: I call on the Conservative Government to set up a special unit of the RCMP exclusively to investigate and prosecute Conservatives.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. By now he knows that the Prime Minister's special emissary, the Minister of Transport, after meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland, this morning with Premier Peckford has concluded that meeting in total disagreement with the Government of Newfoundland. What instructions were given to the Minister of Transport for his meeting with Premier Peckford? Was he given the authority to negotiate with the Government of Newfoundland over the Canada-France fish treaty, or was he merely sent to restate the completely unacceptable federal Government position on the Canada-France fish treaty?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister of Transport needs any specific instructions when it comes to looking after the interests of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. That principle is deeply ingrained in the Minister of Transport.
I can advise the Hon. Member that a meeting did take place. It was very friendly and frank.


Mr. Broadbent:: That's not what I heard.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, it is not what the Leader of the NDP heard, but I just finished talking to the Minister of Transport and I must take him at his word.


John Edward Broadbent: I talked to the Premier.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was a productive meeting. They thoroughly explored the issues involved. It may please the Hon. Member that there are still some areas of disagreement, but it was a good meeting and there will be further meetings to attempt to resolve this very serious issue which the Government and the Minister of Transport take very seriously.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to believe that the Minister of Transport needs a life raft rather than instructions during these negotiations in Newfoundland.


REQUEST FOR APOLOGY TO NEWFOUNDLAND CIVIL SERVANTS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on behalf of the Government, the Minister of Transport, in collusion with the Minister of Fisheries, issued a statement in a telex suggesting that senior Newfoundland government officials were well aware of all of the negotiations with the French leading up to the Paris meeting. Today,
February 6, 1987

February 6, two Assistant Deputy Ministers from intergovernmental affairs, a Deputy Minister of Fisheries and a Chief of Staff, all civil servants in the Newfoundland Government, signed statements saying that those allegations by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are absolutely untrue.
In the face of the statements signed today which arose out of the friendly meeting this morning between the Minister of Transport and the Premier of Newfoundland, is the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government of Canada, now prepared to apologize to the officials who were named and who have responded, and to the Government and people of Newfoundland for the attempt to sow confusion and mislead the Canadian public about the process leading up to this Canada-France treaty?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there has been no more confusion on this issue than that which has flowed from the lips of the Hon. Member and his colleagues across the way. They seem to believe that it is in their best interest to create confusion, fear, and anxiety. They think that is the best way in which to gain cheap political points. The fact is that this is a very serious matter which no political Party should seize for political opportunity. Rather, we have an opportunity, at long last, to resolve an issue which has been outstanding for many, many years.
In case the Hon. Member has not been informed, my information is that the word emanating from France is that they sense that they got the short end of the deal and Canada ended up with the better part of the deal. Therefore, notwithstanding the confusion which emanates from the Hon. Member, the agreement is good in that it will set the stage for further negotiations to resolve this longstanding issue.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the only confusion which reigns in the House obviously emanates from the lips of the Member who has just spoken. He is obviously trying to communicate a message to the Premier of Newfoundland through his attack on the opposition benches. However, on this issue we are strangely in concert.


ALLOCATION OF NORTHERN COD STOCK QUOTA TO FRENCH VESSELS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the decision to give northern cod to the French as part of a Canada-France fish treaty was made in early December and was meant to be communicated to the Prime Minister of France, Mr. Chirac, during his scheduled, but since cancelled, visit to this country in mid-December? Is it not true that one month before the deal was signed the decision had been made in Cabinet?
Humorously enough, the French are even saying now that this is a bad deal. The Newfoundland Government and all of the Atlantic Premiers are saying that it is a bad deal. The
Oral Questions
fishermen and their unions are saying it is a bad deal. Everyone involved, except Ottawa, thinks this is a bad deal. Therefore, will the Deputy Prime Minister now do the intelligent thing? Will he cut and run, save some face, and cancel this terrible deal now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can shout and scream all that he wants. He certainly will not impress me, any Canadian, or anyone else, I believe.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He can flash all the documents that he wants. The fact of the matter is that the Canadian Government and the Government of Newfoundland are presently sitting down to work this through. We have alluded to the fact that there has been an inadvertent breakdown in the process. We have acknowledged that and have apologized for it. That is not to suggest for one minute that it is not in Canada's interest and Newfoundland's best interest to resolve this deal once and for all.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning's Globe and Mail revealed the existence of an influence peddling scheme linked to the Conservative Party and the Government, particularly in the Brodilaf-Hama case. Can the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House concerning the role played in this case by Bernard Roy, the Prime Minister's Principal Secretary and Chief of Staff?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I too get to see newspapers and this morning I read about the case mentioned by the Hon. Member. No political Party is immune from people who abuse the confidence of others. An investigation is under way. Someone has been condemned and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are continuing their investigation. These measures clearly indicate that as far as the Government is concerned there will be no compromise when it comes to public morality.


INQUIRY WHETHER RCMP INVESTIGATION COVERS CERTAIN PERSONS
Jean-C. Lapierre: A supplementary for the Minister. The Government may have read newspapers this morning, but I know that Mr. Bernard Roy of the Prime
3182

February 6, 1987
Oral Questions
Minister's Office, Mr. Pierre-Claude Nolin who was a PMO special assistant at the time, Mr. Benoit Roberge and Mrs. Camille Guilbault of the Prime Minister's Office have been aware of this case since March 25, 1986. My question to the Minister: Does the RCMP investigation cover these four individuals and their involvement in the Brodilaf-Hama case?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I have just said that public morality is not negotiable. What we are trying to do as a Government is to dismantle this system which the Liberals set up with consummate artistry over the past twenty years.


FISHERIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the deal that the Government of Canada has entered into with France on a basis that is totally unacceptable to the people of Newfoundland and which changes the fisheries regulations off the coast of that province. Considering that the Premiers of Canada have decided to hold a meeting early next week, I am informed, to express their opposition to the Government of Canada on this important matter, considering that the people of Newfoundland in particular are opposed to the deal, and, perhaps most relevant of all, considering that the Prime Minister of France said in France today that the Government of France is prepared to renegotiate this sell-out of our resources, will the Government of Canada come to its senses and accept renegotiation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I presume that the Premiers of the other provinces are obviously interested in this issue. I am sure they would be interested in ascertaining all the facts relevant to this particular case and not the facts as presented by one side. We certainly welcome that.
As far as the statements that the Hon. Member alluded to, respecting the President of France-


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Prime Minister of France. I have not seen the comments and I have not been able to look at them in detail. However, it is rather interesting that France does see this as not a very good deal for it. This would only reaffirm the fact that the agreement that was negotiated was probably a good deal for Canada.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO FRENCH PRIME MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to send a copy of the words attributed to the Prime Minister of France to the Deputy Prime Minister. He said, among other things, that this deal is clearly creating unhappiness in Canada. He did indeed say that some people in France were unhappy with it as well, which simply proves that this Government has managed to have a deal which is pleasing no one on either side of the Atlantic, and I now use words which have been attributed to the Prime Minister of France: "We should discuss and find a new arrangement". If the Government of France is now responding to Canadian and other pressure, will the Canadian Government do the right thing and renegotiate this deal in our interests?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, pretty soon the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party will come around to the fact that this has not been a bad proposal for Canada. We will just wait, because it would not be the first time that happened.
I can only repeat what I said earlier. The Minister of Transport has met with the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland. They had a very frank and productive meeting. There are a number of areas which are of concern to both the Minister of Transport and the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland. However, I believe quite sincerely that those problems can be resolved. We, as a federal Government, are interested in one thing, resolving a longstanding issue and resolving it in such a way that it will be in the best interests of Newfoundland, the Atlantic region, the fishermen of the Atlantic region, and in the interests of Canada as a whole.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister did have a reputation for reasonableness. I talked to Premier Peckford this morning as well, after the meeting. He said his position has not changed one bit. The people of Newfoundland are still totally opposed to this deal. The Premiers of the provinces are going to have a meeting, which has to be seen as highly exceptional. For the first time in my knowledge of recent political history the Premiers have decided to meet on a single issue about which they are critical, and the Government of France has now said it is prepared to renegotiate. Why this stubbornness and inflexibility on the part of the Government of Canada? Why do you not renegotiate?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is not stubbornness and intransigence on the part of the federal Government.


An Hon. Member:: It's stupidity.
February 6, 1987


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is not stupidity, either, as suggested by the Hon. Member sitting over there on his seat rather than standing up and asking a question.


Mr. Young:: He's up next.


Mr. Murphy:: Wait.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sure that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party would certainly not expect the federal Government to walk away and say: "Here it is, take it or leave it". We are working with the Province of Newfoundland and with the industry. The discussions are ongoing. Certainly the fact that the French have taken the position they have will be a matter which will be taken into consideration.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns political influence in the awarding of a Public Works contract to Brodilaf. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to this House how, and by what process, the Department of Public Works gave a contract in Drummondville to the Brodilaf Company when the officials inside the Department of Public Works had recommended in favour of someone else? Is it a coincidence that this Brodilaf Company is a well known Conservative firm? And how can this kind of abuse of the taxpayers' dollars be allowed to go on?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I answered part of this question earlier. Since the investigation is now underway, I think it would be inappropriate to comment further on this case.


DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that when the contract in question left the staff of the Department of Public Works there was a recommendation in favour of a company known as Hama Inc., and that is supported by a Department of Justice document I have in my hand. I want to know who changed that recommendation? Was it the former Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Member for Joliette? Was it the President of the Treasury Board? Was it the Prime Minister's Office, or the Prime Minister himself? Who did it?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, we have an established bidding procedure, and we act according to that procedure. I said earlier that the
Oral Questions
Government has no intention of making any compromise with respect to public morality.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. A Tory fund raiser, Walter Wolf, has alleged under oath that the Prime Minister attempted to persuade him, through his lawyer, Michel Cogger, out of pursuing a $300,000 lawsuit against the Prime Minister's old friend and adviser, Fred Doucet.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister undertake to the House to enquire into these very serious allegations and report back to the House at an early date?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed I will and indeed I have. Once again we have some slight inaccuracies in the reporting of this particular issue. I am advised that Mr. Cogger is not the counsel of record in this particular case. I understand that the counsel for Mr. Wolf is the firm of Lang Michener. While that name may not mean anything to Hon. Members of the House, Mr. Jean Chretien is associated with that firm.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Oh, come on.


Some Hon. Members:: Cheap shot.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I thought Hon. Members were asking questions for the purpose of information and I am giving it to them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was not intended, Mr. Speaker, as some Hon. Members suggest, as a "cheap shot". I have a tremendous regard for Mr. Jean Chretien. He has been an outstanding Member of Parliament and an outstanding lawyer. So on that basis the Hon. Member may want to go back and check his facts and the press story. That is the information which has been given to me as of now.


ALLEGED CONTACT WITH MICHEL COGGER
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has not answered the fundamental question. Did the Prime Minister in fact contact Michel Cogger and attempt to persuade Michel Cogger that in fact the lawsuit should be dropped, and if the lawsuit against Doucet was not

February 6, 1987
Oral Questions
dropped, that Wolfs firm would not get any more money? Is that not in fact what happened?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if there was any such conversation, I would submit to the Hon. Member it was a private matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ALLEGED INTERFERENCE BY PRIME MINISTER
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has just admitted in this House that it is a private matter if the Prime Minister of this country places a phone call in which he makes threats about cutting off government business. I have in my hand a copy of the sworn affidavit which is part of the court record which is tabled not by the lawyer, Michel Cogger, but by the lawyer, Michael Eisen, who is the lawyer in question as reported in the story. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he really believes it is appropriate for the Prime Minister of the country to interfere in a lawsuit and use his muscle as the Prime Minister to try to determine a legal outcome?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is making some very serious allegations. I undertook in the earlier question to look into this matter. I have looked into it in a peripheral way and I indicated to the Hon. Member that Mr. Cogger was not the counsel of record in this particular case.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We knew that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Another firm is involved. I will attempt to ascertain further facts as I look into the matter.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO LAWYER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the deposition, the lawyer for Mr. Walter Wolf, Mr. Michael Eisen, states:
The legal action commenced by Mr. Wolf was discussed by Senator Cogger, among other things, with Mr. Mulroney in a telephone conversation in or about October of 1985.
If I have been able to ascertain this, I want to know why the Prime Minister is not here in the House to answer questions-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -and why the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to stonewall the Opposition with comments about Jean Chretien and other people who have nothing to do with this case, and hiding behind the process which the Prime Minister has quite clearly abused?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, but this is a matter which is before the courts and I think-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You should have told that to the Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think it is a matter of sub judice. But if there is any truth to the very serious allegations which the Hon. Member is perpetrating here, these will be matters which will come out in the court proceedings. I would suspect that that would be the most appropriate place for this to be dealt with.


UNO) DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC BUSINESS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it is along the same lines. Can he explain to us the division between private business and public business in a matter of this sort which certainly involves government business? How does he draw the line? Canadians consider public business to be extremely important and would not want to trivialize this as a purely private affair. Will he explain that division?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier to the Hon. Member, whose question I took in a serious vein, that I tried to answer it to the very best of my ability on the basis of the information that I had. I did undertake to look into it further. But I remind the Hon. Member that this is a matter that is before the courts. If there are allegations that come before the courts, such as those suggested by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and others, then that is the place where this issue will be fully aired.


DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. Yes, it is a matter under investigation. But I think we need to understand the nature of the public involvement in this matter. The Deputy Prime Minister has not answered why, if it is a purely private affair, there is an investigation at all. How will he explain this to Canadians, who want an end to these types of scandals and who want to see Government taking the public's business very seriously? How will he cop out on this being purely private? The public's business is at stake. Will he not concede that?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will not concede, as the Hon. Member suggests, that this is a scandal. This is a matter that is before the courts. I have given an indication that I will look into it further, and I will report in due course.
February 6, 1987


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As he knows, the oil and gas industry faces a great many difficulties. It lost 30,000 jobs last year, as well as the depletion allowance. Unemployment figures this morning indicate that in Calgary the unemployment rate is 12 per cent-a jump of 2 percentage points. Does the Minister of Finance have any measures in mind that will help this industry?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is quite well understood on this side of the House that the oil and gas industry has been undergoing some difficulties, particularly as the price of oil has dropped over the past year. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that the oil price has picked up in the last month or so, which will be of some benefit to the industry if that trend continues into the future. We are continually looking at various options that come before us, and we will continue to do so.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
I may remind him that Canadians believe everyone is equal before the law. And that is why this morning they were dumbfounded, as I was, when they heard that the Prime Minister personally intervened in a civil case to protect one of his friends and a member of his staff, Fred Doucet.
I am not satisfied with the Deputy Prime Minister's previous answer that this was a private matter. We are talking about the Prime Minister of Canada.
What I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister concerns Government policy. Is it Government policy that the Prime Minister may personally intervene to change the course of civil litigation between two Canadians? That is the question we would like to see answered.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no evidence of that at all. It is obvious that Mr. Wolf, with the help of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, is attempting to have this case aired in the court of public opinion. It is a matter that is before the courts. If there are any complaints about it, they will no doubt be fully aired before the courts.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the case has not yet reached the courts. In any case, the sub judice convention does not apply, according to Beauchesne's, Citation 337 on page 118.
To get back to the Deputy Prime Minister, I would like to ask him quite simply: Is it Government policy that from now on, the politician with the highest position in the country, namely our Prime Minister, may intervene at will in civil cases involving citizens of this country, to protect friends or members of his staff? Is that a new Government policy? Yes or no?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought I answered that question. There is no clear and direct evidence of the intervention of which the Hon. Member speaks. If there are any complaints-


John V. Nunziata: There is a sworn statement under oath.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If there are any complaints, such as the Hon. Member suggests, they will be fully aired in a court of law.


Jacques Guilbault: What about government policy?


THE PRIVACY OF A CONVERSATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. A few minutes ago, he suggested that a conversation with the Prime Minister about the bidding process between the federal Government and private companies was a private conversation. It is unusual, to say the least, for the Government to take that position. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify the situation right away. Does the Government believe that kind of conversation is in order? Is it an entirely private matter or is it something that concerns the Canadian public?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said at all.


John Edward Broadbent: It is what you said!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No. I said "If there was a conversation-". I do not know whether there was a conversation. I do not know what the conversation was about. I would assume that it was a private matter.

February 6, 1987
Oral Questions


CONDUCT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister checks the record he will find out that that is not what he said. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. Since we have had all these scandals and since in the press today we had news or allegations about three more possibly serious violations of public morality, when will integrity become the rule of public business for the Government instead of the exception?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it would help a lot if Members opposite stopped their muck-raking, innuendo-


James Ross Fulton: Blame it on us!


Nelson Andrew Riis: It's called truth.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and suspicion that are part and parcel of the whole Opposition's attack.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What are you covering up?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Members of the Opposition are not interested in constructive proposals or in being constructive. They are interested in character assassination, character destruction, muck-raking, innuendo and suspicion. That is what they are interested in.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It has nothing to do with innuendo or suspicion. In answer to an earlier question posed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party he said that negotiations were still going on with Newfoundland. We know that that is not so. The Premier of Newfoundland-and it takes two to tango-has said that he will not dance to the Government's tune. We have talked to him. In light of that will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that there are no discussions going on with Newfoundland? Will he now, as the honourable man that he is, take this opportunity, in view of overwhelming public opinion across the country, including the Premiers who have agreed to meet, to cancel this odious deal which smells as awful as fish offal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member is very sincere in his representation. However, I would simply ask him to reconsider the fact that discussions have gone on this morning and will continue to go on with the
Government of Newfoundland in an attempt to address the concerns and some of the disagreements that are inherent within the proposal.
The bottom line of the federal Government is to work toward a permanent solution that would be in the best interests of Newfoundland, the Atlantic provinces and, in particular, the fishing industry. That is our commitment. That is what the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries are mandated to do. I hope that we might have the support of the Hon. Member in trying to achieve that goal.


PUBLIC OPINION FAVOURING CANCELLATION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, there is no way that they will ever get support for this deal on this side of the House or anywhere in the province or anywhere in the Atlantic area. Once more I ask the Deputy Prime Minister will he now respond to the overwhelming feeling of people in the Atlantic and across the country? Will he listen, on behalf of his Government, and will he now say that he will cancel that deal with the French?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question earlier. I do not want to be flippant, but I just simply want to say that the discussions which are going on with the province, and of course the stated comments by the Prime Minister of France, will certainly be matters that will be taken into consideration as we work our way through this issue.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have another matter to raise with the Deputy Prime Minister which, in my opinion, is not only scandalous but incompetent and bad management. The Deputy Prime Minister knows from previous experience the difficulties VIA Rail is having with old, worn out equipment and an insufficient number of cars. One cannot get a reservation in the spring, summer, fall, or Christmas-time because they are full. Would he explain why VIA Rail has ordered 58 of its passenger cars taken out of service-stripped but not to be cannibalized-sold or leased, and eventually to end up in Mexico?


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the question is a good one. I indicate to the Hon. Member, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, that the deal is not going ahead. It is being reviewed. There is an indication, as the Hon. Member knows, that there is a reduced demand for those cars. He is asking, as is the Minister of Transport, why there is a reduced demand for those cars.
February 6, 1987

When that is investigated, I assure the Hon. Member that if it is incorrect those cars will not be leased to Mexico. I travel VIA Rail, as does the Hon. Member, and I am fully in support of his concern.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I hope that turns out to be correct and that they will not be disposed of. They will require refurbishing until we can get new cars.


ORDERING OF NEW PASSENGER CARS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who, I believe, sits on the Treasury Board. If he does not, he should, because he had no success with them when he was Minister of Transport. When will VIA Rail be allowed to place an order for at least 150 new rail passenger cars for transcontinental trains? Since we have been receiving announcements from him and previous Ministers for the last eight years, when will it happen so that VIA Rail can operate efficiently and provide better service to the people of Canada?


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, again the representation is a good one. The matter is being considered presently. I can only repeat-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Every year.


David Kilgour: We restored 21 per cent of the service which was removed by the previous Government. We on this side of the House believe in VIA Rail. The Deputy Prime Minister and members of our caucus travelled from sea to sea looking into the VIA Rail problem. I can assure him that we believe in it and will do our best to make it viable.


FISHERIES
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Newfoundlanders can take comfort in the fact that Atlantic Canadians and Canadians from coast to coast are supporting their claim that they have been treated unfairly with regard to the Canada-France deal on Fish. The Deputy Prime Minister will know that in the Province of Nova Scotia, in an area known as 4VN, the Sydney Bight, that stocks are declining. In fact, the Minister of Fisheries has cut the quota by almost 20 per cent. The Premier of Nova Scotia and the Minister of Fisheries are outraged that 1,200 metric tonnes have now been given to France. Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians have to take the brunt of the incompetence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Prime Minister? Why?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member would allow me to take that question as notice and have the Minister of Fisheries respond to it when he returns to the House on Monday.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will accept the Deputy Prime Minister's undertaking. However, on another matter, if the Prime Minister of the country can call to support a friend who is involved in a legal action, surely to God the Deputy Prime Minister-and I ask him-will give an apology to the four individuals who were named by the Minister of Transport-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member rises on a supplementary question, but it would seem to be another subject. I would ask him to raise the matter at another time, when it is the issue of his question.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE RENEGOTIATED
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland, the Government of Newfoundland, the Atlantic Premiers-and now all Premiers in Canada-and the Prime Minister of France have said that this is not a good agreement. The Prime Minister of France says "We have to find another solution". I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government is not now prepared to recognize that the deal is a bad one for all concerned and to sit down to begin to renegotiate one which is acceptable to the people of Newfoundland.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a similar question which has been asked on two or three different occasions, and I think I have answered it. To state it simply, the Minister of Transport has met with the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland. There will be ongoing meetings and discussions. As I indicated earlier, the comments by France will certainly be taken into consideration as we try to work our way through this issue.


POSSIBLE REQUEST BY PREMIERS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister who said that the question has been asked before. If it is asked by the Premiers of Canada when they meet, will the Government then agree to cancelling the deal and sitting down to negotiate one which is acceptable to the people of Atlantic Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather hypothetical question. We certainly do not have any difficulty with the Premiers meeting, but we would certainly hope that the Premiers, when they meet, will ascertain all the facts surrounding this issue. Obviously there are two sides to this issue, and we would certainly be prepared to provide the Premiers with all the information relevant to the background

February 6, 1987
Oral Questions
to this deal-how it came about and what are our bottom-line goals and objectives in reaching an agreement over a longstanding issue that other Governments feared to challenge over the years.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY TO PREMIER OF SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in the gallery today of Mr. Sherwin Petersen, ML A for Kelvington Wadena and Legislative Secretary to Premier Grant Devine of Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On July 7, 1986, Judge John White, a Justice of the Ontario Supreme Court, ruled that under the Rand formula, union dues deducted from each worker's weekly paycheque were to be used exclusively for union business. It is common knowledge that the socialists opposite use these funds to finance the party. It is also a fact that the decision will be appealed. Meanwhile, will the Minister demand that the socialists put in trust the funds belonging to Canadian workers and the deduction of which is being questioned?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting suggestion. I am not sure of the jurisdiction of my Department in that regard, but I will certainly look into it and get back to the Hon. Member.


THE ADMINISTRATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the conduct of the Prime Minister. I have a transcript of the proceedings of the Examination for Discovery where Mr. Walter Wolf, in referring to Mr. Fred Doucet, said the following under oath: "He went to" the "Prime Minister" to "complain that I took legal action against him."
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because the Prime Minister called Mr. Cogger and gave him shit.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is in some difficulty with the particular question, although the Hon. Member is quoting from a document which is now in the public domain and was clearly referred to in the press this morning. The Chair has a problem. If the evidence from a court case is going to be used extensively as the preamble for a question, it does create some difficulties. I point out also that that is a statement by somebody about something. There has to be some limit, I think, on the extent to which Hon. Members are wont to read the testimony itself. I think the Hon. Member has laid sufficient groundwork for the question. I would ask him to get on with his question.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, while the Government maintains that the conduct of the Prime Minister is a private matter, we in the Opposition maintain that the Prime Minister's conduct is public in nature.
I would like to put the question again to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the evidence given by Mr. Walter Wolf, under oath, would the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that it is improper and inappropriate for the Prime Minister of Canada to intervene in a private civil suit in order to assist a friend of his?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would be very reluctant to take any action on any interpretation placed upon anything by the Hon. Member. I think if he is really honest and serious about this issue, there is clearly no evidence to support the interpretation that he has placed with respect to the involvement of the Prime Minister.
I find it absolutely regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that in a case that is being considered as a civil court case the issue should be heard and considered in the newspapers and on the floor of the House. It seems to me that the most appropriate place for this issue to be resolved is in the courts.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MAKE PUBLIC STATEMENT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this issue goes to the root of the administration of justice in Canada. In view of the statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister and in view of the serious nature of the allegations made by Mr. Wolf under oath, will the Prime Minister today make a public statement to clarify his involvement in this public case?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what does go to
February 6, 1987

the basic root of the Canadian justice system is the element of fairness and the presumption of innocence until otherwise proven guilty.


LUMBER EXPORT CHARGE-USE OF PROCEEDS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Would she explain to this House why the $400 million that is to be raised through the export tax for British Columbia is not tied into the federal-provincial reforestation agreement which would require those dollars to be spent on reforestation in British Columbia by law? Surely by December 30 that Minister, above all others, knew in her dealings with the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Vander Zalm, that he was a snake and unlikely to spend those dollars on reforestation.


Mr. McDermid:: You do so well until you get to those cheap shots.


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Hon. Member diluted the very good point he was making by a rather dismal and atrocious comment. 1 think if he would rephrase his question in a more parliamentary manner, I could answer it.


Ms. Mitchell:: You are not the Speaker, Pat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must advise Hon. Members that the time allotted for Question Period has expired. It is time to move on.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to address to the Government House Leader on a matter of the business of the House. Some days ago, before the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) returned from his trip to southern Africa, it is my recollection that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) undertook, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that once he returned he would make a statement to the House. The Prime Minister has been back for several days. He has been in the House and he still has not made a statement. Will this promise be kept or is it to be added to the list of unkept promises that is growing every day?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I gave an indication that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would be making a statement later this week. It still is the intention to have such a statement. I am sure the Hon.
Petitions
Member appreciates that the Prime Minister has been preoccupied with a number of other matters. I think it was the intention of the Prime Minister to await the return of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). We will certainly be in touch with the representatives of both Parties so that they will have ample notice before such a statement is made.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments in both official languages.
Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the Table requests that the Government table a comprehensive response to the report. [Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, for about the fiftieth time, I guess, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from your friends and my friends in Senior Power Inc., people from Regina, Oxbow, Alameda, Redvers, Wawota and Alida and Glen Ewen in Saskatchewan who humbly petition this Parliament that the proposed measure to amend the Patent Act will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs and that the proposals of the federal Government will result in higher costs to the provincial Government drug plans, and they petition the Parliament of Canada to reject these proposals which they believe will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a further petition, Madam Speaker, from residents of Paddockwood, Christopher Lake, Prince Albert, Spruce Home in Saskatchewan in which they submit that in their opinion transportation is a natural monopoly without economic regulation and that economic regulatory reform or, in other words, deregulation of the dimensions proposed by Bill C-18 will create unnecessary chaos in the transportation industry leading to unnacceptable

February 6, 1987
Petitions
reductions in safety standards as well as deterioration in the quality, type, frequency of service, and your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Commons will have Bill C-18 withdrawn.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and the honour to present some 30 petitions from constituents and from Canadian tourists to the national capital who would like to avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners. A decision to close Rideau Hall grounds was made by the National Capital Commission, the Department of Public Works, the RCMP and the office of the Governor-General, without prior notice, and the closure of this attractive and tranquil park affects thousands of visitors to the capital from across the country who held Canada's uniquely accessible Rideau Hall as a symbol of the trust, openness and democracy of which Canadians are so justly proud, and area residents from the entire National Capital Region who have used and enjoyed the grounds of Rideau Hall, recognizing the security concerns that prompted the closure decision, cannot accept a blanket closure of the 120 acre park to public access, the undersigned, and there are thousands of them, Madam Speaker, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to open that decision for consultation by a group of citizens representative of the large and growing opposition, in order that a modus vivendi be created that would satisfy both the Government and the public.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of Winnipeg, The Pas, and Flin Flon, Manitoba. The residents of those communities express their opposition to the Government's intent to change the Patent Act related to prescription drugs. They believe this will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs and they believe that it is yet another example of the Canadian Government's concession to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in the free trade negotiations. Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject this proposal which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from a number of Canadians who are praying and calling upon Parliament to reject the proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs since these proposals will increase prescription drug costs for Canadians and they humbly pray that the House of Commons react to their plea.


Mr. Malone:: Madam Speaker, the last Hon. Member who put a petition before the House did so as I think it appropriately ought to be done. Those presenting petitions previously have been doing what I believe is not appropriate in the Parliamentary process, that is, they have been using the presenting of petitions as an opportunity for debate and they have been placing within the presenting of a petition a position of argument.
The whole history of Parliament has been that an Hon. Member presenting a petition is to cite its title and a sentence or two about its subject matter and then to resume his or her seat. It has not been to use the process of placing petitions before the House as an opportunity to engage in debate. I think it is only appropriate that that tradition of Parliament be respected.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. This is not the first time a member of the Government has tried to tell the Speaker how to allow petitions to be presented. There was an attempt by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) to insist that he see petitions before they were presented in the House. I think the point is that people are allowed to make a short explanation of the petition. None of us have made any attempt to make long, drawn out introductions and we have followed the rules of this House quite well.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the Hon. Member, never at any time did I insist on seeing all the petitions that were presented. I asked if they were deposited at the Table so one could see them. The Hon. Member is just perverting the facts.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I do not know if the Hon. Member was aiming his remarks at my presenting of petitions today but I took exception to them. Over 1,000 people took the time to sign the petitions I presented and they wanted them presented individually. I presented all 30 of them with names attached at one time. I think it is an unconscionable accusation to make of people who want to use their right to present petitions in the House. I cannot understand it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) made what I think is a quite justifiable comment. I know all Hon. Members who are presenting petitions do feel quite strongly about those petitions, but I would ask them to keep their presentations short and according to the rules. The Chair can be lenient, but I think, as there are many petitions to be heard today, it would be helpful for the House and for the Chair if the presentations were to be kept very short and close to the rules.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, I will attempt to follow the recommendations of my hon. friend from Crowfoot by simply reading the title and two
February 6, 1987_____________________________COMMONS
of the sentences in the lengthy petition. It is my pleasure to present, pursuant to Standing Order 106, three petitions, but my remarks will only reflect one of them. The petitions come from Quebec, British Columbia and the Province of Alberta. This particular petition simply says in its title that the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners and in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, we humbly sheweth, and the first sentence is that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to presecription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. Again, following the advice of my hon. colleague, the second sentence of many is that the proposed measure will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. The petitioners are simply asking the Government to remove this legislation from the books so that this rise in prescription drug prices will not occur.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, I too have a number of petitions all dealing with the same subject. These petitions have been certified correct as to form and content and are signed by residents of such cities as Ottawa, Kent, Orleans, Calgary and the Province of Saskatchewan. The petitioners all exercise their undoubted right to present a petition to Parliament and state that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers. They petition the House of Commons to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I have three petitions. One is from the Montreal area, one from the town of Sainte-Julienne and the last one from Saint-Jacques. In all three cases, the undersigned petitioners state that Canada Post's new corporate plan is creating two classes of citizens with the installation of permanent superboxes in urban and rural areas; that closing rural post offices will deprive Canadians of a unique federal presence and reduce this vital service in rural regions; and that the rate increase, especially for second-class mail, will jeopardize the continued distribution of many weekly and regional newspapers, magazines and religious publications.
Wherefore they humbly pray that Parliament reject Canada Post's plan and urge the Corporation to deliver the mail to all Canadian taxpayers, without exception.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House, in conformance with Standing Order
DEBATES	3191
Petitions
106, a petition certified correct as to form and content from a number of Canadians who are concerned that the present training of pilots of NATO countries in low-level flights at the Canadian Forces Base in Goose Bay, Labrador, disrupts the lives of many native people. Since it is their view that hunting, fishing, tourism and mining could provide more stable, healthy and peaceful employment, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ends all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and that he ceases negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I have a number of other petitions certified correct, pursuant to Standing Order 106, in form and content. These petitions are almost entirely from British Columbia and concern the proposal to close six West Coast light stations and to reduce the strength to a single light-keeper and an additional five. Many mariners are deeply concerned about the effect this will have on the loss of local weather services and assistance for search and rescue and they are concerned that many of these lighthouses in the remote part of British Columbia will be unmanned. The petitioners call upon Parliament to revoke the Transport Canada directive immediately and request that a complete and thorough public inquiry be held in the Province of British Columbia into the need for manned light stations on the West Coast of Canada.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker,
I have three petitions, all of which have been certified under Standing Order 106, and they are on the same subject but from different localities. The petitioners appeal to the federal Government to withdraw its proposed changes to the Patent Act. They are very concerned that there will be an increase in drug prices for Canadian consumers and the proposed measure will unfairly hurt Canadians whose health needs require prescription drugs. It will result in higher costs to provincial Government plans and is another example of Canadian Government concessions to the U.S. in the free trade negotiations.
The first petition is from petitioners in Nepean, Ontario, and Squamish, Burnaby, North Vancouver and Vancouver, British Columbia. The second petition on the same subject is from residents of North Vancouver, Delta, Burnaby, Surrey, and Richmond, British Columbia. The third petition is from a number of residents in Newboro, Ontario, who are also very concerned about this Bill and ask that it be withdrawn.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I have three petitions all of which have been duly certified by the Clerk. The first relates to the elimination

February 6, 1987
Petitions
of personnel at lighthouse stations on the British Columbia coast. The petitioners point out that the savings from this elimination will be negligible and there will be an increased risk to life as well as a loss of weather services. They call upon Parliament to revoke this directive immediately and request a complete and thorough public inquiry in the Province of British Columbia into the need for these manned lighthouse stations on the West Coast.


James Douglas Manly: The
second petition relates to changes proposed for the Patent Act which will increase the price of prescription drugs, imposing an unfair hardship on seniors and provincial medicare plans and pharmacare plans. They call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices.


James Douglas Manly: The
third petition relates to low-level flights at the Goose Bay Labrador Canadian Forces Base which disrupt the way of life of native people there and represent a provocative and aggressive war-fighting action in view of the practising of low-level flights into eastern Europe. They call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) end all low-level flight training at that base and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger Base there.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions, both duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions as being in the proper form. One is from a number of residents of Sorrento, British Columbia. They oppose the Government's proposal to change the Patent Act which would in their opinion cause an increase in the price of prescription drugs. That would unnecessarily hurt Canadians who live on low incomes and it would also be a further concession to the Americans' point of view on free trade. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which they believe will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The other petition is from a number of residents of White Rock, Castlegar, South Slocan, Cache Creek, Trail, New Westminster, Richmond and Kelowna, British Columbia. They are concerned about the present Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay and its training of NATO pilots for flights into eastern Europe by using the hills of the Goose Bay area for low-level flying practise in a way which disrupts the people there and constitutes a provocative and aggressive war-fighting action. They request Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) end all low-level flight training at that Base and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from people in North Vancouver, Burnaby and Delta, British Columbia, in which they ask that the federal government proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs be withdrawn. They say it will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. In other words, they do not want the Government to cave in to the multinational drug lobby and I would like to table this petition.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise today on a serious issue of concern to people from Dorval, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and other places. Their concerns relate to the decision to close the Rideau Hall grounds. The decision was made by the National Capital Commission, the Department of Public Works, the RCMP and the office of the Governor General without prior notice. The closure of this attractive and tranquil park affects thousands of visitors to the Capital who hold Canada's unique and accessible Rideau Hall as a symbol of the trust, openness and democracy of which Canada and Canadians are so justly proud. Area residents have used and enjoyed the grounds of Rideau Hall and they recognize the security concerns which prompted the closure decision. However, they cannot accept a blanket closure of the 120-acre park to public access. Therefore they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to open that decision for consultation with a group of citizens representative of the large and growing opposition in order that a modus vivendi be found to satisfy the needs of both sides. I am going to table about 25 petitions in that regard.


Sheila Finestone: As you well know, Madam Speaker, I have previously presented my serious concerns about the book tariff and I continue to urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to take this into consideration. I now have before me-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. This is the time for petitions. I do not think the Hon. Member wants to be urging the Minister to do something when she should be telling us about the petitions.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, it was because he is present in the House and I thought he might listen to this petition. I will direct the petition to you with the hope that other ears of importance are listening.
The Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited access by Canadians to literature. It is a tax on reading. The tariff has had little negative effect on the publishing industry in the U.S., yet it has penalized Canadian consumers, book
February 6, 1987

publishers, sellers, distributors and Canada's culture. There has been a serious drop in the number of units sold, particularly those of children's books. Rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries. Therefore the undersigned pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations. I table about 300 names in that regard.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by residents from my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre. They indicate that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drug prices will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers. They call upon Parliament to reject those proposals immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: At this time I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members that the time recorded under Bill C-19 in today's projected Order of Business is wrong. The time remaining for debate is six hours and 42 minutes.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find a disposition to pass the following motion unanimously. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order and further to the order of this House adopted on Friday, January 30, 1987, when the Minister of Finance has completed his presentation of the Budget on Wednesday, February 18, 1987, the House shall immediately revert to introduction of Bills in order to provide for the introduction of the Bill respecting borrowing authority, and the House shall then resume consideration of Ways and Means proceedings No. 10.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:
Petitions
That the first report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, presented to the House on Wednesday, November 5, 1986, be concurred in.
He said: Madam Speaker, this being my motion, I would like to speak on it. The first report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, presented to the House on November 5, 1986, dealt with the consideration by the committee of a number of Order in Council appointments. That was a first because it came under the new rules of Parliament which allow MPs to consider government appointments. The committee was particularly concerned with the appointment to the Atomic Energy Control Board, the National Energy Board, and to the Chair and Presidency of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I think you have a copy of the report on file.
I have moved to debate the report because I am concerned that the Government has been blocking a debate on the nuclear industry in Canada. The previous Conservative Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), promised in 1979 that there would be an inquiry into the nuclear industry. He had perhaps started to move toward that, but was not around long enough to have a national public inquiry. There have been provincial inquiries on the nuclear industry, but never a national inquiry.
The national Government is deeply involved in atomic energy through the Atomic Energy Control Board which regulates the nuclear industry and to which some of the appointments were made. It is involved in Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the Government Crown corporation which manages and develops atomic energy in Canada, including the Candu reactor and the new facilities 220 meters beneath the Canadian Shield in Manitoba which I had the honour of visiting last week. They are experimenting there with the disposal of high level nuclear waste, meaning those from nuclear reactors. The Government is also involved in Eldorado Nuclear.
I look more dishevelled than usual this morning, Madam Speaker-
Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, no.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) says I look my normal dishevelled myself. I had to get up very early this morning in southern Ontario and drive the beautiful 300 miles from Port Hope, Ontario, to the gentle atmosphere of Question Period in the House of Commons where we considered more scandals.
I was in Port Hope last night to hold an inquiry on behalf of the New Democratic Party into the nuclear industry there. Last night we heard from people who are concerned about the low level waste disposal, that is, all the nuclear waste which was mined in the past through refineries and by Eldorado Nuclear in Port Hope, Ontario. Port Hope is about 120 kilometers east of Toronto. I heard from 13 people representing unions, government bodies, industry and from ordinary people who live there regarding their concerns about nuclear

February 6, 1987
Petitions
waste. It is a big concern in the country. The Government of Canada is deeply involved in that.
This is an opportunity for the House to consider the appointments which were approved by the Energy, Mines and Resources Committee of the House of Commons. We in the NDP were particularly concerned with one appointment which was not made. It was the very shameful treatment of a prominent Canadian, Ursula Franklin, a distinguished scientist from Toronto. She was appointed to the Atomic Energy Control Board by the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The appointment was suddenly revoked.
I see the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in the House. I hope she will take part in this debate. The Hon. Minister is a good friend of mine in many ways. She has done some good things in her career. However, I suggest to her that this will go down as a black mark. Perhaps it was not entirely her fault, but she appointed Ursula Franklin to the Atomic Energy Control Board and then that appointment was revoked because-


Pat Carney: She wouldn't sign the security oath.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, it was not because she would not sign the secrecy oath, it was because she raised the question of the nature of the secrecy oath. I will not go through this in debate today, but I went through it chapter and verse in letters that were sent.
The fact is that Erik Nielsen, the then Deputy Prime Minister and other people in the atomic energy establishment realized that the Hon. Minister had actually appointed someone who had an open mind about the nuclear industry and who would not be, if you will pardon the expression, a patsy for the atomic energy establishment. It was a good appointment of a distinguished Canadian, a prominent woman scientist, and it was shamefully revoked because Ursula Franklin had asked about the nature of the security oath. She did not say that she would not sign an oath. She did not say that she would not take the oath.
The Government revoked that appointment and the position was open for a year and a half. In the committee report to the House which we are now debating it is indicated that Mr. Robert N. Farvolden was appointed as a member of the Atomic Energy Control Board to replace Miss Franklin.
Quite frankly, I am surprised that more Conservative Members did not take up the cause of the shameful treatment of a prominent Canadian woman. I thought some female members of the Government would have raised this question, but they let it slip by.
I have just been informed that the appointment of Ursula Franklin was revoked before she even requested clarification of the secrecy oath. That is a serious charge. The Government hid behind the letter she had written asking for that clarification,
which means the questions of the secrecy provision was a red herring.
Atomic Energy of Canada is very secretive because it was established after the war when we were developing nuclear weapons. The law was set up during the cold war in the 1950s, which means the industry was associated with weapons. There was also the belief that it was necessary to develop atoms for peace, as President Eisenhower said, so that nuclear technology could be used for peaceful purposes rather than for something as horrific as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That secrecy has bedevilled the industry since its development. Only recently have we begun to see Atomic Energy of Canada become more open. In fact, the Government promised to conduct an inquiry into the nuclear industry. However, since the Government has refused to do so and the Liberal Party is totally committed to nuclear energy while ignoring the environmental implications and other questions about nuclear energy today, the New Democratic Party has conducted its own inquiry.
Let me relate what I have learned in the past few days. I visited Port Hope yesterday, where I learned about low-level nuclear waste. Sweden will phase out its nuclear industry in 40 years. I admit that if we take similar action, we must provide alternate jobs for the workers in the industry. Last night I talked to workers in the industry and heard concerns about safety and future development of the nuclear industry. It is projected that nuclear energy will represent about 13 per cent of the energy use in Canada to the year 2000.
When the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and myself went to Toronto to hold further hearings, we heard from the Samiid people, who are reindeer herders in Sweden. They indicated that they were initially in favour of nuclear power because they did not want the valleys in central Sweden to be flooded. They supported the construction of reactors in Stockholm, especially, because they had faith in the competency of Sweden's technicians. However, the Sami people said that they even felt better when the Swedes told them that-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has read the report from the committee and finds it difficult to reconcile what the Hon. Member is saying with what is in the report. Perhaps the Hon. Member could make his remarks pertain more closely to the report. It would be helpful to the Chair.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I am relating what we heard in our nuclear inquiry to the appointments that deal with the Deputy Minister of Energy, the Atomic Energy Control Board, and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Member may want to keep his comments more relevant to the report.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am saying that Atomic Energy of Canada and the Atomic Energy Control Board are failing to deal with the nuclear problem in this country. That is why I do not like the appointments and how they were made.
.T'

**uni
February 6, 1987

Many of these concerns stem from the Chernobyl incident in the Soviet Union where the reactor melted down. This raised many questions about whether it could happen in Canada. The testimony of the Samiid people is important because they were directly affected. They thought they were safe. When the nuclear cloud from Chernobyl came over central Sweden, it happened to rain and it meant the end of their reindeer herds and perhaps the end of their culture. Many of them told us that they wanted to emigrate to Canada because they could no longer raise reindeer. They also told us that if it had not rained, that nuclear cloud would have continued northwest over Canada. Had it rained over part of Canada's vast territory we would have had a similar problem here. We were not informed of this by the Atomic Energy Control Board.
I asked several questions of the Atomic Energy Control Board, including some of these appointees, during the meeting of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources of the House of Commons. I asked if Canada is prepared for such an accident and able to monitor radiation as effectively as Sweden.


Pat Carney: Scare tactics.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Member says they are scare tactics. They are not scare tactics; the people of Canada are genuinely concerned about Canada's ability to do these things. For instance, are there adequate monitoring stations?


Mr. Kempling:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, just so the Hon. Member will not get off track. That sort of monitoring is done at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington, in my riding. I have seen the studies and they are quite complete and exact. I am sure they are available if the Hon. Member wants them.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member will recognize that that is not a point of order, but a matter of debate. He will have a chance to make his point later.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, it is debate but I appreciate the Hon. Member's information in light of the great interest about this across the country. I should advise him that we heard from scientists in Vancouver who told us that they were not satisfied with some of the monitoring. They indicated, in fact, that they had received information from American sources that the Americans had monitored some radiation discharge that we believe should have been detected at Chalk River but was not. People want to know more about these matters and that is why there should be a nuclear inquiry in Canada, as was promised by the Conservatives.
Mr. Donnelly has been appointed President of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The fact is that Atomic Energy of Canada is bankrupt. The nuclear industry is having difficulty selling CANDU reactors abroad. In order to keep the industry going, it is becoming more involved in irradiation of food which will be a major issue in Canada in the next two years. It is considering proposals for slowpoke reactors, which are small
Petitions
reactors in northern towns. It is considering proposals for high-level waste disposal, a multimillion industry. Atomic Energy of Canada is pursuing these questions without any public input.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There is no public policy either.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The policy is being created by AECL, not by the Government. Any time we ask questions we hear, "Well, it's nuclear, It's very secret", and we cannot get all the information. What the Government has to do is face this problem. I will give the Government credit in that many Government Members are prepared to deal with it, unlike the Liberal Party, which would not do so and just poured billions of dollars into the nuclear industry. It even established a cartel, and it was so difficult to get information that the then environment critic of the Conservative Party, later Leader of the Conservative Party, later Prime Minister of Canada, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead himself took a lawsuit against Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. That was one of the origins of the Conservative policy to open up the windows. It opened up this tight little group which was spending billions of dollars in taxpayers' money for a policy which was not really debated and sanctioned.
The question is, does Canada want to phase out nuclear power? Does it want to expand nuclear power? Does it want to get into the disposal of waste from all over the world? Does it want to expand its low-level waste techniques? Does it want to be a world leader in irradiation of food or does it want to reject that? This is a country which rejected developing the nuclear weapon. When the history of the 20th century is written, it will include the fact that Canada chose, after World War II, not to develop the nuclear weapon, even though we could easily, have done so. Instead, we chose to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes.
I will let you wait for our report, Madam Speaker. If I can put a plug in, it will be out, I believe, in the summer, and I hope the Government will reconsider. I say personally to the Minister that that is a shameful way to treat Ursula Franklin. I hope the Government will consider the matter of opening up the nuclear industry and having an enquiry. The country may decide to go pro-nuclear. Let us not close the doors. Right now we are dealing with secrecy on a policy Canadians have not had a chance to debate. Just appointing these people, with a short report by the Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, is not enough.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it was with a great deal of interest I listened to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). He indicated in a variety of ways why he was concerned about this particular reference of the committee, particularly the significance of some of the appointments which have been made to these governing committees. As he so eloquently and adequately pointed out, the fact that the Government is proceeding to make these appointments in the traditional fashion, and the

February 6, 1987
Motions
fact that they now come before committee, is a very clear indication that the Government is planning to proceed, in this case, with the ongoing support for nuclear energy in Canada.
While the Elon. Member is perhaps not an expert in the field of nuclear energy cycles, he is very well informed and learned when it comes to these topics and I wonder if he could answer a question? Since the Government, through the discussions the Hon. Member has just presented, is obviously in support of continuation of the nuclear policy presently in place, and continues to support the development of nuclear energy, and since the particular task force which he co-chairs has, I presume, heard many, many expert witnesses, can the Hon. Member share with us any appropriate revelations which would indicate at this point a concern, perhaps, with one of the appointments to which he has been referring in his presentation?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair cannot really understand how talking about an upcoming report can be relevant to the report which is today being debated in the House. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is really asking a colleague to answer something which would be totally out of order.
The Chair was quite lenient at the start and let the Hon. Member mention the upcoming report and talk about things which really had nothing to do with the nominations which are being debated in the House. Therefore, I would have to rule that question out of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of my colleague. I have before me the minutes of the committee which considered appointments of certain individuals, and which are reflected in the first report of the committee. The House will appreciate that the examination of appointments relates to qualifications and the ability to do the job, not Government policy. I think that is the difference there. If the Standing Committee was considering under Standing Order 96(3), which gives it the opportunity to investigate Government policy, that would be fair ball, a fair question and fair comment in the House.
I notice the Hon. Member was in attendance at the committee meeting. I know he is very diligent in his attendance at committee. Since the question before the committee was the qualifications and abilitites of the individuals being examined, could he tell me just what part he took in the debate in committee?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the fact is that during the appointments of these persons we have no real say in terms of rejecting them. They go through. I will put it this way. I did not feel it was appropriate for us to attack some of these people. Mr. Donnelly, in his own way, sees himself as serving Canada and AECL.
What I am trying to do in using the report is highlight what I consider to be the shameful treatment of an individual. Mr. Farvolden was made a member of the Atomic Energy Control
Board instead of Dr. Ursula Franklin. I am trying to bring out why I feel that is unjust. I think this is the place to do that.
Dr. Franklin was appointed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse). Her appointment was then yanked after the Cabinet learned she was not a wholehearted proponent of nuclear power. Dr. Franklin is a scientist, an Officer of the Order of Canada and a renowned physician. However, she said publicly that she opposed the construction of the Darlington Nuclear Plant. She also said publicly that she wants to revamp the secrecy provisions of the Atomic Energy Control Act. That is why I talked about those secrecy provisions. Because she said that, she in fact had her appointment revoked. My point is that the Atomic Energy Control Board is supposed to be a watchdog over the nuclear industry. Instead, we have appointed people who are not really going to be watchdogs. They are all proponents, as far as I know, of nuclear energy. They are going to continue the secrecy.
I say to the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) that it is shameful that this appointment was revoked. On April 15, the Minister appointed Dr. Franklin to the Atomic Energy Control Board. On April 22, Dr. Franklin received the Minister's letter. On April 22, Dr. Franklin posted a letter of response suggesting that she would like clarification of the secrecy provisions. She did not refuse to accept the appointment. On April 23, before the Government received her letter, Dr. Franklin was informed by telephone from the Minister's office that the appointment was a mistake. She was informed before the Minister received her letter. On May 29, a letter was sent to Dr. Franklin informing her that her appointment was made in error. The Hon. Member heckled during my speech saying, "We didn't put her on there because she wouldn't agree with the secrecy".


An Hon. Member:: That is not true.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose for lunch, there were three minutes left for questions and comments. The debate was on the motion of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).

If there are any questions or comments, there being three minutes left in the time allotted?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) to consider
February 6, 1987

the appointment of Mr. James Donnelly, as one of the people we are reviewing today. He worked previously as an executive with Canadian General Electric and the English Electric Company. His whole experience is in the managing of power plants. In others words, he is completely on one side of the question and he has been appointed as Chief Executive Officer and President. I would ask the Hon. Member to comment on the background of Mr. Donnelly, whether or not he is suitable or otherwise to the present balance of opinion on the Board of Directors of AECL.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, of course there is no balance of opinion on the board, it is all nuclear. If people who are proponents of furthering the nuclear industry, which American commentators have said is an almost bankrupt industry, are appointed to the board of AECL then there will really not be any opposing views, especially when combined with the secrecy provisions associated with the industry. What we will have as a result is an industry that is out of control, an industry which spends government money with little policy, little direction and very little public input.
When we consider Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the circumstances surrounding the o-rings in the Challenger we see that the technology is not perfect. We have to be careful. The risk with nuclear power is that it is capable of destroying the whole world as a result of an accident. An accident in Toronto could destroy New York as well as Toronto. This is why we in the NDP, and we think Canadians in general, want to see openness in terms of letting some light and opposing views into this industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address this question today.


Mr. Dick:: Do you know what it is?


Cyril Keeper: I already hear a heckler. I guess he heckles to ensure that I am still awake.


Rodney Edward Murphy: He is a cabinet Minister on his way out.


Cyril Keeper: The Hon. Member asks me if I know what the subject is. I do, which is why I am here in the House this afternoon. However, I am surprised that I have been given the opportunity to speak so quickly. I anticipated that there would be a government Member or a member of the Official Opposition Party who would want to speak, but that is not the case.
Obviously we need a more representative group of Canadians to sit on these various boards which deal with the nuclear industry. We have to open up a debate about nuclear power. We have to bring more points of view to bear on the issue. The committees which now exist are largely closed shops. They are
Motions
made up of people who, by and large, are already committed to the nuclear industry. It is necessary for us to have some people on these boards and committees who will question some of the fundamental assumptions which underlie the nuclear industry.
When nuclear power first became a possibility it held out the promise of cheaper power. It was said that it would be a real blessing to mankind. With the passage of time we have been able to see the problems asso;ci;ated with nuclear energy, and they are immense. It is my view that one of the critical problems we face is how to dispose of nuclear waste. How can we continue the development of nuclear energy without a real solution to the question of what to do with the waste products of nuclear energy?
This question brings me very close to home because research into the storage of nuclear waste is presently being done in Manitoba. However, Manitobans are afraid that this is not just research, but that it will lead to the province being used as a dump for nuclear waste. Citizens have organized themselves into groups which are lobbying the federal and provincial Governments to ensure that Manitoba does not become a dumping ground for nuclear waste. Not only is there a question concerning what to do with nuclear waste, there is the question of finding some technologically feasible way of dealing with waste. The people of Manitoba have been clear in stating that they do not want this waste dumped in their backyards.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that there would be a public inquiry, a public debate, an examination of the whole question of nuclear energy. That is a promise which we want the Government to fulfil. I think it would do it some good if it were to fulfil it. It would do its credibility some good to live up to that promise. We need a full-scale public debate about nuclear energy. For some time my Party has been calling for a royal commission or a public inquiry into nuclear energy. In the absence of one, members of our caucus have been holding hearings across the country to examine the nuclear energy question.
Serious questions have been raised about nuclear energy. We do not know what to do with the wastes produced by it. The fact is that some of these wastes will last for thousands of years, and others for hundreds-they will all certainly last for generations. And here we are piling up more and more of them while we continue along with the development of nuclear energy. We continue to attempt to sell nuclear plants to other countries to keep the industry alive. Yet we still do not know what to do with the wastes from the process.
We need to re-examine the assumptions that underlie our commitment, the commitment of the Government to the development of nuclear energy. To do that the public must have all the scientific information and all the information with regard to the analyses of various policy options which are before Government. We need a process of education for our people because this question touches everyone.

February 6, 1987
Motions
I believe a royal commission would be a good means by which to do it, a royal commission which could visit, let us say, 80 per cent of the population to hear what they have to say. It could hear the opinions of local experts and citizens on nuclear energy. It is time for us as a nation to rethink one of the options facing us in the nuclear energy industry. Clearly the promise of cheap power is no longer realistic.
Do I see you indicating that I have four minutes remaining, Madam Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: What the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) is seeing is the Chair being rather anxious for him to make a link between the report, which is being debated and talks about nominations, and the nuclear industry. The Chair is rather anxious for the Hon. Member to be more relevant to the debate.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, do I understand that you are asking me to make a link between my comments about the nuclear energy industry and the report before the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Right.


Cyril Keeper: I understand the report concerns nominees to various boards and committees which oversee the Canadian nuclear energy industry. One of the nominees has been involved with the question of nuclear waste, Mr. Robert N. Farvolden. I will refer to part of his professional background. He was appointed to the technical advisory committee on disposal of high level reactive wastes of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. He was involved in designing the experiment which is ongoing in Manitoba.
There is a practice in the country of appointing people who are of one mind and are sold on the nuclear industry to boards and commissions which oversee that industry. That is not a very healthy way in which to approach nuclear power, because there are very serious questions about nuclear power, about our commitment to its development, and about whether we have the technology or capacity to deal with the negative fallout from nuclear power such as wastes.
These boards must have a more pluralistic membership and must represent not only the point of view of the industry but the public interest and differing perspectives, such as the perspectives of people who are now beginning to question the economic feasibility of nuclear energy, the threat to our survival of not having adequate technology in place for handling nuclear energy wastes, and the fact that we continue to develop, promote, and sell nuclear energy without solving the problem of what to do with the wastes.
Of course the latter question is vital to Manitoba because there is ongoing research there which could lead to it being used as a dumping ground for nuclear wastes. I am suggesting that the boards must be pluralistic and capable of debating the whole question of nuclear energy. That would be the first step.
The debate must be larger than that. It must involve all Canadian citizens. Clearly these boards and committees would not be adequate for that purpose. The debate should be carried on in the country, not just in the committees. In order to do that we must Find an appropriate mechanism, and I suggest that it would be a royal commission, something which my Party has suggested for some time now and something which the Prime Minister promised when he was running for office.
Serious questions have now been raised about the nuclear industry. It no longer lives up to its early promises. When nuclear energy was first popularized it was presented as almost free energy or a cheap solution to our ever-growing needs for energy. That image of nuclear energy has been torn apart. We now know that we have very serious problems when it comes to nuclear energy, not only the impact upon our environment and upon the existence of human life but upon our economy.
We once thought that nuclear energy would be cheap. We are finding that it is expensive. We need a debate around the basic assumptions which underlie the Government's commitment to the development of nuclear energy, to its continued use, and to its promotion. This should not only take place in committees appointed by the Government, but also in the country. An informed public will set a wise direction for the country when it comes to nuclear energy. If we continue to promote and develop nuclear energy in the face of these questions, we gamble with generations to come. We in Manitoba are particularly sensitive to that question at this point because the federal Government, through its agencies, is conducting research on the feasibility of storing such wastes in Manitoba.
When people find that a problem is to be dumped on them, obviously they rise up and raise questions. Those questions are being asked in Manitoba, and I want them to be asked in official forums across the country. Not only the committees which regulate the industry should be able to ask those questions; every Canadian citizen should become educated about nuclear energy. On the basis of an educated population we will be able to set a wise direction for the future of nuclear energy and for the future of our energy policies.
Obviously an outcome could be to moth-ball nuclear energy plants. We could say, "Wait a minute, we must find a way of supplying energy for our industries and households in a manner which is healthy for us in the long term".
I am calling for public education on the issue and for the Government to promote such education. The Government cannot make the decisions it must make without being assured that every Canadian, or just about every Canadian, is informed on the issue.
Other public health programs, such as the ones dealing with people who have heart attacks, come to mind. People can be taught very simple methods by which to revive a person until first aid is available. I have heard that in some American cities as many as one out of every four or five people has been taught techniques for dealing with heart attack victims. In that event
February 6, 1987

the whole environment within which this type of occurrence takes place is changed. It is possible to educate the mass public so that the mass public can change the whole environment of public opinion. I suggest that we need to do that with regard to nuclear energy.
A good First step would be for the Government to appoint watch-dogs to the committees which oversee the nuclear energy industry, people with solid scientific backgrounds who would question some of the basic assumptions underlying that industry. The next step would be to follow it up with a royal commission which could travel across the country. Then Canadians could have their say. Public debate could take place and the public would become more and more educated on the issue. We have started that in our own way with a small task force from our caucus.
I want to thank my colleagues for moving this motion today giving me the opportunity to raise questions in this House about the fact that while the Government continues to be committed to the development of nuclear energy and its promotions, it still has not solved the questions of waste. People in Manitoba do not want the province to be used as a dumping ground for nuclear waste.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Fennell:: I am sure the Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has a question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member says he is sure that I have a question. I am prepared to sit down and yield to the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) so he can pose his question. I will not take up his time.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I would like to hear the Member's question, Madam Speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He would like to hear my question now, Madam Speaker. I trust that the Member will have a question to pose. I thank him for yielding to me and I will pay attention to his question when he raises it.
Is the Hon. Member aware that in the Energy, Mines and Resources Estimates for non-commercial operations of AECL, which includes, as defined, the laboratories at Chalk River and Whiteshell in Manitoba-about which the Member is speaking-there is a budget of $255 million for those facilities? Is he aware also that in the Estimates, there are funds provided, and I quote and ask the Member to note the wording, "To demonstrate safe management of radioactive waste and other byproducts"? It is not to find safe management, not to study whether you can find safe management, but to demonstrate safe management. Isn't this the kind of mindset of the atomic industry? It is sort of spending our money to show that there is safe management. In other words, the atomic industry has made the decision already that there will
Motions
be safe management. Does the Hon. Member realize it needs to have "safe management" so the industry can build more reactors because it is "safe"? How does the Hon. Member feel about that going on in Manitoba with that kind of money? How does he feel about the fact that the Department of Energy in the United States is involved in Whiteshell and is paying some money to get involved in the research? The American Department of Energy is interested because it is interested in disposing of its plutonium which it uses for the nuclear bomb.


Mr. Baker:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you clarify just what are the parameters of the debate on this report? Indeed, appointments were made to the Atomic Energy Control Board, to the National Energy Board, to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, in fact, to a considerable number of boards. Am I to take it from your silence while discussions are under way in the House, Madam Speaker, that we are permitted to speak on anything during the debate for which the appointed are responsible? I would like that clarified before the Hon. Member answers the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair would be in a very difficult situation to wonder out loud whether the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) was or was not in the House when the Chair did, on quite a few occasions since the debate, remind Hon. Members to confine their remarks to the report brought to the attention of the House by the motion of the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Knowing the limitations of the report itself, the Chair has allowed some leeway to Hon. Members, but I have reminded each and every one on quite a few occasions since this morning to try to keep their comments to the report.
I will allow the Hon. Member to answer the question, as I did earlier with another Member from the same Party, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), but I ask the Members to be careful as some questions would automatically be out of order. Let us be careful. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


George Baker: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am simply raising the point because a new procedure this year is for standing committees to examine appointments of senior positions. This is new in this Chamber. I still do not understand what are the parameters of the debate. If you were to confine yourself to what the report of the committee was then you could only talk about the persons who are named and were found to be competent in the performance of their duties. I was wondering whether or not, if we are permitted to talk about their duties, what the hon. gentleman is talking about would make the foundation of a good debate which would be perfectly legitimate. I am wondering how narrow we are comfined in this debate. Is it just to the persons and their competence, or is it more or less wide open, leaving us to wait for the Chair to bring us to order?

February 6, 1987
Motions


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I am not a member of this particular committee but in the Government Operations Committee we have examined Order in Council appointments. In that committee if you are to examine a candidate for an Order in Council appointment effectively you are not only allowed to look at what his or her qualifications are, what he or she did in the past, because that tells you something about the person's fitness for the job, but you can also examine what the job is. You have to examine people's attitudes with regard to public policy which fall within the jurisdiction of where a person is to be working. If you are going to do an effective job of examining Order in Council appointments then you have to take, shall I say, a Liberal interpretation of the examination process rather than begin too narrow-minded about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair does want to thank the Hon. Member for his comments which I think reflect the kind of leniency which the Chair has given this debate so far. I think that all of the different aspects which the Member mentioned would be allowable in this debate, but I will continue to remind Hon. Members if they go completely outside of what is in the committee report and discuss the subject at large. I think this is the right way of allowing Members to address the problem, instead of interrupting constantly. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I will seek to link directly the question which my hon. friend asked with the report. My basic comment about these appointments is that these people are all of one point of view on the nuclear industry. They are gung-ho on it and they push the industry. They want the industry to expand. They do not take the kind of care that I would like to see as a Manitoban about nuclear waste. They make assumptions about the safety of the industry. That is the point my hon. friend was raising when he talked about the expenditures that have already been identified in the department. Those expenditures are there, but not to examine whether we presently have safe ways of disposing of nuclear waste or whether a particular method of disposing of nuclear waste, such as the shaft which is being dug in Manitoba, will be safe. It starts out with the assumption that that is a safe method, and that assumption is dangerous. The connection is this assumption that the nuclear industry is safe, as ensured by this group of people who all share the same point of view.
We need to have a more pluralistic approach to nuclear energy in Canada. We must bring into the debate people like Ursula Franklin who was nominated to this board. The Government withdrew that nomination after it discovered that this person would raise real, fundamental questions about the safety and economic viability of the nuclear energy industry.
We need a broader debate on nuclear energy rather than a more restricted approach. The problem up until now is that the debate has been framed in very narrow terms. We need to have
the broadest possible debate about nuclear energy, not only in committee and in the country through public inquiries but also in the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I am waiting to hear the question of the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) who indicated to me that he would put a question or at least take part in the debate. I am still waiting.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member knows very well that that is not a point of order.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, this is a subject in which I have been interested for a good many years, although I have not had much opportunity to study it intensively. As one of the many members of the public, I am very concerned with the quality of management the public receives through the Atomic Energy Control Board from the people who are appointed to it. I am concerned about the people who have been appointed now as reported to us today.
What is needed is a board that will represent the whole range of public interests. We are dealing here not only with one of the biggest industries in Canada in dollar terms but with one of the most controversial sources of energy in Canada and the world. As has been pointed out today and often before, there was the expectation that nuclear energy would be an unparalleled blessing. We were to grow roses in the Antarctic and provide cheap energy and therefore food for everyone in the world. It has not gone that way and the question is why. Many people believe that it is because, as far as Canada is concerned, the wrong people are put in charge of atomic energy.
The fact is that these appointments look like a continuation of the old boys' network. I say "boys" advisedly. I believe all the members appointed were of the male gender. The only one that I have heard of who was refused happened, whether by coincidence or not, to be of the female gender. This is an old boys' network and the pattern set by previous appointments is being continued. The complexion of the board will not be changed at all in that way.
There is a very urgent need for a balance reflecting public concerns on this board, perhaps more so than on other public boards because of the secrecy associated with it. It is very difficult to get answers to controversial questions from members of this board. This has been experienced by the public generally and by Members of Parliament. Therefore, it is even more important that there be people on the board operating within the rules of secrecy who, because of their past commitment and expressed concerns, we know will raise the questions that we believe have not been raised by past members of the board and, in almost all cases, will not be raised by the people who have been reported to us as being on the board today.
I would like to look at the background of some of these members. Mr. Robert Farvolden was appointed to the position of member, Atomic Energy Control Board. We are told that
February 6, 1987

he has a university background and was appointed to the technical advisory committee on disposal of high-level reactor wastes, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, in 1979 and served in that capacity until 1981. Prior to that, he was head of the groundwater division in the Research Council of Alberta. There is certainly something to be said for the need to have on the board a person who knows something about groundwater because that is one of the most critical questions in the treatment of atomic waste. However, this gentleman was on the board's technical advisory committee for two years and, in that sense, already has a close association with the board. To make him a member of the board now will not do very much in the way of bringing in any new range of thought or questioning.
I turn now to Mr. James Donnelly. There is a prize catch. Mr. Donnelly held executive positions with both General Electric Company of England and the English Electric Company and had experience in nuclear power plants and reactor and turbine generator fields from 1954 to 1974.
Let us go into a little more of the detail we were given. Mr. Donnelly was appointed President of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited on February 1, 1978, and that was a reappointment. He has frequently been in the news for taking very controversial positions regarding the sales of atomic reactors. His appointment is a continuation of the leadership that has brought a great deal of criticism on the board already.
In the past, this gentleman was connected with the nuclear power plant reactor and turbine generator fields in England. He was responsible for project management on the Hinkley Point and Sizewell nuclear power station projects in the United Kingdom. He later became general manager of power station projects for General Electric Corporation and then commercial director for turbine generators.
There is no question that Mr. Donnelly has experience in the field. The problem is that his experience is all on one side. He is on the side of making maximum profits out of nuclear energy. That is what his experience has been both in England and in Canada. I would then go on-


Mr. Edwards:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I understand it, the purpose of the reform of Parliament was for individual appointments to be referred to Standing Committees for assessment and review. With respect, I think the Hon. Member is in the wrong place to be carrying out that examination. I think it would be more appropriate if he were to reserve this kind of an expression of opinion for the session of the Standing Committee.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, perhaps I could comment on this as my Party's energy critic, apropos the previous statement made by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).
I think Your Honour is right in the way you have tried to define the parameters of debate in a new situation. We must remember that these are committees of this House which deal
Motions
with business that could be done in this House. However, we have delegated that business to the committee. The procedure is that the committee gives a report back to the House where it can be challenged. Most of these reports go right through, but sometimes they are challenged as my motion today is doing. That gives other Members who are busy with all sorts of other committees the opportunity to debate it in the House. We have the same power as the committee. It can be argued that we have even more power because this is the House. Therefore the Hon. Member has the right to put forward the kind of debate that would go on in committee. The debate in committee would be limiited a bit and Your Honour has limited this debate a bit. I cannot just go off and talk about my nuclear inquiry, as much as I would like to. However, we can deal with the nature of the appointments in relation to these boards, the kind of people and ideas and how they affect the nuclear industry.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I was not suggesting that the House of Commons should be limited in any way. Far from it. My point is parallel to the point that if a Bill is before committee it is not appropriate to debate the contents of that Bill. It is my understanding these appointments have been referred to the appropriate standing committee and thus I think it inappropriate to debate the merits of individual appointees at this time.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Point of order, Madam Speaker. It is my understanding that this report has been tabled in Parliament. Therefore it is not before the committee in the sense that Parliament would be restricted in dealing with it. I understand that is why the motion of the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was in order and also why this debate is taking place. I hope the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) does not believe it is out of order for us to discuss the report of the committee. I thought that is what the rule provided for.


Mr. Merrithew:: You just want to filibuster.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The committee has examined the qualifications of the appointees and reappointees. This report has been presented to the House. The motion presented by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is to debate the report of that committee. I must rule that the points touched on by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) were relevant to the report and what is being debated in the House now. The Hon. Member for Spadina has the floor.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I certainly hope I am able to continue within the rule of relevancy. For that purpose I wish to turn the Hon. Member's attention to Mr. Robert Despres, reappointed Chairman of the Board of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. He has some background which seems quite relevant to the concern of the public about atomic energy. The trouble is it is redundant in the sense he has more or less the

February 6, 1987
Motions
same background as so many others. For example, after his academic work he was Comptroller of Quebec Power Company. Of course he understands something about the energy industry but from the very specific point of view of those who want to maximize profits. He was subsequently manager of the Quebec regional branch of the Administration and Trust Company. He held a number of other positions, some relating to finance, and then was appointed Chairman of AECL in 1980. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of many companies, including Falconbridge Copper, Domtar and Norcen Energy. In other words, he is very much a specialist from the point of view of the resource industries operating their enterprises for maximum profit.
Let us move to Mr. Andrew Boyd Gilmour. The first thing mentioned in his background is that he was a transportation and supply analyst with Imperial Oil from 1954 to 1959. Then he was supervisor of statistics in the sales Department of TransCanada PipeLine from 1959 to 1967. He joined the National Energy Board in 1967 as a staff member of the economics branch. He continued there largely in economic matters. Again, he has been in the business of concentrating primarily on how to get the most money out of our energy resources. I am sure he does that in a credible and efficient way and that is why he was appointed. I am sure he also gives very little attention to any considerations which would hinder profit, things such as the rights and needs of labour, and public safety. I am sure in his previous work his attitude was that it is his job to make money for the company and someone else's job to look after safety. Those who have had experience with some of these oil and gas companies and their attitude towards the general public can verify that.
Then we come to Mr. Leonard Good. An economist, he joined Energy, Mines and Resources in 1978 as Director General of Special Studies Branch, economic and policy analysis. He continued in the economic field. He is not in private enterprise but he is in Government and very much in that sector which has had a prime responsibility for developing atomic energy since the early 1940s. He was very much involved in the world-wide dilemma over nuclear energy. Can it really be used for peaceful purposes without also promoting its use for war purposes? Or, is the peaceful use of atomic energy to light the houses and industries of Ontario a byproduct of the production of nuclear weapons in the U.S. and other countries, including the Soviet Union which shares some of the uranium produced in Canada? We do not really know what Mr. Good's view is on that. I am sorry it was not possible for me to attend the committee that day to question him, if in fact he was there for questioning. This is my only chance to publicly raise the issue.
Then we come to Mr. Arthur Kroeger, a very well-known person. Educated in the University of Alberta and in Oxford in philosophy, politics and economics, he has a broad education. He joined the Department of External Affairs. Most of his appointments were outside the country. One of them was to India. He was secretary to a trade delegation in Geneva
following which he was posted to New Delhi for two years. Those are some of the years I believe when India was developing its nuclear industry with Canadian assistance. That eventually resulted in violation of their formal undertakings, in the production of an atomic device. I do not know whether Mr. Kroeger was trying to prevent proliferation when he served in India or whether he was assisting in proliferation, even unconsciously. Later on he was appointed to Washington, from 1968 to 1971. We know Washington's interest in nuclear energy, primarily for producing about 30,000 nuclear weapons. The rest of the nuclear industry is being allowed to go to pot. It is a financial bust, but nuclear weapons charge right ahead. Then he was named Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Later on he was Deputy Minister of Transport and then Secretary to the Ministry of State for Economic Development. Mr. Kroeger, although he is associated primarily with Government and not private industry, nevertheless has been a key person over many years in that sector of the Government which has developed the present policy and direction of the atomic energy industry and the AECL in Canada.
This is not good enough. There is no one there representing labour. I do not know whether there were previous appointments. I am willing to be told, but I have not heard of a previous appointment of a labour representative to the board. Yet, atomic energy is not produced without workers. Why does a public board appoint only members of Government or executives of the private profit-making and employing industry? Those are the people who decide to build a plant and hire, or lay people off and shut the plant down. The workers suffer the consequences of those decisions, whether in matters of safety or sudden unemployment and a ghost town. Why is the board allowed to be so lopsided? Among these appointments there are only men and only executives of private companies or the Government which has been working in this matter primarily with private companies over the years. Why do we seek only people who have been active for gain in the resource industries rather than people from other sectors to provide balance? Why are there no critics of the nuclear energy industry? Why not Ursula Franklin?
I know Ursula Franklin. She is very active and has strong academic credentials, and strong credentials as a responsible citizen and public figure in Canada, particularly in the City of Toronto. Why was she so suddenly dismissed after receiving a letter from the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources saying how delighted she was to confirm her appointment? What happened to that delight?
This is far too one-sided. These appointments reflect a continuation of the old line we have heard for years. People with academic backgrounds are appointed only if they are on the side of the equation interested in making money out of Canada's resources. People with government background who have been appointed are primarily concerned with making
February 6, 1987

money or developing energy resources, particularly atomic resources.
I believe that we must take a fresh look at these appointments in committee. It would be most useful to re-examine these appointments or, at least, for the committee to propose guidelines to Parliament to ensure that any future appointments would be made with the aim of redressing the extreme imbalance which we now have as a result of these six appointments.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, my colleague has just commented on the nature of the appointments to the board. The appointments were all of people who are sympathetic to the nuclear industry and have been involved in that industry. He mentioned the withdrawal of the appointment of Ursula Franklin. Ursula Franklin was independent of that industry but has a scientific and technical background. Could my friend comment on the advantages which the Government would have obtained had it followed through with the appointment of Ursula Franklin? What advantage could she have brought to the board which the existing appointees, including Mr. Farvolden, the substitute appointee for Ursula Franklin, could not?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, there are three areas in which Ursula Franklin would have been a useful addition to the board. As indicated in her profile in The Canadian Encyclopedia, she is a physicist and educator born at Munich, Germany. She is a specialist in the structure of metals and alloys. In other words, she is a scientist in her own right. She pioneered the development of archaeometry, which applies the modern techniques of materials analysis to archaeology. She was educated at the Technical University of Berlin and did postdoctoral studies at the Universiy of Toronto. She has helped to develop science policy through the Science Council of Canada and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. That is a good profile. I have not read it all. When I was in high school it was jokingly said that girls cannot do physics. Perhaps the problem was that Ursula Franklin does physics too well. Perhaps some people are afraid of having her show them up.
That brings me to my second point. Ursula Franklin also happens to be a member of the Society of Friends. She is a Quaker, a very strong campaigner for peace, as are many other people in this country, including a number of retired officers of Canada's Armed Forces. Campaigning for peace does not mean that she is absolutely opposed to the use of nuclear energy or that she would be in any way irresponsible in her performance on the board. However, she would raise questions about safety and she would be very difficult to flim-flam because of her scientific competence. She would raise questions about what is being done with the waste material which is sent to the United States and is usable for atomic weapons, notwithstanding Canada's boast of being a non-nuclear nation. I wish that she were on the board to raise those questions, and so do thousands of other Canadians.
Motions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I hope Canadians are not confused about the Atomic Energy Control Board, the regulatory body which overseas the nuclear industry, and Atomic Energy Canada Limited, which does development of the Candu reactor and so on. Therefore, it would be appropriate to have a background in engineering if you are appointed to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. One would expect the president to be an engineer. We can see that. However, in a regulatory body such as the Atomic Energy Control Board we need people who do not have blinkers on.
Although Dr. Farvolden has a competent academic background, the fact is that from 1979 to 1981 he was appointed by Atomic Energy of Canada as a technical adviser to the committee on the disposal of high-level reactor wastes. I know the appointees were nominated by Canadian scientific groups, but the fact is that the man is closely associated with atomic energy research. Now he is to be a regulator. Would the Hon. Member not agree that the atomic energy industry in Canada is not really regulated at all because the regulators are all biased?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I would have no objection to Dr. Farvolden being on the board, even though he had served with Atomic Energy of Canada, if he were balanced by people of a different point of view. I think it makes sense to have the producers of the atomic material represented. I am not concerned about a producer who wants someone with whom he has worked on the Board. The problem is that they all support one side, whether it is the producer, Atomic Energy of Canada or the Atomic Energy Control Board, the so called regulator. In other words, we are putting the fox in charge of the chickens by asking the same people who want a free hand to be judge in their own cause. That is my objection to this list of appointments.


Cyril Keeper: During the Hon. Member's speech he mentioned Dr. Ursula Franklin and not only pointed out her scientific qualifications but the fact that she is a Quaker. I understood that to mean that the regulation of the nuclear industry not only involves scientific and economic questions but moral and spiritual questions. Given the Hon. Member's professional background, would he care to elaborate on that?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that there are, in fact, not only members of churches but members of the clergy of some churches engaged in the atomic industry in Canada and the United States. Ever since the question was raised over 40 years ago with the bombing of Hiroshima, the churches have been acutely concerned about the impact of the nuclear industry on us. They have debated whether God has given humankind the power to destroy not only ourselves but all life. That question is still being hotly searched among all the major denominations. I believe it would be very valuable to have on the board a representative of a group which, for 300 years, has endured persecution for the sake of a strong stand for peace.

February 6, 1987
Motions


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A Liberal dares to speak up.


George Baker: Madam
Speaker, the Hon. Member says that a Liberal dares to speak in the debate. The reason I decided to say a few words is that this is a typical New Democratic Party flip-flop. Let us consider the motion the Hon. Member has introduced in the House today. He asks that the report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, presented to the House on Wednesday, November 5, 1986, be concurred in. What does concurrence mean? It means to agree with the report that was presented to the House on Wednesday, November 5, 1986.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to remind my hon. friend that under the rules one must move concurrence in order for a report to be debated. We cannot move non-concurrence. We do not at all like moving concurrence.


George Baker: Now we are getting to the point. They even admit that they are asking the House to concur in something with which they do not even agree. They are asking us to concur with the committee which has examined the qualifications of the appointees and reappointees and finds them competent to perform their duties in their posts. I wish to disagree with the New Democratic Member who moved the motion. I do not understand how the New Democratic Party can say that every one of these people is competent in the positions to which they have been appointed.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I enjoy the eloquence and rhetoric of my colleague but I must say that it stretches even my patience when he attempts to call black white or white black. The Hon. Member clearly knows our position with regard to these appointments. I wish he would respect that awareness.


George Baker: That is not a point of order, Madam Speaker. Now that the NDP has admitted that it does not really believe in the motion it has moved, I will continue to say a few words about this issue.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I also enjoy listening to my hon. colleague because he always speaks with deep wisdom and forethought, not to mention the great entertainment aspect. However, the Hon. Member seems to be confused about this motion. Since you are an expert on the House rules, would you clarify that a motion of concurrence in the House is really a motion of non-concurrence?


George Baker: Madam Speaker, that too is not a point of order. I find it amusing to see Members stand up and say that I do not know too much about the rules or procedures. I have been here longer than they. In fact, I am perhaps the only Member in the House who is a former Chief Law Clerk in a provincial legislature.


An Hon. Member:: Which one?


George Baker: It is the legislature in which many decisions had to be made on rules of order. It is the legislature in which many very demonstrative people performed. It is the Newfoundland Legislature.
Of course, there is a rule here that the government benches and opposition benches must be separated by two sword lengths. We had to take that rule literally in the Newfoundland Legislature.
The New Democrats have just pointed out that they moved a motion to concur in the committee report but did not agree with it. They have moved a motion to concur in the competence of these people who they do not really believe are competent at all. I raise this matter because it points out that many of the recent rule changes in the House are very confusing. The examination of these appointees is very confusing to me, and I am sure to any impartial observer. Simply because someone has performed a particular function in a company in India or somewhere else does not mean that the person agrees with the company's philosophy today. In fact, a person's experience in that field may make him better qualified to be in his present position, which may be almost the opposite of what he was doing before. I do not believe it is valid for those Hon. Members to use a person's previous function prior to being appointed by Order in Council as a reason to suggest that perhaps the person is not qualified for the job.
As far as competence is concerned, it has been my experience that these people can be very competent but have very little knowledge. I know most of these appointees as a result of my experience in the House. They are very competent, but all of them told me in a standing committee, at one time or another, that the Come-By-Chance oil refinery would never reopen. They said that Hibernia would be on stream by 1982.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have had some concern expressed today about the rule of relevance. I really do not understand what the Come-By-Chance refinery has to do with these apointments. I always enjoy the words of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). I do not always learn very much, but that is all right, I always enjoy listening to him.
I really do not want to discourage the Hon. Member from continuing with his entertainment. However, I do feel that since he himself expressed some concern about the appropriateness of the motion, and since he is a self-confessed expert on the rules of order, it would be appropriate for him to set an example of relevance.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), I am sure, will agree that the Chair showed a lot of leniency towards the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) when he first started
February 6, 1987

with his motion. The Chair feels confident that, given a chance, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate will find a link.


George Baker: My time is almost up, Madam Speaker. I listened to the Hon. Members from the New Democratic Party talk about nuclear waste and this sort of thing, and I was trying to figure out what that had to do with the motion. The only connection I could see was that there was mention of the appointment of the Chairman of the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and an appointment to the Atomic Energy Control Board. Then I looked down through the list of other people and saw the Deputy Minister and the Associate Deputy Minister of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I came to the conclusion that if it were relevant to talk about the duties of someone in Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. or the Atomic Energy Control Board, then it would be relevant to talk about anything at all under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources because we were appointing the Deputy Minister who is the most important person in that Department. That is why it is perfectly relevant for me to point out that these people who represent the Government of Canada and who appear before standing committees, really run the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources just as much as the politicians. The Minister could have some major policy change usually decided outside this Chamber either through provincial-federal relations or an election promise, but beyond that, the people who run the Department are the Deputy Ministers, the Associate Deputy Ministers and those few people at the top. One of these days we will have a Government, very shortly, I think, which will actually run the Departments. Ministers will actually run their Departments.
What amazes me is the record of some of these very competent people. I seek their opinions on a regular basis on the telephone. I seek their opinion as it relates to the prices of gasoline and oil, trying to understand why the Americans pay less for gasoline than we do in Canada. I try to understand why our oil is refined in refineries in Chicago somewhere, which pay less for it than do our refineries in Canada, and which sell it cheaper in the United States. One of the key issues in the Bill on transportation which is now before the House is that the American truckers-


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are not talking about a Canadian board regulating a Canadian industry. I know that at one time Newfoundland was not part of Canada, but the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate should understand the difference between Canada and the United States. There will be another occasion to talk about the transportation industry and perhaps another occasion to talk about the American oil industry. The Hon. Member should stick to the subject we have at hand today.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) had just seen a nonverbal sign from the Chair begging him to stay closer to the point being discussed today.
Motions


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Thank you, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The point of the Hon. Member for Spadina is well taken.


George Baker: We should really give an honorary appointment to the hon. gentleman for being the deputy to the deputy to the Deputy Speaker in the House.
It is difficult to separate the United States from Canada these days as far as the present Government is concerned. As I was saying, quite often we telephone these people who have received their appointments from the Government. It seems somewhat of a farce for us to be talking about their appointments in the House, or for a committee to be talking about their appointments. We cannot stop the appointments. We cannot recommend that these people not be appointed, because they are appointed. We cannot recommend that their salaries be cut, because their salaries are set by Order-in-Council. We cannot recommend that someone else take their place, because they are already under contract.
So what option does the committee have? I do not know. Here I correct the hon. gentleman from the New Democratic Party, who is a newcomer to the House of Commons, in relative terms, that it is not the only option to the committee to report that everyone was competent. I am sure that if one sought a ruling, one would come up with a ruling to this effect, if one reads Erskine May or Beauchesne. What that Party could do, and I am sure the Chair would agree, is possibly to move a motion that the committee was unable to come to a determination of the competence of the people referred to the committee. If someone in the committee were to move such a motion, that motion would be perfectly acceptable in any standing committee when these appointments were under consideration. I do not think it has ever been tried. However, I pass this thought along to the New Democratic Party. Instead of coming into this Chamber and saying: "We want you to concur with something we do not believe in"-I am being helpful to those Hon. Members, some of them are only new to the Chamber-there is another way around it. The New Democratic Party could move a motion that the committee does not have enough information to come to a conclusion that these people are competent. The NDP could say that it cannot recommend these appointments to the Government. Again, that sounds sort of crazy because they have already been appointed but, I suppose, in greater honesty in the committees, one could say: "Well, we cannot really recommend that these people are competent for the appointments because we do not have sufficient information". I am sure that would be within the rules of the standing committee.
I see that my time is up, Madam Speaker. I would be pleased to answer any questions from the New Democratic Party, if they wish to put them.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have just one short comment. I am amazed that the Hon. Member can spend 20

February 6, 1987
Motions
minutes speaking about one word "concurrence" or "concurs". I am glad we did not give him a sentence or a paragraph.
The Hon. Member said that the New Democratic Party flip-flopped on the issue. While we have the chance to ask a Liberal about his Party's position, I wish to ask him if he is aware of the results of a poll that the Gallup people conducted, people whom politicians follow fairly slavishly. The question asked was the following: "At present, very little of the total electricity used in Canada comes from nuclear power generation. What do you think should happen?" The people asked the question could choose one of the following responses. They were: "Should increase"; "Should not develop more"; "Should stop"; and "Don't know". I would like to know the position of the Hon. Member who represents the Liberal Party of Canada. I ask him the question because I have heard many people say that the Liberals do not have any policies. Should we increase nuclear power? Should we not develop more, or should we stop? Or does the Hon. Member not know? Into which category does the Liberal Party fall?


Some Hon. Members:: He doesn't know.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman asks us to consider the nuclear power plants in Canada. He asks us to look back to consider where the money to build them came from. He will discover that most of the government contributions were federal government contributions. There is no doubt about that. That was the encouragement the federal Government provided to the industry. No matter what sector of the energy industry we consider there has always been cash to encourage someone to do something, whether it be to explore for oil or gas or to put up a nuclear power plant if they so wished. But there was a choice. If one did not want to go with a nuclear power plant then one could go with hydroelectric power.
In the case of Newfoundland what we did, instead of constructing nuclear power plants, was to put the money toward hydroelectric power. I say "we"; it was a decision taken by a Progressive Conservative Government of about 10 years ago. Some provinces took money to put toward nuclear power plants. What I wish to emphasize is that the federal Government always allowed a choice. So when looking at the policy of the Liberal Party one must look to what happened in the past to see that there were choices. Who made the decisions? The provincial Governments made the decisions within their own jurisdictions.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Is that "Don't know" or what?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has belittled the New Democratic Party, and quite unfairly, by saying that we should not be raising the question of who is appointed to the Atomic Energy Control Board because the appointments have already been made. I wish to ask him his personal views on this matter.
When I make my remarks later in the debate I will give more details.
Does the Hon. Member really believe we should not be questioning the fact that Dr. Franklin, who is an Officer of the Order of Canada and a renowned physicist in the field of energy, was first appointed only to have her appointment withdrawn? We strongly suspect that there was a connection between the fact that she is known to oppose construction of the Darlington nuclear power plant in Ontario and other controversial matters and her not liking the secrecy of the commission hearings. She would like to see open hearings under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Control Act. Is the Hon. Member saying that we are wrong to question the Government's withdrawal of such a person, presumably because it does not agree with her position? I think it is essential to have a person with this background on the board to give it balance.
Further, does the Hon. Member not think that there should be a woman on this commission? I understand that not one of the other appointees is a woman. I think that women by and large give a slightly different view to the whole question of nuclear power and matters concerning atomic energy because they are concerned about reproduction and their children.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I am sure that everyone respects Dr. Franklin. The only problem I see is that her name was not mentioned in the list of appointments. Therefore, it is out of order to even bring up the subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: I agree with the Hon. Member when she says that it would be nice to see more women appointed to these positions. I firmly believe-and perhaps I should not go on on this subject-that the most capable people should be appointed. I am sure that whoever made the appointments about which we are talking here today took that into consideration. I would certainly like to see more women appointed to these boards. I have found that, in dealing with some of the top civil servants who are women, they appear to be more straightforward in terms of voicing their opinions and so on. So I have to agree with the Hon. Member in that regard.
The reason I say we should not be discussing it is because we cannot change it. Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, voting on a motion which states that we find these people competent to be appointed? The fact is they have already been appointed. Perhaps the question should be whether or not they were competent enough to be appointed. Perhaps that should be taken into account in the wording of the motion. We cannot change the fact that they have been appointed. So why would this matter be referred to the standing committee? In the beginning the intent was to ensure that there were not political appointments.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. We are examining appointments that have been made by the Conservative Government, appointments of


February 6, 1987

people who have come directly out of the nuclear industry. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), mentioned Dr. Ursula Franklin, a scientist who is independent of the industry. If a Liberal Government were in office-and this is hypothetical-what sort of appointments would it make? Would the Liberals be prepared, as they were not in the past, to appoint people to this type of commission who would question the basic assumptions of the industry? Would they appoint people who would play watch-dog roles for the Canadian public? Would they redefine the whole question of secrecy as it concerns this board? What does the Hon. Member think a Liberal Government would do that would be any different from what the Conservative Government is doing today or from what the Liberals did in the past?


George Baker: Madam Speaker, we have always appointed capable people to positions. Today, we hear a lot of doubt expressed across the country concerning political appointments. It seems that every appointment being made by the Government these days is political. I would like to assure the hon. gentleman that it will not be long now before the present Government will be replaced with a Liberal Government. At that time we will ensure that the people who are appointed are appointed on the basis of their qualifications and their dedication to the people of Canada.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I had no intention of speaking on this subject today. However, I have learned a great deal since I was asked to participate in the debate, many things about which I had not really thought.
We have been talking about the whole way of appointing people to the Atomic Energy Control board and the way in which the appointment of Dr. Ursula Franklin was rescinded. I should like to review the process which was apparently involved in the appointment of and in the withdrawal of the appointment of Dr. Franklin. She was appointed to the board by the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is now the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). She is an Officer of the Order of Canada and a renowned physicist. She is also known to have been opposed to the construction of the Darlington Nuclear Power Plant. I must confess that I learned some things about that project this afternoon which I will share with the House later. Dr. Franklin wants to revamp the secrecy provisions of the Atomic Energy Control Act-the meat of the motivations of the Government and the very strange and questionable process related to the appointment.
I believe Dr. Franklin's appointment was rescinded last spring. The Leader of my Party, as well as one of my hon. colleagues, raised questions about the matter in Question Period and in the Adjournment Debate. During Question Period the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated that Dr. Franklin had refused the appointment because she could not agree to the secrecy provisions of the Atomic Energy Control Act. The correspondence to which I will refer in a minute will show that that indeed is not true.
Motions
The Government and Cabinet had decided to yank her appointment even before she wrote a letter saying that she had some concerns about secrecy provisions. Furthermore, although she said she had some concerns-and I would hope this is why she was considered for an appointment to the board-she did not refuse to take the oath of secrecy or to serve as a member. She questioned the process and the inappropriate protocol in terms of how she was approached.
The real story is that as soon as Cabinet learned that Dr. Franklin had a certain position on nuclear energy, it decided to remove her from the board after approaching her with an appointment.
A new appointment was made a year and a half after her appointment was withdrawn and after the Minister for International Trade left her former portfolio as Minister of Energy. The position was vacant during that period of time.
We must ask a number of questions. Why did Cabinet veto Dr. Franklin's appointment? We must question the inappropriate approach of the then Minister. However, putting that aside, why did Cabinet veto her appointment? Was there indeed some lobbying behind the scenes by the nuclear power industry? Undoubtedly the industry would present a different position and had a vested interest which would not be the same interest as that of Dr. Franklin.
I should like to document what happened. On April 15, 1985, a letter was sent to Dr. Franklin by the then Minister appointing her to the AECB. On April 22, 1985, Dr. Franklin received a letter from the Minister. On that same day Dr. Franklin posted a letter of response, to which I should like to refer, stating that she would like clarification of the secrecy provisions of the AECB and of the relationship of the board to the public. She did not refuse acceptance of the position in that letter.
On April 23, 1985, Dr. Franklin was informed by telephone by the Minister's office that the appointment was a mistake. What kind of stupid public relations is that, quite apart from the question of qualifications. I cannot believe that the Minister handled an important matter in that way. Dr. Franklin was informed of that on April 23 before the Minister's office actually received her letter.
On May 29, 1985, a letter was sent by the Minister to Dr. Franklin informing her that her appointment to the board by letter was "sent in error".
It was clearly between April 15 and April 23 that Cabinet vetoed the appointment of Dr. Franklin and, as the House will recall, that is when the Minister was away in China. Some hanky-panky was going on. One must be concerned that the Government does not want an appointee on that board with views which question the nuclear energy program or indeed might question the way in which AECB operates. It would be good to know why the Government vetoed the appointment.
The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) reviewed Dr. Ursula Franklin's excellent credentials as a physicist and as an

February 6, 1987
Motions
educator. She helped develop the science policy through the Science Council of Canada and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. She has done many other things. She has been a tireless advocate for Science for Peace and has received worldwide recognition. Indeed these are all to her credit as a scientist and a human being. I am also proud of the fact that she is a woman.
I would have thought that the Government would have welcomed her to the Atomic Energy Control board. Surely we should have an advocate of caution and control in that respect.
As I mentioned earlier, Dr. Franklin is opposed, or certainly questions very strongly, the gigantic nuclear plant in Darlington, Ontario. I learned a lot more about the plant by reading an article which appeared in a December edition of Saturday Night last year. The article indicated that Ontario Hydro continued to build a gigantic nuclear plant at Darlington despite Chernobyl and all the tragedies, fears, and anxieties created by that incident; despite the election of the Liberal Government in Ontario which opposed it; and despite the fact that this power plant might be quite unnecessary. Evidence shows that there is not enough demand for the power from that plant.
I would think, having read the article, that some of our western Members should be a bit concerned. I am not trying to stimulate competition between our regions, but we should be sensible in our planning. Apparently the Darlington plant is the largest construction project of a nuclear generating station now under way in North America. There was-and it is still the case-a striking lack of construction in Alberta at the time the plant was first begun. The article implied that there was a connection, and that nuclear plants around the world have displaced oil-fired plants. I am sure the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) could tell us more about that.
It seems that Ontario now thrives with the help of nuclear energy and it took control of its economy away from the "shieks" of Alberta and Arabia, according to the article. There have been massive shifts in prosperity from western Canada to eastern Canada. That has been a major factor, and the article pointed out that it could not occur without certain costs and risks. They also point out that it is strange that this very massive plant was developed during the period of the Liberal administration despite their opposition prior to being elected. It has also gone ahead despite the terrible disaster last April at Chernobyl and the fact that the power from this plant may not be needed in the future. That is just one example of the questioning raised by Dr. Franklin. You would think that that view should be represented on the AEC Board.
It is very important that there be women on this board. There should be a quality and parity on all boards. I have been corrected that there is another woman on the AECB, Dr. Sylvia Fedoruk, of whom I was not aware. Why is the presence of women on the board important? There are many consumers,
Madam Speaker. I tend to feel that women often tune in more to the consumer side of things, particularly the family situation. Mothers are concerned about the next generation and what will lie ahead.
I think of an issue about which I have had many representations through correspondence and calls from people in my riding and from across Canada-I suspect other Members of Parliament have as well-namely, the question of food irradiation. We know that food irradiation is related to nuclear power so it is related to this debate. There are many many questions being raised about this process which is being pushed very agressively by the industry. It is a money saving process for the industry to preserve food in this way. Even more serious is the fact that this process is being approved by the Government. It seems quite ready to allow the irradiation of food products despite the fact that there is a real concern across Canada on the part of consumers and despite the fact that the Government has not called for any consultation on it. There has been no study of the health effects of irradiation. The Government has also not considered things like having warning labels on such products. We feel very strongly that this also is a consumer issue which should be aired. We are concerned that the industry is stepping up the production of irradiated food products and we feel it should be investigated.
There are many other questions that consumers would raise. I think people like Dr. Franklin are the ones to raise these questions. It is not enough for scientists to speak in technical terms to each other. They have to be able to reassure Canadians about what is being done today in the whole nuclear energy field and to be sure that it will be in the interests of future Canadians, not to mention our environment, the protection of workers and the protection of consumers generally.
Consumers want to have general information. For example, where is nuclear waste being stored now? Most of us are vague and worried about that. Consumers want to know what should be done about future nuclear waste. They want to know how important nuclear energy is. We hear debates on this question. Is it essential to go to nuclear energy in the future? We in our Party do not think so, but the Government apparently does. It actively supports the use of nuclear energy. Consumers want to know what the dangers are, not only from waste, but what are the dangers to workers in the field who must be very concerned about hazards. I, personally, and I am sure many of my constituents want to know what Canada is doing to Third World countries by exporting nuclear energy by sending some of these hazards overseas without having all these questions answered.
We feel that appointments to this board should be questioned very seriously and, in particular, we have great concern that Dr. Ursula Franklin's name was withdrawn after having been considered for this job. We feel strongly that her kind of expertise and attitude is needed.
February 6, 1987


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the Hon. Member flowing out of her remarks. First, with respect to the appointment or non-appointment of Dr. Franklin, I do not claim to be an expert or to have any real knowledge as to what took place concerning that appointment, but the Member indicated that she felt that perhaps the Cabinet had vetoed the appointment of Dr. Franklin. The Member seemed to imply that there was something wrong in the Cabinet vetoeing an appointment on the basis of perhaps a different philosophy from that of the Government. I know that the Member from Vancouver takes part in the parliamentary review process of appointments to boards and agencies which has been set up for the first time in any parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and I gather that, because she does take part, she thinks there is some merit in having a review process of that sort. As I understand the process, the committee would look at the qualifications of people who are appointed, the philosophy of those people, their positions on the issues, and I would assume that perhaps the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) would have felt that the committee, after reviewing all those things, might be entitled to have veto power over appointments. I gather from her comments that she feels the Cabinet should not have veto power when it disagrees with the philosophy. I gather what the Hon. Member is saying is that she would be opposed to a review committee having veto power over such appointments. I would like her comments on that.
Second, the Member indicated that there should be all points of views reflected on a committee board, all different philosophies and approaches. I would be interested to know, if she were appointing a committee or the board, whether she would make sure that every kind of point of view and philosophy were demonstrated or whether she would feel that everyone should have the philosophy and the position of the New Democratic Party. Particularly with respect to this board, would she feel comfortable having the board at least 50 per cent representative of the nuclear industry?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, first, regarding the question about the veto power of the Cabinet, I think the Hon. Member missed the point. I would be glad to show him correspondence that documents the points I raised earlier. The reason we objected was that Cabinet actually gave a false reason. The Prime Minister himself gave a false reason for withdrawing the appointment of Dr. Franklin. Dr. Franklin said very clearly that she would not take the secrecy oath, and the Prime Minister said that that was the reason for the withdrawal. It was a matter of accuracy, and I would think, as a Member from the Toronto region, that my colleague would be looking into that a bit more.
If we formed the Government, of course we would appoint represenative committees. I have done so in my riding. The local advisory council includes representatives from business, labour, community groups and, I am sure, different political
Motions
Parties. I think any Government would be extremely foolish if it did not have sound representation and affirmative action.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have a short comment to make. I think the Hon. Member, who is a good Member, should really look into that appointment. That woman from Toronto was dealt with very poorly-


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding of the provisions in the rules with respect to questions and comments that they are supposed to be directed toward the Speaker, not toward someone who has made a comment or asked a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is confident that the Hon. Member will ask his questions through the Chair.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will take that point, Madam Speaker, since it was more like a heckle. We in the NDP have put up a number of speakers on this particular matter. As you know, Madam Speaker, many of us are assigned different areas for which we are critics, and I would like to comment on the speech of my friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). She is responsible for child care and social policy while I am responsible for energy.
In the beginning of her speech, the Hon. Member said that she has learned a lot today. I simply want to say to her that that was one of the best speeches I have ever heard in this House. I say that sincerely. The Hon. Member analysed this matter so thoroughly and honestly that I wish Hon. Members opposite would think about her remarks and respond to them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I know some Hon. Members think this is funny, but we in the NDP believe that the nuclear industry is a serious matter. As well, we feel that the way this woman from Toronto was treated is a serious matter. That is why we do not apologize at all for taking up the time of the House this afternoon to put up speakers through an opportunity given to us to debate the appointments of these men who are all apologists of the atomic industry in which there is no fairness or openness. Some day Canadians will come to that conclusion and will force the Government to open up the process.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member could elaborate on her feelings on the process of committees examining Order in Council appointments and whether or not she thinks it is a worth-while endeavour on the part of the Government. Is it a good exercise? Does she think that this is the proper mechanism for examining appointments made by Order in Council?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I must say that I have not really been involved in this process too much. I was involved in one committee, the Secretary of State Committee, which dealt with this process. By and large, our concern is that we want to be able to review appointments, but there is not much point in

February 6, 1987
Order Paper Questions
simply reviewing them if there is no way of implementing the conclusions of that review. I would think that the committee should have a fairly strong impact on these appointments and should be able to question them in some instances, as indicated by the Hon. Member earlier.
Motion (Mr. Waddell) agreed to.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West) that Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extraprovincial undertakings, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) had one minute remaining in his speech and then there will be a few minutes for questions and comments. Does the Hon. Member for Spadina wish to continue?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Yes, Madam Speaker. With my remaining minute, I simply want to summarize the main points I was making yesterday. This Bill has not been examined sufficiently. There are all kinds of questions which could be raised by supporters or opponents of the Bill and by supporters or opponents of different interests in the trucking industry and the transportation industry generally. All kinds of questions have been raised but not answered. It is very important that this Bill not pass second reading at this time but that it be returned to the standing committee so that the committee may travel across Canada to hear these different points of view.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) and I discussed what might be said during this question period about four hours ago and I would like to invite his comments on my remarks. The Hon. Member indicated that jobs would be lost because of this Bill. My understanding is that the U.S. Bureau of Labour statistics show that between 1980 and 1985, U.S. trucking employment
increased 22 per cent and wage levels of U.S. trucking employees were 40 per cent higher than average private sector employees despite the U.S. recession in that period.
I would remind the Hon. Member that more than one million of our fellow citizens work in industries that rely heavily on transportation. The people in those businesses in every region of Canada have clearly told us that they need a more efficient and competitive transportation system in order to stay in business and to compete at home and abroad. As those businesses become more competitive, they create more jobs for men and women in Canada.
I would ask the Hon. Member to comment on that and, judging from his speech, I would ask him if he is only interested in protecting existing jobs in the trucking industry. I suggest to him that that policy is doomed to failure. Those jobs will slowly be lost if our resource producers and manufacturers lose markets because of the continuing uncompetitive nature of the Canadian trucking industry. We would then have the worst of all possible worlds. We would lose jobs in the producing industries and in the trucking industry because the producers would ship fewer and fewer goods.
The Hon. Member indicated that Canadian truckers cannot use American roads. I would ask him why he said that and remind him that some 1,000 Canadian carriers now hold licences to operate in the United States. In fact, Canadian truckers have increased their share of the total transborder market by between 8 per cent and 12 per cent between 1980 and 1984, 1984 being the last year for which I have figures. In short, Canadian truckers are already competing very effectively on American roads. How can the Hon. Member say that we will not operate there?
The point raised by the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) was that in effect, with the stroke of a pen, we could be denied access to interborder traffic.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. It is with deep regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member. I cannot allow the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) the right to reply.
It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


David Kilgour: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Because I used up the Hon. Member's time I wonder if, by unanimous consent, we might give him two or three minutes in which to reply?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do not have unanimous consent and I have already called the next order of business.
February 6, 1987



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from December 16, 1986, consideration of the motion of Mr. Taylor that, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of introducing the appropriate measures to abolish the Senate and create a new Senate composed of Senators elected by the people of Canada on the basis of equal representation for each province and territory, and to initiate discussions to that end with provincial and territorial Governments at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, the motion before the House today seeks the abolition of the Senate and the creation of an elected Chamber where the provinces would have equal representation. It is not the first time a motion of this kind has been before the House of Commons, and the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is probably aware that a number of interesting proposals have been submitted over the years to make the Canadian Senate more effective and more representative.
Madam Speaker, this afternoon I would like to go over a few of these proposals, starting with the 1972 report of this Parliament's Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada. The Committee suggested that the Governor General in Council should continue to appoint half the senators according to the existing proceedure and the other half from a list of candidates submitted by the provinces. The Senate would have 130 seats, distributed so as to reflect the relative importance of the various regions. Quebec and Ontario would each keep their respective twenty-four seats. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would have ten representatives, Prince Edward Island would have four, Newfoundland would have six and the remaining provinces would have twelve each. Finally, the territories would have two senators each.
In 1978, the Government of British Columbia suggested that the Senate's principal role should be to make the regions and the provinces participate in the institutional decisionmaking process. To that end, the Government proposed that appointing senators be left to the provinces and that the resulting delegations be each headed by a provincial Minister. The five regions would each send an equal number of representatives to a Senate that would consist of sixty members.
In 1978, Madam Speaker, it seems the concept of abolishing the Senate and replacing it with a House of the Provinces was very popular. The Ontario Select Committee on Constitutional Reform of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, the Canada West Foundation and the Progressive Conservative Party made proposals to that effect.
The Ontario Select Committee proposed that senators should be appointed by the provincial governments and
The Senate
represent those governments. Potential candidates could include provincial Members, Ministers and the Premier of each province. Representatives of the federal Government could take part in the proceedings of the House of the Provinces by tabling Bills and intervening in the debate on those Bills, but they would not have the right to vote.
The Canada West Foundation proposed that the House of Provinces be made up of provincial and territorial delegations authorized to cast a single weighted vote; the provincial delegations would include provincial Ministers, MLAs and civil servants. In addition, all provincial premiers would be ex officio members of the House of Provinces, each in turn acting as president. For its part the Progressive Conservative Party recommended that the majority of members be delegated by the provincial Governments, the others appointed by the federal Government.
In its 1978 report entitled "Towards a New Canada", the Canadian Bar Association recommended that the Upper House be reformed so as to represent regional interests. The CBA recommended that the members of this House be appointed for specific terms by the provincial Governments, and the federal Government would designate the representatives without voting rights.
In 1979, Madam Speaker, the Task Force on Canadian Unity co-chaired by Messrs. Pepin and Robarts proposed that the second House be known as the Council of the Federation, made up of provincial delegates speaking and acting on behalf of the provincial Governments. The Task Force recommended that a Minister head each delegation, and that federal Ministers be allowed to take part in the debates, introduce and defend their Government's legislative measures before the Council of the Federation, but that they not be allowed to vote. As to the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, in 1979 they recommended the creation of a House of the Federation whose members would be elected.
In its report on certain aspects of the Canadian Constitution-the Goldenberg-Lamontagne	report-the	Senate
Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended that senators continue to be appointed by the federal Government, but that half of them be selected from a list submitted by the provincial or territorial Governments. The main criteria would be to achieve a relative balance in the representation of the various segments of the population, and to take into account the personal qualifications required for effectively discharging the duties of a senator.
In 1980, Madam Speaker, the Constitutional Committee of the Quebec Liberal Party made its own recommendations in a document entitled "A New Canadian Federation". This Beige Paper recommended the abolition of the Senate, urging that the federal Parliament be made up of only one institution, the House of Commons. However, the Constitution would provide for a new intergovernmental institution, namely a Federal Council of provincial delegations acting under the direction of their respective Governments.

February 6, 1987
The Senate
Each provincial premier would be de facto head of his provincial delegation, and the federal Government would send non-voting representatives to express its views. Quebec would have a minimum representation equivalent to 25 per cent of the number of council members, and the smaller provinces would be guaranteed fair representation. In addition, the council would reflect Canada's duality through a committee whose membership would be 50 per cent francophone and which would be called upon whenever the Canadian duality might be affected by federal initiatives submitted to the council.
In 1981, the Canada West Foundation revised its position and recommended that senators be elected for limited terms. Their election would take place at the same time as the general national election, and senators would be elected in a provincewide riding through a transferable vote.
Madam Speaker, are you indicating that I have only one minute left? I have finished. Madam Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to take the floor this afternoon and make these enlightening comments before the House.


George Baker: Madam
Speaker, I agree with the mover of this motion inasmuch as I believe that we need a second Chamber which will hold the Government more accountable than does the present House of Commons. In making that statement, I realize that perhaps the procedures and customs of this Chamber could be changed to fulfil that need.
The House of Commons is structured on the presumption that it is a law-making body, that it holds the Government accountable to the people for its actions, and that it provides a place for recruitment of people who would form the Government. In other words, when our parliamentary system was created the Government of Canada only had responsibility for very limited activities such as the railway and the post office. At that time the House of Commons was actually initiating its own laws. The elected Members of the House of Commons actually initiated and passed laws for the Government of Canada.
The law-making function of the House of Commons has disappeared. As I see the function of the House of Commons today, it no longer bears any resemblance whatsoever to a lawmaking body. That is because the Government has become all pervasive. It covers everything in our society. Therefore, laws are being initiated either by the Public Service or by exterior factors such as federal-provincial conferences.
Today one cannot imagine a law passed in this Chamber which was totally initiated in this Chamber. Apart from policies which are established by a political Party running for office and laws brought in because of those public declarations, or because of federal-provincial conferences or any number of
exterior factors, there are very few laws which can be categorized as even coming from the Public Service. The law-making function of the House of Commons has deteriorated substantially.
The only other function which the House of Commons has today is to keep the Government of Canada responsible. One wonders whether we even do that today. That is perhaps why this motion is so important. Under our present system, a Minister of the Crown does not have to answer a question and is not expected to know the answer to a question which deals with his Department. Precedent has been set by Speakers' rulings over the years that a Minister should not be expected to know everything that goes on in his Department. That is a matter of custom, a matter of law under the British parliamentary system. The issue of accountability has diminished as far as the House of Commons is concerned.
The House of Commons was created to fulfil one other function. It was originally created to provide recruitment for future Governments.
The original intention for the creation of the House of Commons was that politicians would learn over a period of time and would then become cabinet Ministers or would become skilled enough in the function of law-making and accountability to the people that they would be able to fulfil those functions. That was called recruitment. That has gone out of the window because in the 20th century the average period of time that a Member sits in this Chamber is three to three and a half years. Here today, gone tomorrow. That turnover of Members means that that function of the House of Commons is not being fulfilled at all.
I agree with the motion before the House. I did not hear the Hon. Member's explanation of how the model would be created, but I did listen to several Members speak on this motion the last time it was before the House. One of the Members referred to, although not in these words, the accountability function of the House of Commons, that is, the House of Commons as a group which makes the executive of the Government, who should be responsible for the decisions, but are not, accountable to the people of Canada. That person used the CF-18 contract as an example of how the Government is not being held accountable to the people of Canada. He said that that is why we should have a second Chamber, an elected body of sober second thought, to fulfil the function of accountability.
I will give you one example in which I do not believe that the Members sitting in the Government of Canada, the Cabinet of Canada, were responsible for a government decision. I refer specifically to the recent agreement on fishing signed between France and Canada. I have reason to believe that it was not the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) who were actually responsible for that signing. However, we have no way of making the Government accountable. There is no mechanism for holding that part of the Government which made the decision accountable to the Canadian people. The law-making
February 6, 1987

function has disappeared because of the complexity of our times. The accountability function has disappeared in this Chamber and the recruitment function no longer applies as a result of turnovers. Therefore, I support the hon. gentleman's Bill as it presently stands and I have other ideas on how to structure the model.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are considering today states that we:
-should consider the advisability of introducing the appropriate measures to abolish the Senate and create a new Senate composed of Senators elected by the people of Canada on the basis of equal representation for each province and territory, and to initiate discussions to that end with provincial and territorial governments at the earliest opportunity.
The motion was moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), and seconded by the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish).
I believe that the central problem of representative democracy in Canada can be stated in one sentence. It is that two out of three Canadians live in a narrow band between Windsor and Quebec City. That is a demographic fact with which all of us must live.
The biggest problem facing those of us from outside the two central provinces is that we do not believe we are politically equal to those who live in the two central provinces. I believe that applies to those from Newfoundland as much as it does to those from Vancouver Island. It certainly applies to the region of the Prairies where I have lived most of my life.
Recently in Edmonton I gave a speech entitled "Representative Democracy in Canada: Strengths, Problems, and Reform". I pointed that many national institutions do not represent all Canadians with equal vigour. I used the example of The National which appears on our publicly financed television station every night at ten o'clock. I believe some 80 per cent of the budget for that news broadcast is spent within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto.


Alan Redway: You can have it if you want it.


David Kilgour: A Member from Toronto tells me that we can have it if we want it. The point is that those of us who live in the outer eight provinces do want it. It is patently unfair that 80 per cent of that budget should be spent in one city. The National should be renamed "The Toronto News". Those of us who live outside of Toronto, including people in northern Quebec, northern Ontario and Alberta, are not getting adequate representation in a news broadcast that we help to fund just as much as does the Member from Toronto. The point is that this national institution is not perceived to reflect all of Canada as it should.
I will now deal with the Senate. The area in which the most necessary reform still remains is our unloved and unworked Senate, down the hall from us. The Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform reported two years ago that an appointed
The Senate
Senate no longer meets the needs of Canadian federalism. It stated that only an elected Senate can fulfil its principal role, which is that of regional representation. How, in a representative democracy, can 104 men and women who are appointed until the age of 75 perform a dual role with this House which consists of elected men and women? Who are their electors and to whom are they accountable? They are accountable to no one but themselves.
There are 25 million who do not have a cushy, well-paid job with no responsibility. In a democracy, a Senator's job should be important, but there is no responsibility without electors. What do they do at election time? They do not have a meaningful role to play in a democracy, and that is why those of us who feel strongly about this issue believe they should be elected to represent each province equally. We are asked why people from Prince Edward Island should have four or five Senators compared to Quebec or Ontario?

I think it is the same thing in Rhode Island, for instance, or in Vermont, with two senators. People have been laughing about that as well, but the voters in New York are quite prepared to accept the situation to strengthen national unity.

If Rhode Island can have two Senators, cheek by jowl with New York, why can P.E.I. not have four or five Senators, the same as Quebec or Ontario? That is one symbolic way to show that all Canadians can have a greater stake in our democratic institutions. I suggest that this is a strong argument for having an elected Senate. It works across the border and it can work in Canada. California has a population of 25 million people and is situated next to Nevada, with 1 million to 1.5 million people. New York has a population of 18 million people and is situated beside Vermont, with slightly more than 500,000 people.
The counter argument is often made that a Parliament with two elected Houses cannot be reconciled comfortably with the principle of reasonable government as it has operated in Canada. Surely the answer is that only an elected Senate, with the political clout to dispute, when necessary, the decisions of a government supported by the House of Commons, can satisfy the original intent of the Fathers of Confederation, which is the provision of a Chamber that would balance judiciously the power of the Commons by safeguarding the legitimate interests of the people in the less populous provinces. Who in the House would suggest that the Senate in Australia does not work? While it may not be perfect, it works well there. I suggest it could work well in Canada. Do I see a smile on the face of the Member from Toronto?


Alan Redway: Indeed you do.


David Kilgour: I hope he will appreciate that we in Alberta and I hope other areas of Canada are deadly serious about this issue.
3214

February 6, 1987
The Senate
Since 1982, the method of selection of Senators cannot be altered except by a constitutional amendment approved by Parliament and by the legislatures of at least seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of Canada's population. I suggest that all of the outer eight provinces could readily be persuaded to support an elected Senate, with perhaps five or six Senators from each province. Indeed, I believe that the Premiers of most if not all of the eight provinces have already indicated support for this.
It has been suggested that Quebec and Ontario would never accept this proposal, but surely the Premier of your province, Madam Speaker, might be persuaded to accept this if Quebec's veto over amendments affecting its legal authority were restored.
Perhaps Ontario legislators could be persuaded to make a grand gesture in the interests of enhancing political equality in Canada on the same basis as representation between New York and Rhode Island, or California and Nevada. One assumes that the Senate itself would have to face the inevitable if all three Parties in this House approved an amendment to this effect. The result, I suggest, would be an improved democracy in which all of us in this country from Nanaimo to St. John's could take greater pride.
I refer Hon. Members to "The Case for an Elected Senate" by Duff Roblin, published in the Canadian Parliamentary Review. There is a real, live, breathing Senator who believes we should have an elected Senate and makes that case eloquently. I may have been a little unkind when I suggested that only a third of the Senators appear to work in our present institution. The heading of a recent article is: "Half of the Senators Missed Most of the Fall Sitting". In fairness to the other House, I should point out that Senator Guy Charbon-neau points out that in fact some of these Senators may have been sick. Some of them may have been entertaining foreign dignitaries. I am being a little facetious in paraphrasing his letter. The point is that it is a discredited institution and here is our chance, thanks to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), to do something to improve Canadian democracy.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, this is not the first time I have had a chance to speak during Private Members' Hour on the reform of the Senate. It seems to me it is getting to be a bit too often. However, I believe there is some purpose in discussing this issue a number of times. I firmly believe that the more we discuss the Senate, the more it comes to light, and the more chance that we will finally abolish the damn thing in the first place. I believe what is happening in this country is that people are becoming sick of the Senate. They are sick of the appointment system and the people who are appointed. They are sick of the inherent conflict of interest which exists among Senators. What the people want to see is the Senate abolished.
Other Hon. Members who have spoken have referred to all the different ideas for reforming the Senate. Some have
suggested that Senators should be appointed by the provincial Premiers. Others have suggested that Senators should be elected in each of the provinces by proportional representation. Some Hon. Members talk about it as being a haven, or a way of saving the English-French conflicts in this country. I think those are all laudable suggestions and ideas. However, I think we have to ask why these suggestions are being made. I believe they are being made basically because we know there is no present purpose for the Senate. We recognize there are some very honourable Senators and that there are some individuals in the Senate who have done good committee work, but that is about all they do. I have spoken in previous debates and pointed out that on many days the Senate sits for 45 minutes, sometimes up to two hours and on one or two remarkable occasions, up to three hours. I also pointed out from a month-after-month statistic, that Senators were sitting 10 hours or 20 hours a month, and occasionally they may sit up to 25 hours a month.


Alan Redway: If you would let us pass more legislation, they would have more work to do.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Hon. Member to my extreme right says that if we would pass more legislation, they would have more work to do, but the point is that when we pass legislation which is very controversial, after committee study, and in some cases after pre-study, it is passed in the Senate, if the Government wants, in half an hour's time, in any case.
The Hon. Member for Bow River may remember that we sat in committee until August 4 discussing the six and five program. We had a number of witnesses. We sat morning, afternoon and evening in committee on that piece of legislation. The Senate passed it the same evening it was sent to the other place. It is not a matter of what we do in this House. It is a matter of what they do not do in that House. So let us not use that old excuse.
My main point is that every time there is a problem in the Canadian confederacy, someone says we should use the Senate to fix it up. The studies and reccomendations which were made in the late 1960s and 1970s used the Senate to try to deal with the separation problem which existed in Quebec. A lot of the recommendations which came down at that time were put in place to try to deal with the problem of a really strong separatist movement in Quebec. The motions, and a lot of the speeches we hear, try to resolve the feeling in western Canada especially, and in Alberta specifically, that for some reason all the decisions seem to be made in Ontario and Quebec. The Government, whether Liberal or Conservative, always seems to worry about the political base it has in Quebec or in Ontario. As a result, the CF-18 contract did not go to Manitoba and the National Energy Program seemed to be forced upon Albertans. Presumably, the federal Government signed a cod contract with France so it would not have any controversial issues coming up when the Francophone summit takes place in a few months' time. That is a feeling expressed by a number of

February 6, 1987

people who spoke. Every time there is a problem the idea is to use the Senate because it has no purpose at the present time.
When I served on the last joint committee on the role and reform of the Senate, I listened to hundreds of briefs from all across this land. It became very clear that there is no consensus as to what we should do with the Senate. There are arguments for abolition and for an appointed Senate. There are arguments for a Premiers Council. We heard all sorts of ideas. None of them were accepted by any two groups, and none of them, I think, were very practical. The reason they are not practical, and why this particular suggestion is not practical, is that we have not dealt with how the House of Commons is going to relate to this new body. Are we supposed to be elected in the same old way? All the Conservatives vote together when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) says so. The Liberals vote no and we vote yes, no or maybe, depending on what our caucus decides. The Senate is a completely different body. Are we going to talk about the relationships? Obviously, if there is an elected Senate with equal representation from each of the provinces and the two or three Territories, depending on when this motion ever comes to pass, obviously the purpose, the role, the structures of this body would have to change as well. That is a fact of life. We could not have five Senators from Manitoba, presumably representing the three different Parties, taking one position and the Members of the House of Commons taking a completely different position. It just would not work.
I would argue that rather than our spending time debating the reform of the Senate-because it is there and we do not think it is doing anything, and all those other reasons which I think are justified-we should really be looking at the reform of the House. The problems are here. Certainly, the Senate is there and we have no excuse for it, no reason for its existence. However, the problems are really here.
We have the problem of government integrity, regardless of which Party forms the Government of the day. It is the problem of how we make decisions. We automatically support our Party when it is the Government. Therefore, the Conservatives, regardless of where they come from, had to support the Government's decision to put the CF-18 contract in Montreal, despite the fact there was a lower bid, and probably a more technically competent bid, from the Province of Manitoba.
If we had a committee system where decisions of this nature were investigated and where people did not vote always on Party lines, we could reform our own House. We would have more credibiilty, whether we are from Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario or from Atlantic Canada. That is what should be happening.
Part of the problem in western Canada is that whether we have Members in the Opposition or on the government side, we assume they are not being listened to. If that is the case, and if government Members do not believe they have any clout in the House of Commons because they do not want to go against the government line, then they have a responsibility within their own caucus and within their own Government, to ensure they
The Senate
are doing the right thing. Presumably, those caucus meetings are not just rubber stamps. Presumably they are a place where real debate takes place. Presumably the men and women in that caucus are honourable people and will take a stand. If they disagree about something on a consistent basis, they will walk out. That is the honourable thing. I have sat in government caucuses. I am not just speaking because I am in opposition at the present time. I have sat in government caucuses in Manitoba. I have seen that Members will oppose Government, and be very vociferous in opposing government decisions. I have seen cases of decisions being turned around to represent all parts of Manitoba because of what happened in the caucus room.
I use Manitoba as an example not only because I am from there and not only because it has a New Democratic Government but because the majority of the seats in its Legislature represent the City of Winnipeg. There are 30 seats for the City of Winnipeg and 27 seats for ridings outside the city. Yet people from smaller areas are able to influence what the Government does because they get up to insist that the Government move in a reasonable fashion.
When we talk about reform let us not spend our time talking about the Senate. Let us talk about what we should be doing in this Chamber and what we should be doing in our own caucus rooms.


Mrs. Anne Blouin (Montmorency-Orleans):: This afternoon, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is asking us to take a position concerning the abolition of the Senate and its replacement by a Senate elected on the basis of equal representation for each province. Well, before attacking an institution which is so deeply rooted in Canadian history, we would be well-advised to take under serious consideration the reasons why it was established in the first place, and to make sure that the proposed reform will not undermine the orderly discharge of its original duties, however necessary they may still be.
So, what were these duties in 1867? Two objectives of the Fathers of Confederation immediately come to mind. Having drawn inspiration from the House of Lords in England, they wanted to create a Chamber of legislative sober thought responsible for putting the finishing touch to the sometimes hastily adopted House of Commons legislation. Several Members of this House have admitted that, by and large, the Senate has lived up to this challenge.
Another argument justifying the existence of the Senate in 1867 was its function to represent regional interests. Sir John A. Macdonald himself explained how the Senate was created.
It was felt that in order to protect the interests of the regions and to prevent interregional jealousy, it was necessary that the three broad divisions that constituted British North America at the time, namely the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario, be represented in the Upper Chamber on an equal basis.

February 6, 1987
The Senate
Madam Speaker, the Fathers of Confederation wanted to make the Senate similar in structure to what we now have in modern federations like the United States, Australia and Switzerland. With twenty-four senators from each region, the Canadian Senate was supposed to represent the diversity of these regions and provide them with equal power, thus balancing the differences in population reflected in the Lower House.
The concept of representation of regional interests has received somewhat questionable implementation by the present Senate of Canada. Most commentators agree that in recent year, the members of the Senate have not been ardent defenders of regional issues.
However, the regional interests issue alone should be reason enough to consider carefully ways of reforming the Upper Chamber to reflect those interests better than it does now. The motion before the House today indicates that one way would be to elect an equal number of senators from each province.
However, it was not the intention of the Fathers of Confederation to provide equal representation to the provinces; they preferred to speak of regional equality. Shall we follow their example or shall we accept, as requested by the Hon. Member for Bow River, that provinces obtain equal representation? Are the realities so different from one province to the next that they cannot be adequately reflected in the Senate if we apply the principle of regional equality? Before voting on this proposal, we must find answers to these questions.
I said earlier that the Fathers of Confederation had two objectives in creating the Senate: To make it a chamber of sober second thought and to represent the regions. However, for French Canadians at the time, the Senate had a more important purpose. It was to be the protector of the interests of the francophone minority, the key element of the constitutional agreement between the two cultural communities.
Madam Speaker, this is the concept which Georges-Etienne Cartier used to rally Lower Canada to the cause of Federation. Indeed, Quebecers were not alone in giving such an intepreta-tion to the creation of the Senate. George Brown of Ontario recognized it when he said:
Our friends in Lower Canada have agreed to grant us representation by population in the Lower Chamber at the express condition that they can enjoy equality in the Upper Chamber. We would never have reached an agreement if this condition had not been met.
The guarantees of representation for Quebec in the Senate, as well as the constitutional provision dealing with the use of French in both Chambers, were essential conditions for the entry of French Canadians into Confederation. It is this notion of duality that Francophones wanted to protect and it is this protection that they required from the Senate.
The fact is that we must recognize that the Senate could better meet its responsibilies for representing the two official language communities. If we accept today that this basic notion of duality still deserves to be better reflected in our central institutions and defended by the very mechanism of
Parliament, it is important to consider the opportunities provided by the reform of the Senate in this regard.
There is no lack of reform proposals. Indeed, whether they are for an elected Senate, for a Chamber of provincial delegations or for Senators appointed by the central power, several Senate reform proposals would attribute to that institution special powers to defend the rights of the francophone community.
The Federation of Francophones outside Quebec even proposed in 1978 a Senate where both communities would be represented on an equal footing. According to the Federation:
The Chamber of the Federation should be a privileged forum where both founding nations could meet as equals and develop together the policies of the federal State. The central Government cannot reflect the realities of both founding nations if it is under no obligation to deal with them on a regular basis and make sure that its projects meet the values and priorities of each.
Madam Speaker, this notion that Parliament should respect in its actions the values of our cultural communities can be found in most projects, although with less absolute arrangements. In short, these proposals would give the Senate, in the case of any measure having a special linguistic significance, a right of veto based on the double majority principle.
In 1978, Bill C-60, among others, required that to pass, a linguistic legislation be adopted by a majority of Francophone senators and a majority of Anglophone senators.
In order to further protect the interests of Francophones, the Macdonald Commission report, as well as the report of the 1985 Special Alberta Committee on the Senate Reform insisted that linguistic measures should be approved by a majority of Francophone senators and a majority of the whole Senate.
The same concern exists in all proposals for a Senate made-up of provincial delegations. For instance, the 1980 Constitutional project drafted by the Quebec Liberal Party, the so-called Beige Paper, proposed that a "dual committee" of the new Senate should ratify the initiatives of the Government which are likely to affect the Canadian duality.
Likewise, in 1978, the Canada West Foundation suggested to give the Quebec delegation an absolute veto to protect its unique character in cases of bills affecting culture and languages.
The list of possibilities is quite extensive, Madam Speaker. Over the past 20 years, there have been a great many Senate reform proposals; some of them, among the most interesting, originated in Parliament. The contribution made in 1984 by the Special Joint Committee is, in this regard, worthy of mention.
Under its term of reference, the Committee had to consider first of all the roles a possible reformed Senate could play. I dealt today with two possible roles, consistent with our history and the character of our country. The Committee insisted on the same objectives of regional representation and the need to maintain the dualistic nature of Canadian society.
February 6, 1987

According to that committee and in the opinion of several Canadians, the House of Commons cannot effectively reflect the regional and dualistic character of our country while carrying its mandate to represent the will of the majority. Now we know how those regional or cultural differences can become the source of tensions and conflicts that tend to question the future of this country.
I have already indicated that the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Bow River should provide for equal representation from the provinces rather than from the region and I asked that the point be taken in consideration. However, for my fellow French-Canadians and myself, it is also very important to look at the means we could provide the Senate to represent the two language communities and guarantee the rights of the French Canadian minority.
By itself, equal representation from the provinces as proposed by the Hon. Member provides no guarantee for minority representation or protection. Equal representation from the provinces however is no obstacle to better representation from the linguistic communities, provided safety mechanisms similar to those I mentioned earlier are added.
Before the House is called upon to vote on the Hon. Member's motion, madam Speaker, 1 would ask him to look at the advisability of adding to any senate reform ways of guaranteeing that our linguistic duality, that important reality, will be reflected in that institution.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I have just a few points to make in a debate which has been with us for a long time. It is probable that the debate on Senate reform commenced the day after Confederation. Somewhere in the bowels of Parliament there must be a basement full of studies, report, and recommendations, which were made at one time or another, about our friends down the hall.
The Canadian Senate was established along the lines of the British House of Lords. However, unlike the British House of Lords, which had been in existence for a long time and was based upon aristocratic considerations and land ownership going back to feudal days, our Senate system was put into effect on the spur of the moment. As a result, we have been arguing about it ever since.
Let us look at some of the historical functions which the Senate is supposed to fulfil. Some people would argue that it was set up to represent the various regions of Canada. I do not see how it does that any more than does the House of Commons. If it were established on the American system with equal representation for each province, such as in the idea proposed by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), that would be a fact. However, it is not. Representation in the Senate is roughly along the lines of representation in the House of Commons-according to population. I do not see
The Senate
how one could argue that the Senate, under present circumstances, represents the various regions of Canada.
If we were to be honest we would admit that the Senate was really established with the idea of protecting property and wealth. Observers going back to the time of Aristotle have argued that the end result of democracy or a democratic system of government on its own, untempered by any other element, is likely to be chaos. Possibly that was in the minds of the formulators of the first Canadian Constitution.
Perhaps the Senate protected the interests of property for a time, but that is certainly not the case today. We still have that archaic requirement that a Senator have $4,000 worth of property, but one does not get very much property for $4,000 today. I do not think we can really argue that point any more.
The third item which comes to mind about historical functions of the Senate is that of the House of sober second thought, the House of reflection. I always thought there was something in that idea until a Friday afternoon when a Private Member's Bill was debated before the House of Commons. Because it was a Friday afternoon, as is the case today, only a handful of Members were present and a Bill to change the name of Dominion Day to Canada Day sneaked by. That was a time when we needed second sober reflection. It had not been looked at, debated properly, or thought about by the House of Commons. However, when I saw the Senators, as a result of impositions placed upon them by the Prime Minister of the day, go along with it-they were told to do it; there was no first thought, second thought; there was no thought at all-I lost any respect I might have had for the view that the Senate provided an opportunity for sober second thought.
However, in my mind the Senate fulfils certain useful functions. It does some excellent committee work. Two immediate examples come to mind-the recent report on the marketing of fish done by the Senate Fisheries Committee headed by Senator Marshall, and a recent report on military transport, which I thought was excellent work. In many of these ways it complements the work of the House of Commons.
It also provides-and this is important in any society-a way of honouring people who have contributed to the life of Canada over the years. It is a way of giving them an honour which does not cost that much. It is important for that to be available to us as a society. It is nice to see people receive the Order of Canada, but this is another way of showing how society appreciates work done over a long period of time by people in various fields. Most often it is politics, but occasionally it is for other good and valid reasons.
It also provides a way-and this is important in society as well-of promoting people out of the way. Sometimes it is necessary to get rid of people who perhaps have done a good job for years and years but must be replaced. We do not want them to be demoted, so we promote them out of the way, and the Senate provides a very good opportunity for doing that. It

February 6, 1987
The Senate
also provides a reward for Party work. Occasionally appointments are made for rather partisan reasons. I can think of people from this House who were appointed to the Senate to make room for somebody else to run in their ridings.
Another very useful function of the Senate is that occasionally after election to the House of Commons we find that certain regions of the country are not represented at all. Of course this is not the case with the present Conservative Government which received a wide mandate from every region of the country. However, if we look back to the previous Liberal Government, we see that it was unrepresented in the West, and it was useful to have a mechanism whereby it could have someone from western Canada in the Cabinet of the day. The Senate provided a mechanism for that.
It is also useful-and I am thinking now in partisan terms- in that it provides an opportunity to bring to Parliament in its widest sense people who provide useful party functions like that of raising money. One of our Senator colleagues from the other side of the House has recently been in the news quite a bit. I would think that the other members of his Party thought in times past that he served a very useful function of raising money for their Party.
I see that I am out of time, Madam Speaker. In conclusion, I thank the Hon. Member for Bow River for providing this opportunity once again to engage in a debate which has gone on for 100 years. Because we will have to use the amending formula under the new Constitution to change the Senate, it will probably take another 100 years of debate before the issue is finally settled, if at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), this Order shall be dropped to the bottom of the Order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 5 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, February 9, 1987