1988-04-13

[Stage Direction]
37 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 13, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to bring to the attention of the House the plight of the workers represented by the Cape Breton Building and Construction Trades Council. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) will know that I addressed this issue on November 2, 1987, requesting that he take action with respect to an older workers' adjustment program.
In the last 24 hours it has come to my attention that the Minister is expected to offer workers approximately $1,020 a month exclusive of any other income they might have. The Government has not made a formal commitment on this matter, but the federal Minister of Labour has apparently given a Nova Scotia Cabinet Minister, the Honourable Edmund Morris, his word that the offer will stand.
I call upon the Minister of Labour to confirm to this House that the present offer to the Cape Breton Building and Construction Trades Council workers will stand. Should he be able to do this, it will alleviate many concerns and worries of the unemployed Cape Breton construction workers. I trust and hope that the Minister of Labour will respond favourably to this request.



RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, on April 13, 1699, the tenth and final Guru, Gobind Singh, laid out a code of conduct which established Khalsa in the Sikh religion. This new religion stressed the equality of humanity regardless of caste, creed, or sex. Each Sikh has a clear obligation to serve particularly the poor or oppressed. At
the same time, Guru Gobind Singh established the distinctive dress code of Sikhs to remind them of their religious obligations each day.
There are approximately 200,000 Sikhs in Canada who have added significantly to Canadian life. Today in Parliament members of all political Parties will be meeting with Canadians of the Sikh religion. I am particularly pleased to bring to public notice, Mr. Speaker, that you are representing Parliament as guest speaker at today's reception.
I am sure that all Members of Parliament would wish to extend their best wishes to the Sikh community in Canada on the anniversary of the formal birthday of their religion.




Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, today Sikhs around the world are celebrating the anniversary of their faith, Baisakh. On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus, I wish to speak in recognition of that great event.
It was on this day in the year 1699 A.D. that the tenth prophet of the Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh, challenged a great gathering of Sikhs to rededicate themselves to the faith. His call brought forward the Five Beloved Ones in symbolic sacrifice. It also led to the institution of baptism into the Sikh faith, and produced the five Ks of commitment to the faith.
In the succeeding 289 years followers of the Sikh faith have become a distinctive community in many countries of the world. Canada is honoured to be the home of one-quarter of a million Sikhs.
On this Baisakh, I join with Canadian Sikhs in celebrating a New Year of dedication to their faith. May this be a year of good understanding like that manifested by the people of Woods Harbour, Nova Scotia, when they welcomed the Sikh refugee claimants to Canada's shores.
May this Baisakh call us to renewed regard for the lives of our fellows, and respect for the rights of their communities.

April 13, 1988



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of months I have canvassed many of my constituents concerning Bills C-55 and C-84. These are the two Bills that will restore some common sense to Canada's refugee determination system. These are also the laws that are being stalled by the unelected Members of the Senate.
Over 1,400 individuals from over 40 communities have contacted me to call upon the Senate to abide by democratic principles and end the confusion in Canada's refugee determination system. Their refusal to pass Bills C-55 and C-84 is nothing short of a disgrace which is condemned by my constituents, and I believe by all Canadians.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the potato farmers of Prince Edward Island have waited a long time for stabilization payments on their 1985 potato crop. On March 22 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) told the House that the farmers should have their cheques by Easter. Some farmers are still waiting. We now know why.
Their cheques were sent by the Department of Agriculture to the Farm Credit Corporation. This is absolutely unfair.
Many farmers are in a financial crisis, especially our potato farmers who have had some very poor years. But to find out that their cheques were sent to the Farm Credit Corporation is the last straw.
Understandably, the farmers are very upset. Apparently the Farm Credit Corporation has agreed to send the cheques on to the farmers now.
I urge the Minister of Agriculture to investigate this blatant disregard for the dignity of our hard-pressed farmers and ensure that this never happens again.



ABORTION


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, Nurses for Life is an organization which is concerned with the ethical issues in nursing from the perspective of respect for life and quality of care for all their patients. Therefore, to insist that nurses assist with procedures in which the main objective is to
kill one of their own patients as in the performance of an abortion is illogical and thoughtlessly unprofessional.
Abortion is a violent act which is directly opposed to the philosophy and practice of nursing. Nurses for Life requests that a conscience clause be enacted whereby no doctor, nurse, or others involved in health care facilities, including hospitals, be required to counsel, assist, perform, or participate in any way in any treatment or procedure to which he or she has a moral, religious or personal objection.
Nurses for Life therefore calls upon the Government to bring forth legislation to enact conscience clauses to protect health professionals from being forced to abandon their principles or lose their employment.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the most pressing environmental concern for many communities across Canada is that of toxic waste storage. Toxic wastes are a proven health hazard. Governments must do everything possible to ensure safe living conditions for all their citizens.
In remote northwestern Ontario, in the Nishnawbe-Aski Reserve community of Big Trout Lake, the people are very upset and frustrated by the delays in removing PCB wastes which are, ironically, the property of Environment Canada.
The Chief has physically removed these wastes from their present storage site and has threatened to fly them to storage sites in southern Ontario if the provincial and federal Governments do not move them quickly and act in accordance with existing regulations. The people of Big Trout Lake did not ask for these chemical wastes. All they are asking is that the PCBs be removed from the reserve.
I call upon the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to show the leadership he has committed himself to in the past and immediately secure the necessary provincial approval for the transportation of these wastes off the reserve.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on March 29, 1988, the Minister of State for Agriculture (Mr. Blais) visited one of the most productive dairy farms in the Abitibi, the Tenhave farm in Val Senneville.
April 13, 1988



S'. O. 21 AIR CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The Minister first went to the Val Senneville town hall, where he met Mayor Rene Pare and the councillors. The Minister and I then went to the Tenhave farm, where we donned overalls and helmets to tour the site.
This farm is one of the best known in the region for its rapid growth and the quality of its products. It has won many prizes for excellence, including one awarded last fall by the eastern Abitibi branch of the UPA for first place among Holstein growers.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister took the time for a leisurely conversation with Mr. and Mrs. Tenhave and their two sons, Paul and John.
This was an excellent meeting for the farmers; it gave them the opportunity to discuss with their Minister of State for Agriculture the future and the situation of dairy farmers in the country and in Quebec.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, it has been said that there is no fool like an old fool. If the old fool is also very rich, that foolishness may be compounded.
It is reported that Mr. Robert Campeau, who became rich on government contracts with guaranteed returns-


Mr. Murphy:: Liberal government contracts.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the House is waiting in anxious anticipation for the completion of the Hon. Member's remarks.


B. Keith Penner: I hope that that is not taken from my time, Mr. Speaker.
It is reported that Mr. Robert Campeau, who became rich on government contracts with guaranteed returns, and who went on to greater and greater rewards, now admires the rugged individualism of the American republic and he thinks that there is too much social concern and humanity in Canada. He points with much disdain to our social security programs and our medicare system, and he calls on us to have them reduced.
I would say that the frankness of his views does help us in at least one respect. He has enabled us to understand better the parable of the camel, the rich man, and the eye of a needle.



SUPPORT FOR PRIVATIZATION

Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, 51 years ago the first Trans-Canada Airlines plane, a 10-seat Lockheed Electra, departed Vancouver's Sea Island on a flight to Seattle. Much has changed since that first flight. TCA became Air Canada, one of the world's major airlines with 22,000 employees.
Now, with great foresight, the Government has announced plans for its privatization. The naysayers in the Opposition, like an over protective parent, would have us keep Air Canada in the pampered and sheltered yoke of government control.
After 51 years in the public sector, Air Canada has fulfilled its mandate, and the time has come for the company to spread its wings. The Government's planned share offering will give Air Canada the flexibility that it requires to update its fleet and remain competitive into the 1990s and beyond.
Privatization works. With 13 Crown corporations sold or in the process of being sold, our policy is right on track, indeed, in full flight.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the jig is up. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), can no longer sit on the fence between the interests of the fisheries and the demands of Texaco Canada Resources on the issue of oil exploration on the Georges Bank. The Governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, fishermen, fish processors, fishing communities, and the organization NORIG have all insisted on banning drilling and oil production in this most concentrated area of fisheries resource which is very vulnerable to environmental contamination.
In late February the Gulf of Maine Advisory Committee agreed, and wishes the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to support amending Bill C-75 to ban drilling in this area which it calls a vast nursery of lobsters, scallops, cod, haddock, and other species of critical importance to the economies of southwest Nova Scotia and the south coast of New Brunswick.
No more stalling by the Minister of Energy! No more inaction by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans! Amend Bill C-75, ban drilling on Georges Bank, and protect this vital fishery.



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
April 13, 1988

Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow our immigration system in this country to deteriorate any further. This is precisely why Parliament was recalled in August to deal with this urgent problem of our refugee determination system, a system under siege.
Everyone agrees that Canada's refugee policy needs an overhaul. The policy of our Government is to increase legitimate immigration; provide a safe haven for genuine refugees; establish a fair and expeditious refugee determination system to eliminate queue-jumping and bogus refugees; and follow the due process of law.
The solution to this problem is obvious-the passage of Bills C-55 and C-84. This seems easy, right? Think again! The Liberal dominated Senate has stalled these Bills in the Upper Chamber because it is motivated by political rather than by humanitarian reasons.
I think it is time the Senate came down off its high horse, respected the will of the elected House, and passed this legislation so that we can begin to rid our country of its antiquated immigration system, its inadequacies, hypocrisy, and long delays.



RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I, like yourself, have come to know and appreciate the very special contribution made by the Indo-Canadian community, particularly in British Columbia and the Fraser Valley.
This special day, April 13, is Baisakh, the first day of the new year for Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists here and around the world.
Baisakh is of particular importance to members of our Canadian Sikh community because on this day in 1699 the Sikh religion or "Brotherhood of the Pure" was created.
The festivities associated with welcoming in a new year are also a reminder of the rich and enduring spiritual heritage of these groups, a heritage that the celebration of a new year strengthens and reaffirms. It is a heritage which encourages strong family ties, community involvement, and peaceful coexistence. Of course these are values understood only too well by Canadians.
Their communities are helping to enrich the country's multicultural identity in many different ways. I would
therefore urge all Hon. Members to join me in extending best wishes for a prosperous and happy new year to Canadian Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists, and to all Indo-Canadi-ans who are part of our diverse Canadian family.

[Translation)



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Quebec's External Trade Minister, Pierre MacDonald, published figures clearly showing that under a Conservative Government, Quebec does not receive its fair share of funding for research and high technology projects. The figures show a shortfall of $1.3 billion. I would like to ask all Hon. Members from Quebec to put pressure on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Conservative government so that in future, Quebec receives its fair share and also on all Conservative members from Quebec to put pressure on the Prime Minister for him to respect his commitment to have the space agency in Montreal.



PORT OF CHURCHILL-NON-ATTENDANCE BY CANADIAN NATIONAL AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE

Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, this week I attended the forty-fifth annual conference of the Hudson Bay Route Association. This group, composed of representatives of many communities in all prairie provinces, has a long history of working to promote the use of the Port of Churchill.
I was disappointed to discover that CN no longer shares my high opinion of the Hudson Bay Route Association and its commitment to the use of the port. CN, as the railway responsible for the maintenance and use of the Bay Line, the only land based shipping route connected to the port, has been in regular attendance at meetings of the Hudson Bay Route Association throughout most of its existence. By declining to attend the Hudson Bay Route Association conference this year, CN has taken a further step in its campaign to close the Port of Churchill and has closed off contact with a major group which is defending the port.
This action is only the latest in a long series of betrayals of the port which have occurred in the last couple of years. We have seen provincial Tory Governments in Alberta and Saskatchewan cut off funding to the Port of Churchill Development Board. We have listened to Otto Lang, a former Liberal Minister of Transport, malign the port time after time.
April 13, 1988

We have watched federal Conservative Members of Parliament and cabinet Ministers use the anti-port arguments and half-truths of the grain elevator companies and CN.
Now it is time for the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) to declare his support for the Port of Churchill and to fight against the attempts by CN and others that are trying to close the port.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. At 11.51 yesterday morning in the House of Commons the Deputy Prime Minister made the following statement:
The legislation will permit the transfer of all Air Canada shares to the
public.
At 2.18 yesterday afternoon in the House of Commons the Prime Minister made the following statement: "There is a possibility that shares in Air Canada will be sold to the public, but the Government would certainly retain the majority interest".
One of the two statements made to the House of Commons yesterday is false. The question the public-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, come on!


John Napier Turner: It is right on. The question the Canadian public is asking is: who is speaking for the Government? The Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition means that a statement is incorrect. I ask that he conclude his question.


John Napier Turner: Who, then, is speaking for the Government-the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister? Will the Government retain majority control and the majority of the shares of Air Canada, or are all the shares up for sale and is this a total sell-out of the airline?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would stop being so silly and childish, indeed irresponsible. If he wants an explanation he can come into my office right after Question Period and I will explain it to him. He should read the whole statement. It is very clear. Legislation will in fact be brought before the House and then he can see precisely what we will be doing.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Obviously the Deputy Prime Minister has a weak case. If he wants to tell me in private, I say tell me in public right here on the floor of the House of Commons.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in January 1985 the Prime Minister said: "Air Canada is not for sale". Yesterday, Canadians realized that he really meant Air Canada was not for sale just then. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said the Government would certainly retain a controlling interest in Air Canada. Today, it seems the Government will do so but only for the time being.
If the Government is really determined to sell Air Canada, which I think is a poor decision, it should come right out and admit it, as it should admit that the Prime Minister of Canada misled Canadians in 1985 and again yesterday, here in the House.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we just heard the distorted truth, the distorted reality from the Leader of the Opposition. He said: "The Prime Minister stated Air Canada was not for sale". However, on January 15, 1985, the press quoted the Prime Minister as follows: "There is a possibility that Air Canada shares will be sold to the general public, but the Government would certainly retain a controlling interest".

And in English: "Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said Monday-" this was on January 15, 1985, "-that Air Canada is not for sale but did not rule out selling a minority interest". What is taking place is exactly consistent with what I indicated at the time, with the needs of Air Canada. We are talking about the future, of making Air Canada an important instrument of growth and unity. We are strengthening Air Canada.
We want to talk about the future. I invite the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to focus on the future and the needs of Air Canada and Canadians. We will take him on on that any day of the week.


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister once said that Air Canada is not for sale. Now he says not at this time.


CONTROL OF CORPORATION-RETENTION OF MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that the Government would retain a majority of the shares, but the Deputy Prime Minister said no, all the Air Canada shares are available to the public. That is what he said yesterday morning.


Mr. Andre:: False.

April 13, 1988
Oral Questions


Mr. Tobin:: True.


John Napier Turner: I do not know how the two gentlemen reconcile those two statements. They certainly have not succeeded this afternoon.
Yesterday the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister also assured Canadians that Air Canada would keep its maintenance facilities at Winnipeg, Montreal, and Toronto. However, Canadians were also told by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday morning that the Government's shares in Air Canada would be voted in accordance with the wishes of the private sector shareholders. Therefore, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister know that they have no way of knowing or guaranteeing that the maintenance facilities will be kept in Winnipeg, or in Toronto or Montreal for that matter, because they have yielded control over the voting preferences of the shares they retain, if they retain them.
Why did the Government make a promise yesterday to the people of Winnipeg that the maintenance facilities would be kept there when it has already abandoned the power to control the voting of the shares?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to repeat to the House again the commitment that Air Canada has made on behalf of the people of Winnipeg. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was very rarely interested in this subject, but I guess because there is an election going on in Manitoba he chooses to raise the issue in an attempt to politicize it.
The fact is that there have been a number of Crown corporations which have been privatized to which conditions have been attached. I invite the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to go back and look at the series of them, some 13 of them. Each and every one of those Crown corporations had one or more conditions attached, and there is no reason to prevent that from happening in this case as well.


FUTURE OF MAINTENANCE BASES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The House should be clear on what the Government is telling us. The Government is now saying that it can give no assurances to the people of Winnipeg, Montreal or Toronto, and that it can only repeat the assurances of Air Canada officials. The Government is saying that, having recognized that Air Canada officials, and particularly the chairman of the board, will be directed to vote their shares in accordance with the majority of the private shareholders. That is what the Government has admitted.
Again I would tell the Deputy Prime Minister, whether there is an election going on in Manitoba or not, perhaps now
is the time to come forward with the full facts, not with fantasy.
How can the Government, given its own privatization plan and its own determination to give up its voting control and direct it to private shareholders, give assurances, either directly or through the management who will give up their 55 per cent share block, that Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, or Stephenville, Newfoundland, will not be negatively affected by this privatization venture?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the best way to secure the success of Air Canada and its continued operation and expansion in Winnipeg is for it to be a healthy airline, and we are giving it the mechanism and the facilities to become a healthy airline.
As I said earlier, there were conditions attached to the privatization of Canadair and they were upheld.
Hon. Members opposite, if I recall correctly, talked about the loss of thousands and thousands of jobs when de Havilland was sold to Boeing. We have not heard a peep lately because 1,000 or 1,100 new jobs have been created-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member can dwell on the past and support his own ideology, but he should listen to some of the workers of Air Canada. Yesterday on the CBC news an unidentified worker said:
It's a profitable company right now and when employees have a share in their company then I believe that they will take care and more care in what they actually have.
Another one said:
I think it is a fantastic investment. The employees will care more and I think there'll be a lot more profit potential within the company.
Another one said:
-we're in the alliance, we're in the service business, it must be competitive and by being privatized it just might become a bit more competitive.
They are living in the real world. Those guys across the way are in fantasyland.


CONTROL OF SHARES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, of course that begs the question, where was the Hon. Member for St. John's West, the former Minister of Transport, living? He said a year ago that it would be best to sell all of it or sell none of it, and he said two months ago that the Government should put $300 million worth of capital into Air Canada because it is basically a fundamentally sound and healthy company.
Yesterday, David Cape of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute in Toronto, a transportation economist, said that given the structure of this privatization and given this half-baked scheme, it is possible that, "In practice, a control block of
April 13, 1988

stock can be quite small. About 5 per cent or 6 per cent can give effective control".
Given that the Government will make 25 per cent of the shares available to foreign owners in time and 11 per cent available to foreign investors immediately, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the Government can assure Canadians that Air Canada is not on its way to becoming Air America.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


John Napier Turner: Maz Air.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and his colleague have to dramatize things because they know they have not got a case. I would rather listen to the workers, and this is what the workers say. Nicole Lanctot from Montreal has said: "This is great, good news. If I were rich, 1 would buy shares. Maybe I will buy shares if they aren't too expensive".


Brian Vincent Tobin: "If I were rich, I would buy shares". Right on.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Wait a moment-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: "I will buy shares if they aren't too expensive".
Second, Joyce Carette has said: "I would buy shares. I'm very excited." Ruth Kershaw said: "The public will benefit in the long run". Glen McLaren said: "I'm delighted, absolutely delighted". The Chairman of Air Canada, who has spent 40 years with this company, said: "This is welcome news indeed".


SALE OF SHARES-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect their Prime Minister to be straightforward with them. They expect the Prime Minister to be honest and to indicate clearly where he stands on important national issues.


Harvie Andre: They expect responsible opposition too.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On January 15, 1985, the Prime Minister said very clearly that Air Canada is not for sale.


Harvie Andre: Read the whole thing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yesterday he indicated that that is not quite what he meant. He went on to explain. He said that Air Canada is for sale but he did not rule out selling a minority interest. The Government then indicated clearly in this House yesterday that the legislation, when brought forward, will permit the transfer of all Air Canada shares.
My question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Why was he not honest with the people of Canada in 1985?
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why did he not say at that time that his intention was to sell off all of Air Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: There are different ways to stray very close to what is not accepted. I know that the Hon. Member would want to make it clear to the Chair and to the House that his question is, would the Prime Minister please explain what seems to be, in the mind of the Hon. Member, a difference in one statement compared to another.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that Parliament is entitled to a responsible position from the Prime Minister. He is quite right. It is also entitled to a responsible position from the NDP. As a beginning, if my hon. friend is going to quote the Prime Minister or any other Member of the House, I hope that he would have the decency and the integrity to make that quote complete, because the manner in which he quoted is false and misleading.

I will give him the quote as reported in The Gazette and La Presse. I wish he would either quote everything I said or stop misquoting me here in the House. The quote is as follows: There is a possibility that Air Canada shares will be sold to the general public, but the Government would certainly retain a controlling interest. There may be good reasons for selling Air Canada.
And the same day, in English, in The Gazette ...

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said Monday in Montreal that Air Canada
is not for sale but did not rule out selling a minority interest.
This is perfectly consistent with not only the interests of Air Canada but what I have said and the position which the Government has adopted. If the Member wants to quote me or any other member of the Government, let him have the decency and honesty to quote fully and completely. He should stop distorting what I said.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Prime Minister that he not only has an obligation to be straightforward with the Parliament of Canada but also has an obligation to be straightforward and honest with the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is time that he started to do just that.


Mr. Shields:: I would ignore that.

April 13, 1988
Oral Questions


Rodney Edward Murphy: That's all right, you lied to pensioners too, all of you. All of you lied to pensioners right across the country.


Jack Wendele Shields: Union tactics, that's what it is. We know all about that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ask Eton. Members, in putting questions, to lay the facts upon which a question is to be asked, to use the preamble for the appropriate purpose. I would ask Hon. Ministers, when replying, not to stray unduly into argument. The Hon. Member.


DECISION-MAKING POWERS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister just indicated, in extensive quotes, what he said at one time or another. He indicated that he would ensure that the Government of Canada would maintain majority control of Air Canada. That is what he just said in the House of Commons.
What kind of a business transaction would give complete decision-making powers to a group of minority shareholders? Why did the Government not at least have the consideration to do what the British did? They maintained a golden share so that the British Government would always have, in the final analysis on critical matters, complete decision-making. Why is the Prime Minister prepared to give over the decision-making rights for Air Canada to a minority set of shareholders?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend asks an entirely appropriate philosophical question. There can be an important philosophical disagreement as to the manner in which this ought to be handled. It is no secret that this Chamber represents different political ideologies and they will find an expression, no doubt, in the fundamental debate and the approach to this matter. I will be happy to engage my friend in debate on this at any time.
Last night, for example, on the CBC Allan Gow, the labour reporter, said:
Most of the workers here think that privatization is a great idea. The union
leadership, though, has quite a different view.
He then quoted Bob White who said:
I think it won't stand the test of time.
Here is where the ideology enters into it and where the differences appear. Bob White is a Vice-President of the NDP and I understand his point of view. However, Mr. Gow concludes:
Union leaders will have a hard time convincing anyone that privatization of
Air Canada is anything but good. Their members are already anxious to get a
piece of the action and the general public will continue to hear from the
Government that privatization will mean a more efficient airline.
There is a fundamental point of view. The NDP disagrees with it. We will debate it in the House of Commons and allow the people to decide whether this is the proper way to go.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESERVATION OF JOBS-REQUEST FOR LEGISLATIVE GUARANTEE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister indicates what this particular initiative will do to the men and women working for Air Canada, he ought to be reminded of the experience in Britain with the privatization of British Airways. Twenty-three thousand men and women lost their jobs as a result of the privatization process.
The Prime Minister knows that the previous comments by the Deputy Prime Minister about the situation of Air Canada today do not hold for the future because the decision-making will be done by a minority group. If the Prime Minister is committed to preserving those jobs for the men and women who presently work for Air Canada, will he indicate that he believes what he says and, as a result, when the legislation is brought forward, if it is in fact ever brought forward, it will include provisions to guarantee the jobs for the men and women who presently work for Air Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not say what the workers said; they said it themselves. The CBC quoted the workers directly saying that they thought that privatization is a great idea.
We listened to my hon. friend and the NDP when the privatization of de Havilland was debated. We heard the predictions of doom and gloom and they are on the record of the House. When Fisheries Products International was debated, it too was supposed to go down the chute. It is bringing prosperity to the fishermen of Newfoundland.
De Havilland has been a success story and Fisheries Products has been a success story. Every company that we have privatized has been a success, as Air Canada will be, because this initiative meets with the general desire of the workers and will strengthen both Canada and Air Canada as a corporation.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Today we read that the provincial Minister responsible for research and development accused the federal Government of being $1.3 billion behind in real spending and that Quebec was suffering the consequences.
April 13, 1988

We know that, as far as regional economic development is concerned, for the past year the Government has made several announcements about setting up agencies in Western Canada, Atlantic Canada and Northern Ontario, and there again, Quebec was left out in the cold.
I want to ask the Minister when he intends to announce a real program for Quebec?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that as far as regional economic development is concerned, Quebec is certainly not lagging behind other regions in this country.
In fact, when we consider the contribution made by this Department in Quebec in recent years, it is clear that it constitutes a very adequate percentage, and the same applies to research and development.


PHASE II OF EASTERN QUEBEC DEVELOPMENT PLAN-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. That is all very well, but we know that as of March 31, for instance, Phase II of the Eastern Quebec development plan expired, and that the Minister promised to make an announcement before that date. Today, there is still no news, and although the Minister responsible for the region kept saying the announcement would be made by March 31, nothing has been done.
Could the Minister please explain why he is dragging his feet?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, for the first time, unlike the previous Government, we are setting up a comprehensive development plan for the entire province of Quebec. Unlike the previous Government, we have respected the constitutional jurisdictions of both levels of government. We have been engaged in active discussions with Quebec for the past six weeks, with a view to reaching a joint agreement that will help peripheral areas, central Quebec, the Montreal metropolitan region and in fact the entire province.
As for the date of the official announcement, I can inform the Hon. Member that we intend to extend the plan for Eastern Quebec. There is no doubt about that. However, we do not want to restrict our regional development initiatives to a specific region. We will have a comprehensive plan with subplans, and the announcement should be made very shortly. We are waiting until discussions with Quebec have been concluded.
Oral Questions


AIR CANADA
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and it concerns employment guarantees at Air Canada.
The Government has indicated it will instruct the Chairman of Air Canada to vote with the majority of public shareholders. Given that, what protection is there for the workers in various centres across Canada, including Winnipeg, that under this new situation, should it be approved by this House, the minority shareholders will not direct Air Canada to downsize, consolidate maintenance facilities, and reduce services? What will prevent that from occurring if the Government is prepared to give full control of Air Canada to that very small group of people who may buy shares?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would agree that what is desirable and what is required from the airline is that it be a healthy, productive and growing airline. We will be giving it the mechanisms to do just that. As the Chairman of Air Canada indicated at the press conference yesterday, and I think I quote him correctly, this initiative will be good for the employees-


Mr. Waddell:: It will be good for him.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -good for customers, good for communities and good for Canada.
I hear some smart remark to the effect that it will be good for him. I think that is a great disservice to a man who has distinguished himself and provided over 40 years of dedicated service from the bottom right up to the top. I think, rather than snarky remarks like that, the Hon. Member should be praising the man for the leadership and inspiration he has given.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the Minister's answer that the Government is not prepared to provide any guarantees. In his own words, it will be a clear arm's length relationship and there is no way to protect existing employees, routes, and facilities because the Government will let that small group of shareholders tell Air Canada what to do.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATIVE GUARANTEES
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to stand in this House today and indicate that in the legislation he is bringing forward there will be a clause that will guarantee existing facilities, routes, and services? Is he prepared to make that guarantee?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Was this question planned, Nelson?

April 13, 1988
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A little more fear mongering from members of the NDP.
Let us put this in perspective. We have debated privatization in this House on a number of occasions.


Jack Wendele Shields: And they say the same thing every time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is really unfortunate that the NDP do not get their act together. They talk about intellectual honesty. We have another nice little quote here by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. One of these days the NDP are going to have to stand up and be counted. They cannot be all things to all people. This is what the Hon. Member said about privatization on February 13, 1987, as reported at page 3426 of Hansard'.
1 wish to reiterate what I have stated. I do not think that all companies need
to remain in the public sector. There could be room for privatization. The
argument has to be made, and the onus is upon the Government. It has to tell
us whether it is a practical reason.
We have told you that this is a practical reason.


Some Hon. Members:: What is the reason?


Mr. Crosbie:: That's the way, Waddell. We want Waddell!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Why would a good man like that lose his seat?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Give him a seat in Alberta.


Some Hon. Members:: What is the reason?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for The Battlefords- Meadow Lake has the floor.


EXCISE TAX ACT
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. I understand that Bill C-l 17, presently stalled by the opposition Parties, provides an additional rebate of one cent a litre on farm fuels for farmers across the country. As they are doing the spring seeding now, could the Minister tell us if a delay in passing the Bill will mean farmers will be delayed in collecting their much needed rebates?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his very pertinent question. The Government of Canada has rebated sales and excise taxes to farmers in the past. This is worth $200 million a year to the farmers and we want to do it again through Bill C-l 17. The sooner we can pass it, the better. Until we do, the farmers will not get their rebates. So I urge the Liberals and NDP to pass the Bill as soon as possible.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I understand that he will travel tomorrow to Western Canada and will probably meet the Saskatchewan Premier, Mr. Grant Devine. In view of the reaction of several groups to the fundamental issue before us, Bill 2 and the impact it may have had on national unity, would the Prime Minister be prepared to stand up in his place today and tell us that he will ask Mr. Devine to withdraw his Bill?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I hope to meet the Saskatchewan Premier tomorrow and have discussions with him to advance this difficult but so very important issue for Canada and Saskatchewan. Accordingly, I intend to discuss the matter with him tomorrow and I will report with pleasure to my hon. friend here in the House as soon as possible.


NON-NEGOTIABLE RIGHTS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we were told that negotiations were in progress between the Federal Government and the Saskatchewan authorities. I trust the Prime Minister will agree with me that basic and vested rights are not negotiable. We have in Canada a national policy on official languages and it is out of the question to negotiate existing vested rights. I ask the Prime Minister to repeat. . .


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: ... and tell Mr. Devine on behalf of the Canadian people that basic rights such as those he tried to set back with Bill 2 are not negotiable and must be maintained.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In fact, I have already indicated to my hon. friend that I fully share his views. There are no differences between the Hon. Member and myself. I have already emphasized the fact that in 1982, I think, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier had felt it necessary to vote against the last constitutional initiative because in his view some of the Ontario Francophones' rights were not protected.
Problems exist in Ontario, in Saskatchewan and elsewhere and it is our duty to try to build a society which better respects the rights of linguistic minorities wherever they exist, whether it be the Anglophones in Quebec or the Francophones in Manitoba or elsewhere. That is, I think, the objective of the Parliament of Canada and it is certainly my own objective.
April 13, 1988


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EMPLOYMENT PROJECTION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade whom I would like to congratulate on his new position. I would also like to ask him about the Economic Council report this morning. That report showed a reduction from 189,000 jobs to only 76,000 jobs in its analysis of direct 10-year effects from the trade agreement. Does this not show that Canada in fact got a worse deal than the Economic Council expected last summer, and that in fact we were badly out-bargained by the United States?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his kind words with reference to myself. He and I must be reading from different news releases. I have here in my hands a news release from the Economic Council of Canada.
The Council cautioned against Canada repudiating the agreement because U.S. protectionist forces would probably succeed in having new trade actions launched against this country. That is one of its statements.
At the end of its second release the Council noted that Canadians should not focus on the precise numbers of the projections but on the general thrust of the results.
The projections "tell a consistent story" that approving the free trade
agreement will promote economic growth and employment in Canada..
All across Canada. That is the important thing. It is a very positive report.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest next time that the Minister read the report rather than reading the press release.


FORECAST BY ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA-MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: I have a supplementary for the Minister. Does he agree that according to this analysis, the five or six cent change in the value of the dollar means that the figures of the Economic Council are no longer valid


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, all studies and forecasts are based upon assumptions. Therefore, the results depend on the assumptions one makes. The hon. gentleman, I believe, was connected with the academic world before he entered the House. We can tell because he makes many assumptions himself and they are all
Oral Questions
unfavourable to the Government. For example, the Council
says:
... that it expects the accord will lead to an additional increase in employment of. . . about 250,000 jobs ... if productivity grows as strongly as it should.
It says:
Under the most probable scenario, all provinces and most industries would gain in employment and output.
This is what the Council says. It says that the reason for the difference between its former projections and the projections now was that we did not get access to American procurement to as great a degree as previously had been thought. This explains its projections. It says:
If the trade pact is not approved, Canada might lose rather than gain jobs and investment as the United States might react by imposing new protectionist measures against Canadian exports.
The hon. gentleman shows every day his fear about U.S. protectionism. Why doesn't he support this protection against U.S. protectionism?


EXTERNAL AID
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for External Relations. Does the Minister realize that famine may again strike thousands of Ethiopians, and could the Minister therefore explain to the House why generous amounts of Canadian aid routed to this country were sent exclusively to the South? Finally, what does the Minister intend to do to ensure that food aid is sent as soon as possible to the North, at least before the rains start, which is in about six weeks?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I can inform him that the Government and I are also very concerned about the present situation in Ethiopia. As the Hon. Member is probably aware, I visited Ethiopia in February and reported at the time to the House. Of course, the situation has changed since then. We know that the war going on in the North is a threat to many millions of lives because it may prevent the food from reaching these people. However, I can inform the Hon. Member that food has been delivered in the North and that all Canadian commitments have been delivered so far, except for two shipments. One is expected to arrive in a matter of days, and its delivery is guaranteed. As for the other shipment now under way, we are looking at various alternatives to find out whether the shipment can be delivered to the people. I can assure the Hon. Member that we are concerned about the situation and that together with other donor countries and multilateral agencies, we are looking at

April 13, 1988
Oral Questions
various alternatives to ensure the population is not penalized by the present situation in Ethiopia.


QUERY CONCERNING MEASURES NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE CEASE-FIRE
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the Minister said, but she herself must admit that despite all the efforts and all the good will of Canadians who have responded very eagerly and with exemplary charity, food aid is not going where it should. And the reason the famine is raging again is the war, this unspeakable war that is continuing. Can the Minister tell us on behalf of the Canadian government what Canada can do concretely to work for a ceasefire as soon as possible in that country?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to tell my colleague that so far, until a few weeks ago, food reached the affected populations. I was able myself to observe the delivery of food in northern Eritrea and Tigre. Now, I agree with the Hon. Member that the new situation, namely the state of war, that exists of course threatens the delivery of food to the affected populations. As I was just telling you, the multilateral agencies and donor countries are now consulting each other and we are now, to begin with, of course putting pressure on the Ethiopian Government to ensure that international agencies can return to the northern part of the country and supply food.
Also, the United Nations Under Secretary General's mission is now in Ethiopia. We are counting a great deal on this mission and hope that it will result in a more favourable situation and commitments from the governments involved.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Max Yalden, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in his recent annual report called upon the Government to give the Commission greater powers to enable it to play a more active investigatory and regulatory role on pay equity for women. He also wants tougher powers to deal with discrimination against the disabled and visible minorities, instead of responding on a complaint by complaint basis.
Will the Minister of Justice respond positively to these important recommendations in the very near future in order to promote full equality for Canadian women and for Canadian minorities?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to receive the first report of the commission under its new Commissioner, Mr. Yalden, for whom I have, the very greatest of respect, and this view is shared by the Government. I wish him well in the performance of his responsibilities.
I can only say that I am waiting for the detailed recommendations with respect to the matters raised in the report. I will give them the attention that they obviously require. When I receive these matters I will have a chance to respond to the House at the earliest possible date.


REQUEST THAT ATLANTIC CANADA BE REPRESENTED ON COMMISSION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. The Minister says that he will wait. For nearly six months there has been no representative whatsoever from Atlantic Canada on this important national commission, despite repeated pleas by Max Yalden for the Government to move finally to fill that vacancy. In fact, there is no one on the commission from east of Montreal.
When will the Minister finally move to fill this vacancy? How much longer will he wait before ending this insult to the people of Atlantic Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have to give the Hon. Member marks for originality. That is the same question he asked me in committee two weeks ago.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That's right.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The fact of the matter is that I responded to him at that time to point out that the vacancy on the commission was as a result of the transfer of Mr. Fairweather, who represented that area very effectively, of course, as the commissioner at the time. I am looking now at a list of very important and impressive candidates. I will make sure that this position is filled-


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member may be a candidate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Hon. Member would not qualify on a number of counts. One is that he does not come from that area,
I will make sure that we get a good candidate. I will want the support of the Hon. Member when I make the announcement.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Algoma on a single question.
April 13, 1988


PROCESSED FOOD IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. The special advisory group to the Government on international trade for agriculture and food recommended that where imports of processed foods from the United States contain more than 10 per cent of ingredients produced under our supply-management system in Canada, that is, marketing boards, they be placed on the import control list. The free trade deal makes no provision such as that.
Will the Minister go ahead to implement that provision which was recommended by his own advisory group, and which has been recommended by practically all agriculture groups in Canada, even though it is not in the free trade agreement?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's question. He will know that there are ongoing discussions between industry people, international trade people, and representatives of Agriculture Canada. We will continue those discussions until we reach an agreement, a mutually agreed upon solution. Of course, we will then implement it.
I remind the Hon. Member that some time ago we had similar ongoing discussions with people in the dairy industry. When we concluded those discussions and reached an agreement we followed through with the commitment we made earlier that we would in fact shift certain commodities from the tariff list to the import-export list. We did that for the dairy industry. I expect that we will be doing the same thing with other industries under supply management.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill on a single question.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. During the state of severe unemployment on Indian reserves in western Canada, and the fact that native people need a secure land base in order to develop their opportunities and get away from the welfare cycle that exists, why has the Minister reneged on the Saskatchewan formula as it applies to the provision of land and entitlement lands to the bands in that province? Why has he reneged on the agreement with the Manitoba chiefs and the Manitoba Government which was initialled by his officials over a year ago which would have provided the land base which those people so badly need?
Point of Order


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to that important question.
The Saskatchewan formula, which has been in effect since 1979, has only seen two transfers of land take place. The entitlement bands in Saskatchewan have changed their decision from that originally of land to land and, in some cases, cash, and to some land which is not rural but urban. To calculate the quantum to those changes, it was necessary to review the policy of the Government of Canada.
The date of first survey is still in place. Without prejudice, the Government of Canada will meet that date of first survey entitlement.
With respect to Manitoba, the Manitoba Government initialled a memorandum among officials that allowed for the Government of Canada to purchase in southern Manitoba all the land necessary for entitlement, completely excluding any responsibility by the Government of Manitoba to provide much needed land to Indian entitlement bands in that province.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe rises on a point of order.


POINTS OF ORDER
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in responding to an answer by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) I said: "-that selective quote, I am sure, will be answered by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry for the deliberate mistruth that it is."
I want to withdraw the word "deliberate". I would not want to suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister, even when he is dealing with faulty information, would deliberately convey that information to the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the Hon. Member's gesture without having to be asked. I know that that still leaves a difference of opinion between the Hon. Member and the Hon. Minister.


CORRECTION TO STATEMENT
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It arises out of a question placed by a Conservative Member to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) concerning Bill C-l 17.
I am sure the Hon. Member who put the question would not want to mislead the House. He spoke of the Bill being delayed by members of the Opposition. I should point out that the Bill was brought on by the Government for only two days of

April 13, 1988
Tabling of Documents
debate. In fact, those were not two full days. This was just before the adjournment.
Six members from my Party, including myself, spoke on the debate. I believe an equal number of members from the New Democratic Party spoke on the debate. For some reason Conservative Members chose not to participate in the debate.
I am sure that the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House by suggesting that two days of debate and 12 speakers on a major tax Bill constitutes undue delay as opposed to responsible comment.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's point of order, it was certainly not my intention to mislead the House. I think that if she were to check the "blues" she would find that the words which she has attributed to me about delay are indeed true. I talked about being delayed by the Opposition in general terms. I did not use a term such as "undue delay" or the sort of words that she has described.
My concern about this Bill, and I acknowledge it is a significant tax Bill, is that the clause to which I have expressed a concern is the clause that deals frankly with the fuel tax rebate. In my part of the country, as in all agricultural areas of Canada, there is a considerable interest in ensuring that federal fuel tax rebates are prolonged and extended by the Government. That was my reason for asking the question. I was concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: I might indicate that this is perhaps straying beyond a point of order, but out of respect for the Hon. Member for Trinity I will hear her briefly.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this matter. I cannot help but comment on the fact that if the Government had not imposed the additional tax there would not be a need for the rebate the Hon. Member talks about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It is perhaps time to close off this exchange.



Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday, during the Adjournment Debate as reported at page 14407 of Hansard I referred in the closing paragraph to Bill C-84. The Bill should be Bill C-79. If our permanent record were to reflect that fact, then future historians would have a better record of what we were talking about.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Roger Clinch (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour of tabling the 1987 Annual Report of Telesat.
According to Standing Order 67(4) the report is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


PETITIONS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 33 petitions, Nos. 332-3944, 332-3983, 332-3984, 332-4041 to 332-4046 inclusive, 332-4102, 332-4104, 3324143, 332-4147, 332-4148, 332-4163, 332-4164, 332-4229, 332-4237 to 332-4239 inclusive, and 332-4285 to 332-4297 inclusive.
v * v



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifty-eighth report of the Striking Committee.
If the House gives its consent, Mr. Speaker, I intend to move concurrence in the fifty-eighth report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition I would like to present on behalf of
April 13, 1988

myself and the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) representing 1,200 signatures from Vancouver and across the country.
The petitioners pray that the Canadian Government exercise leadership in furthering the long-term development in Ethiopian response to a heart-rending famine, and also calling upon the Canadian Government to spearhead an international development and peace initiative for the immediate cessation of hostilities and the internal violence in Ethiopia.


Mr. Speaker:: With the consent of the House, I would like to revert back to the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).




Thomas Scott Fennell: My apologies, Mr. Speaker, I thought there was a slight error and I brought it to the attention of the Table.
If the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) that the Fifty-eighth report of the Striking Committee presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to table in the House today a petition signed by more than 1,300 Canadians who are asking the Government to propose a plan for international development and peace in Ethiopia, including an immediate ceasefire, and to take the necessary measures to put a stop to the famine that threatens the people of Ethiopia.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honour to present a petition pursuant to
Petitions
Standing Order 106 on behalf of a number of constituents who are very concerned about the Government's trade deal with the United States. The petitioners believe that the United States trade deal would have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural, and political independence. They believe that the trade deal will result in a massive loss of jobs, not only in many sectors of the economy, but in many regions of Canada.
Therefore, the petitioners are asking that the Parliament of Canada obtain a clear mandate from the people of Canada through a national debate on this deal, and that this debate result in a national election prior to the signing of any such agreement.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Madam Speaker, as a Member of Parliament I have the distinct honour to submit a petition which has been gathered by the rather spectacular efforts of one Cheryl Verney.
The petition consists of some 1,200 signatures of Canadians who ask this Parliament to demand of the Government that it use its good offices to secure a peace settlement in Ethiopia, in order that the needs of the people in that tragic country can be met with respect to food, and ultimately to accomplish the long-term development there which will provide the security and the long-term survival of the people of Ethiopia.


Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by numerous residents of the Hamilton area. The petitioners are concerned about recent statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) with regard to the situation in Israel, especially the claim that Israel was using food as a weapon to control the riots in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
The petitioners believe that there is irrefutable evidence that such is not the case. They call upon the Minister to provide them with evidence to support his charges.


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by people in the riding of Bourassa, from the parish of Sainte-Gertrude in Montreal North, who are asking that food aid be sent to Third World countries only in emergency situations. And your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to set a priority on food production in Canadian aid programs and start by helping small farmers in Third World countries.
And as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.

April 13, 1988
Order Paper Questions


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour and privilege to present two petitions.
The first petition is signed by residents principally of the communities of Keewatin and Kenora in my riding. The petitioners call for the Government to remedy the inequitable and bizarre situation that has been created by the application of the northern residents' tax allowance whereby some people have been granted the allowance, and others, their very neighbours even, have been denied the allowance.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to provide a remedy by designating all communities that are placed in Tier III ridings as eligible for the deduction.
The second petition is signed by some 40 residents of the community of Ignace, Ontario. It is in the same vein and it seeks the same remedy, namely, that all communities that are remote and isolated should be designated as eligible for the northern residents' tax deduction.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from the ridings of Trinity, Spadina, and other parts of Toronto, from people who say that since Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed trade deal between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States, for which the Prime Minister had no mandate from the Canadian people, and because this would reduce Canada's ability to plan our economic, social, and cultural programs and will integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base, therefore the undersigned ask the House of Commons to ensure that a national debate takes place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, and that this debate result in a national general election before any agreement is signed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on the same subject matter as the one presented by the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) relating to the taxation of northern benefits.
In my riding the communities of Thompson and Bowden will not receive this tax benefit. The Government, through its rules and regulations, has deemed these communities which are over 700 kilometres north of the City of Winnipeg to be southern communities as far as it is concerned. People in the riding object strongly to the classification they have been given.
This petition has been signed by a number of people, many of whom work for the federal Government.
A similar petition was signed by over 4,500 residents of these two communities and was ruled ineligible by the Clerk of the House because it was not in proper form. However, it signifies that a very large percentage of people living in these two communities object to the discriminatory ruling of the federal Government and are very concerned about the issue.
I should also point out to the House that a number of people in the City of Thompson are deliberately going to misfile their tax forms as if they were northern residents, which they believe they are.
It is a very serious situation that the Government of Canada has created.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 241,252, 268,282, and 299.


Mr. de Jong: Within the last four years has (a) Allarcom Ltd. (b) Cathton Holdings Ltd. of Edmonton received any government grants and, if so, in each case (i) when (ii) under what programs (iii) in what amounts?


Robert René de Cotret: In so far as the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion is concerned, the answer is as follows:
(a)	Allarcom Ltd. (i) On April 22, 1987, the company accepted an offer of assistance of $1,109,394 toward the planned development of a $6.9 million motion picture and television production studio in Edmonton. This would assist in the efforts to diversify manufacturing and non-resource based industry in Alberta; (ii) Western Transportation Industrial Development Program; (iii) As of January 18, 1988, no payments have been made.
(b)	Cathton Holdings Ltd. (i) (ii) (iii) Nil.


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Public Works make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: The
Department of Public Works has made the following grants in lieu of taxes (municipal grants) to local governments in
April 13, 1988

metropolitan Toronto from fiscal year 1984-85 to February 29, 1988:
Statutory grants in lieu of taxes - (municipal grants) Actual Expenditures in dollars
Metro Toronto	1984-85	1985-86	1986-87	1987-88
(by city)				to Feb. 29
Etobicoke	269,276	166,830	110,865	118,360North York	6,048,264	3,700,000	5,150,224	9,276,094Scarborough	455,058	490,388	140,269	294,462Toronto	11,178,632	8,000,000	7,249,000	7,903,807York	143,285	87,691	-	-East York	-	-	-	-18,094,515	12,444,909	12,650,358	17,592,723
The Department has also made contributions to the following organizations:
1984-85	1985-86	1986-87	1987-88Canadian	12,000	12,000	12,000	12,000
Standards Assoc.
178 Rexdale Blvd.
Rexdale, Ontario
Construction Management	60,000	-	50,000	40,000
Development Institute*
Suite 901, 5799 Yonge St.
Willowdale, Ontario
* This contribution is not made directly to CMDI but does through DRIE who co-ordinates the contributions.
The Department has made no loans.


Mr. Kaplan: 1.	Has the government conducted any studies, on its own or in conjunction with the government of Ontario, into the impact on Sault Ste. Marie of locating the Northern Psychiatric Treatment Centre within the city limits of that community?
2.	Did the Correctional Service of Canada (C.S.C) select the particular site in Sault Ste. Marie for the construction of the Northern Psychiatric Treatment Centre and, if not, did the C.S.C. or any other branch of the government object to the construction of the Centre in close proximity to a public school and a residential area of Sault Ste. Marie?
3.	Does the Northern Treatment Centre Agreement entered into by the Correctional Services of Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Corrections provide (a) for the future construction of additional correctional institutions in the Sault Ste. Marie area (6) for the citizens of Sault Ste. Marie to become directly involved in the treatment and re-integration into the community of the Centre's inmates?
Order Paper Questions
4.	Will copies of the Northern Treatment Centre Agreement be released to the public and, if so, on what date?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: In so
far as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
1.	The cost of establishing and maintaining the Northern Treatment Centre will be shared by the federal and provincial correctional services. However, the Centre will be constructed and managed by the provincial Government. Therefore, the establishment of the Centre, including site issues, is the responsibility of the provincial Government who, since the beginning, has been making various decisions concerning the Centre in accordance with its normal practices and policies.
Consequently, no federal impact studies have been conducted, nor has the federal Government participated in any provincial studies related to the Northern Treatment Centre.
2.	The Correctional Service of Canada did not select the particular site for the Northern Treatment Centre. Given the security safeguards provided by the Centre design, the Correctional Service of Canada does not consider there is any need to object to the site selected.
3.	(a) The Northern Treatment Centre Agreement does not speak to future construction of additional correctional institutions in the Sault Ste. Marie area.
(b) The Northern Treatment Centre Agreement does not speak to the question of community involvement. Since the operation of the Centre will be managed by the provincial government, requests for specific details on the provincial policy on volunteer programs should be directed to the Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services. Generally speaking, however, the federal and provincial correctional systems encourage the involement of the community on a volunteer basis.
4.	Copies of federal-provincial agreements are not available until all formalities have been concluded. It is anticipated that these formalities will be concluded in the near future.


Mr. Boyer: 1.	Are the coins in the Centennial Flame fountain retrieved by employees of the government and, if so, what is their average yearly value?
2.	Has the government any plans to rebuild the present structure of the Centennial Flame, originally intended to be temporary, or to replace it with a new one?


Stewart Donald McInnes: 1. The
coins in the Centennial Flame fountain are retrieved by an employee of Public Works Canada. They are counted, weighed and given to the Finance Branch of Public Works to be deposited in a bank account in the name of the Government. These funds are donated annually to charity as designated by Secretary of State.
The amounts retrieved yearly are in the order of $1,000.

April 13, 1988
Motions for Papers
2. There is no actual plan to rebuild the present structure of the centennial flame nor to build a new one.


Mr. Kaplan: Since Thomas R. Berger's retirement from the Bench, has he been paid any periodic amount ex gratia by the government?
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada: No.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that Bill C-125, an Act to enable the Northern Canada Power Commission to issue shares, to authorize the sale of those shares to the Government of the Northwest Territories, to repeal the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, and to provide for related matters, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I should like the indulgence of the House to take one or two minutes to speak to this very important piece of legislation respecting the Northern Canada Power Commission (Share Issuance and Sale Authorization) Act, which will transfer the assets and the authority of a very important utility to some 13,000 consumers and the duly elected legislative Government of the Northwest Territories.
In keeping with that I will conclude my remarks and ask that the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), who is one of those 13,000 consumers and one of the electorate in the Northwest Territories, be allowed to continue debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, first I should like to thank the Minister for allowing me to make the remarks which he would have made this afternoon. I am going to sandwich them between a prefix and a suffix of my own making. I should also like to thank the opposition Parties for allowing the matter to be dealt with in an expeditious manner this afternoon.
My part in the process goes back some 15 years. This is how long we have been working on this transfer. This measure today restores my faith in the parliamentary process, the Canadian political process, in that this is taking place. It shows that in this country if one has good ideas, and if enough people are persuaded of the rightness of those ideas and work collectively to put them into effect, this can be accomplished.
The history goes back many years. One could perhaps single out 1973-74 as the start of the process when a committee of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, under the chairmanship of Tom Butters who was then and is now the MLA for Inuvik, did a study of those areas of jurisdiction which at that time were under federal control but which normally were under provincial control. A list was made, and since that time we have made a lot of progress on transferring items from that list, from the responsibility of the federal Government to that of the territorial Government where they rightfully belong.
The idea of transferring the responsibility for electrical power was endorsed by the three political Parties within the Northwest Territories. If anything we were vying between ourselves as to who was the most forceful in recommending that the transfer take place. I guess the big difference between the Parties is that local Conservatives were listened to by the national association, and this might not have been the case with at least one of the other Parties.
Another major step came in 1980 when the report of the Prime Minister's special representative on constitutional development in the Northwest Territories, the Hon. Bud Drury, was tabled in the House. It addressed itself to this very question and to many others.
Very good work was done on this question in the early 1980s by the House of Commons NCPC subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development chaired by our good friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). It is interesting to note that many of the recommendations in that report have been acted upon over a period of time, and the major recommendation is now being acted upon.
April 13, 1988

In 1985 there was a memorandum of understanding agreed to by the Government of Canada, by the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), and the Governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories which put into effect the guidelines for negotiations leading to the transfer.
In 1987 the Yukon part of NCPC was transferred to the responsibility of the Government of the Yukon. That was a good move. It was supported by all Parties in the House and dealt with in an expeditious fashion.
That brings us to today where, following the February 8 agreement signed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) and the territorial Minister responsible for energy, the Hon. Nellie Cournoyea, we have before us Bill C-125 which will actually put the transfer into effect and authorize the disposition of the shares.
Now I come to the meat of the sandwich-the speech which would have been given by the Hon. Minister. On February 8 this year in Yellowknife, the territorial Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Hon. Nellie Cournoyea, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development signed an agreement in principle for the sale of the Northern Canada Power Commission to the Government of the Northwest Territories. The legislation which is in front of us is designed to authorize the sale.
It means that for the first time residents of the Northwest Territories will have full ownership and control of their own electric utility. Along with ownership will come responsibility, something which northerners have long sought and long deserved. The Northern Canada Power Commission is a federal Crown corporation and the principal producer of power in the Northwest Territories. In 1987 it sold some 385 million kilowatt hours of electricity to some 13,000 customers.
Until a year ago, NCPC was also the principal supplier of electricity in the Yukon. However, in March of last year this House gave all-Party support to Bill C-45 which provided for the sale to the Yukon Government of NCPC's Yukon assets. Today we are proposing the sale of NCPC to the Government of the Northwest Territories through legislation equally deserving of all-Party support.
Also, Members will be happy to learn of the realization of a critical objective, the right of all employees of NCPC to continue their employment with the new utility to be formed by the Government of Northwest Territories.
We are eager to complete this sale for a number of reasons. For instance, this transfer is entirely in keeping with the federal Government's northern framework, the policy which guides this Government's approach to northern economic and political development issues. Among the Government's principal goals under the framework are the goals to assist
Northern Canada Power Commission
northerners in achieving economic independence and to aid in their attainment of more responsible government.
In order to achieve this, we are committed to transferring responsibility for provincial-type programs to the territorial Governments. In this regard, the Government has recently transferred to the Government of the Northwest Territories responsibility for forest management and forest fire fighting, and we are in the process of transferring the residual health care responsibilities from the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The ability of residents of the territories to manage and develop their utility has been a growing concern for some time. In 1982, a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Indian and Northern Affairs recommended that the Northern Canada Power Commission be transferred to the territorial Governments. The step we are taking today completes the response to the recommendations of that subcommittee.
Again, we have to acknowledge the hard work of the subcommittee and especially the Chairman, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior.
The Government of the Northwest Territories has expressed a willingness to assume responsibility for the utility and has indicated its capability to operate the facility under a territorial corporation to be called the Northwest Territory Power Corporation. It will be the responsibility of the Government of the territories to ensure that the affairs of the corporation are managed for the best possible benefit of northerners.
The transfer of the Northern Canada Power Commission will be accomplished by means of a sale of its shares to the Government of the Northwest Territories. Bill C-125 will authorize NCPC to convert $43.1 million of its total debt of some $96.1 million owing to the federal Government into share capital. The remaining $53 million will stay as debt on the NCPC accounts.
This legislation will permit the federal Government to sell these shares and the debt with a total worth of $96.1 million for a cash price of $53 million to the Government of the Northwest Territories. While it is a little more complicated when one reads the fine print, that is the gist of the deal. This deal will enable the utility to operate in a viable and efficient manner, and allow the Government of the Northwest Territories to assume its social responsibilities to protect customers.
This is another example of the ability of the Government to act responsibly and co-operatively. I am proud to advise the House that as a result of the sale and transfer of NCPC, all NCPC employees will continue their present employment with the new utility, uninterrupted. They will also continue to participate in the federal pension plan. We have also ensured that the benefits package employees will be entitled to is comparable to the one they now enjoy. There will be additional benefits available to them through a dental plan and improved maternity leave arrangements.

April 13, 1988
Northern Canada Power Commission
As I said at the outset, the sale of NCPC is consistent with the federal Government's northern framework, which includes the goal of transferring programs and responsibilities of a provincial nature to the territorial Governments. Northerners are eager that this occur-I can personally vouch for this- and the territorial Governments are ready and able to take on the job. Proof of this is to be found in the successful transfer I mentioned earlier. Bill C-125 is an important step in the transfer process.
The territorial Government is off to a good start. It had its legislation in place before the March 31 deadline while we are a couple of weeks late. It is establishing the Northwest Territories Power Corporation, a territorial Crown corporation, and has already named the new board. It is a very good new board, and I recognize a number of the names, particularly that of the Chairman, Mr. Jim Robertson of Inuvik. I am sure they will do a good job.
One of the first jobs they will be called upon to perform is the selection of a new president, or chief operating officer. That will be a very important decision, and while we are on the subject, we should render our compliments to Mr. Jack Beaver, who, despite rather ill health, agreed to stay on. While he thought it would only be for a matter of months, it turned out to be somewhat longer. He agreed to stay on to make sure that the transition went smoothly. Mr. Beaver has done an excellent job over many years and we in the North thank him for that.
There will be a number of other decisions to be made, one of which will be the location of the head office. Presently it is in Edmonton and will have to be moved north. As we all know, there is considerable debate as to where it should go, and, in a way, I am fortunate that it will now be a territorial decision rather than one in the hands of federal representatives.
When the head office is transferred, we will have to take special notice of the Edmonton employees, many of whom will not want to move north. Generally speaking, I think we have done a very good job with the employees of NCPC, although some of them are still not quite sure where they stand. That will have to be made known to them. In particular, the new owners will have to devote some attention to the Edmonton employees.
The new corporation will be faced with some rather serious problems, including upgrading the facilities. Some of the facilities are in need of renewal. I understand it has already started on a new power line and is already doing the clearing for a new power line from the Snare Hydro site to the City of Yellowknife. The corporation is faced with the loss of its biggest customer, Pine Point Mines. That will cause some problems which it will have to overcome.
The territories will also have to take over what we might call a social responsibility. As this sale takes place, the federal Government will no longer be providing subsidies to very remote areas. That will become the responsibility of territorial authorities. Of course, there will be an ongoing debate as to
whether a territorial Crown corporation, per se, is the best way to provide electrical energy to consumers in the region. Perhaps we could look at the Yukon model, which is a kind of a joint system between private investors and a territorial Crown corporation. We could look at other ways for investor involvement perhaps to occur. There are a number of other models and maybe some completely new ideas that ought to be looked at. As well, the territories will have to reassess the functions and authorities of the public utilities board.
All in all, I think that this is an excellent move on the part of the Government. A lot of hard work has gone into this on the part of people who have been involved in the negotiations including those with NCPC, those with the federal Government and those with territorial Governments. It has been a long, hard road to slog, but we have now reached the goal. It deserves the support of all Hon. Members so that northerners might soon realize the same economic control over their destiny enjoyed by their counterparts south of sixty.


B. Keith Penner: Madam Speaker, I am certainly very pleased to participate in this debate because we are doing something today that is positive and helpful for the development of Canada's great North. Bill C-125 authorizes the Northern Canada Power Commission, a federal Crown corporation, to be sold to the Government of the Northwest Territories.
As has already been indicated by my friend from Western Arctic, this Bill is really a piece of companion legislation to one with which we dealt last year, Bill C-45, which permitted the Yukon assets and operation of the Northern Canada Power Commission to be transferred to the full ownership and control of Yukoners. Bill C-125 which is now being considered and Bill C-45 which has already been passed are, in general, though not in every specific point, in keeping with the recommendations of a report prepared for Parliament by a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. That report is entitled Electrical Power North of Sixty Degrees. It was certainly a great pleasure for me to work on that subcommittee along with my good and able friend from Western Arctic.
In examining the organizational arrangements of the Northern Canada Power Commission, the subcommittee to which I have referred found that the territorial Governments had almost no legislative and regulatory jurisdiction over the Northern Canada Power Commission as a federal Crown corporation. This was a bone of contention. It was a grievance that existed in the North.
Second, in examining the organizational arrangements, the subcommittee found that the federal Government's powers, decision-making and budgetary processes do not make the Northern Canada Power Commission fully accountable to the people it serves. When accountability is remote, as it was
April 13, 1988

under the NCPC arrangements, there are bound to be problems, and that was exactly the case.
These findings caused the committee to recommend that the federal Government enter into discussions with the territorial Governments for the purpose of creating separate territorial Crown corporations to assume present NCPC responsibilities. In 1985, the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development reached a memorandum of understanding with the Government of the Northwest Territories. This MOU led to negotiations between the federal Government and the Government of the Northwest Territories and resulted in an agreement in principle. That agreement in principle was signed on February 8, 1988.
The principles which governed the sale and transfer of NCPC to the Government of the Northwest Territories called for a speedy process. The agreement in principle actually mentioned a date of March 31. As has already been noted, we have missed that target date because of the Easter recess of Parliament, but not by very much. We in this Party support in principle the thrust of this Bill and we want it to be passed quickly. The Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly passed its legislation on the target date, March 31. Its resolution has now received assent from the territorial Commissioner.
After the transfer, the Government of the Northwest Territories will continue to operate the utility on a commercially viable basis. The objective of the transfer is to achieve a fiscally responsible, self-financing and dependable utility operation providing power to the North at reasonably stable rates. Viability, however, will not exclude certain social obligations of the Government of the Northwest Territories, and I will return to the social obligations a little later.
The agreement does not write off totally the existing debt of the Northern Canada Power Commission as the subcommittee had recommended, but NCPC's long-term debt of some $96 million will be replaced by a new capital structure. This capital structure will be composed of a promissory note of $53 million and share capital of $43 million. These two items, amounting to $96 million, will be sold to the Government of the Northwest Territories for $53 million in cash. However, the Northern Canada Power Commission has some retained earnings of $25 million, and these, I understand, are included in the transfer price. Therefore, if my arithmetic is correct, the total cost to the Government of the Northwest Territories would be about $28 million, and on top of that there is to be some Public Works housing transferred to the Government at no cost, and I will return to that a bit later.
The rate of return on this $43-million worth of shares will allow the Government of the Northwest Territories to continue its program of subsidies for remote communities. The federal Government's obligation for those power subsidies will be discontinued. This is an important concern to me because these remote and isolated communities depend on electricity produced by oil-burning generators. The cost is high to these
Northern Canada Power Commission
people. There is the maintenance factor to be taken into account as well. At times, the climate is extremely cold. Many of the people who live in these communities are living in or very close to poverty.
The agreement also recognizes the desire of the Government of the Northwest Territories to relocate NCPC's head office from Edmonton to the Northwest Territories. The background paper from the Minister notes that the head office employees in Edmonton will eventually be relocated to the Northwest Territories, so there still seems to be a delay factor there. My friend from Western Arctic, however, has pointed out that where the headquarters are to go is now no longer in the hands of the Government of Canada but is up to the Government of the Northwest Territories itself.
I am curious, and I have not found the answer anywhere, about where exactly the revenues from the sale of the headquarters in Edmonton will be directed. I assume for the moment that they will go into that big drawer that we have here in Ottawa called the Consolidated Revenue Fund. When I first came to Parliament, I had the idea that money was actually divided up in different places. Then someone told me that that is not true, it is all in one big drawer called the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and all of that reference to envelopes is really a good deal of mythology.
The agreement in principle, and this is absolutely the most important part of the legislation and the agreement, called for the equitable treatment of Northern Canada Power Commission employees. To the best of my knowledge, having studied the Bill with some care, I think that concern is reflected in Bill C-125.
All employees of NCPC will become members of the Northwest Territories Public Service. They will maintain their current positions within the utility if they so wish. Those employees who are unionized will continue to have their own bargaining unit but at the same time they will become part of the union of northern workers. Wages and benefits will be comparable to those now enjoyed. In fact, I believe they are going to get some additional benefits, including a dental plan and maternity leave. Past service will be recognized for purposes of severance, seniority, and pensions.
The agreement in principle also made reference to housing, and I referred to that a moment ago. They saw housing as being necessary for the continued operation of the utility, so Public Works Canada housing will be transferred to the Government of the Northwest Territories at no cost. That is part of the deal. This will be an important factor for those employees of NCPC who decide to relocate to the North and become N.W.T. public servants. They will want to be assured that they will have good and affordable housing.
The agreement envisages the possibility of a role for the private sector. The Government of the Northwest Territories

April 13, 1988
Northern Canada Power Commission
will develop some options for involving companies or individuals in the provision of electricity in the Northwest Territories. That may involve, for example, a private utility taking an equity position at some future time. The Government of the Northwest Territories wants to determine whether the private sector could finance, develop and own future electrical projects in the Northwest Territories. Once again, that will be their decision, just as the decision was taken in the Yukon to involve the private sector.
The Yukon did it in a slightly different way. It was not an equity position. It was not development or ownership. In fact, the Yukon Government decided that the best approach was to combine on the one hand public sector ownership and, on the other, to have efficient and effective management from the private sector. What they did was to negotiate a management contract with the private sector and, to the best of my knowledge, that arrangement is working well.
The agreement in principle noted that after the transfer the electrical utility operations will be subject to regulation by a regulatory agency appointed by the Government of the Northwest Territories. However, the background notes from the department say that the N.W.T. Power Commission will eventually, after a transition period, be regulated by the N.W.T. Public Utility Board. I must express to the Minister and the House a modest degree of concern about this eventuality. I believe that the regulatory powers should be in the hands of the N.W.T. Public Utility Board as quickly as possible.
I want to say that we in the Official Opposition support the Bill. I certainly want to commend the Minister for carrying forward recommendations from a parliamentary committee even though the work was done in a previous Parliament. I just want to make reference again to committees in case it is missed along the way because I always take pride in the way in which parliamentary committees can contribute to the process of Government. I think there is too little of that in our system. Our parliamentary committees could do so much to give us better Government. Often, what they recommend is put aside, and I sometimes wonder why. I often feel that there is some jealousy on the part of official policy makers, some feeling that parliamentarians are out of their league in the formulation of public policy. Not at all. We have here a case in point.
It was a subcommittee of the standing parliamentary committee on northern affairs that in 1981 recommended that complete federal devolution to territorial Crown corporations be accepted quickly, along with forgiveness of federal debt, and the commencement of a process of discussion by the territorial Governments involving private utilities as well as the NCPC. This recommendation reflected the findings of the subcommittee that the federal Government's powers, decisionmaking and budgetary processes, do not make the NCPC fully accountable to the people it serves, and that the territorial Governments have almost no legislative and regulatory jurisdiction over NCPC.
Over the last few days I checked with the Government of the Northwest Territories, its Minister of Energy, and her officials, and they tell me that they have examined the Bill and they find it fully acceptable and in keeping with the agreement in principle to which I have been referring. Therefore, my concerns are modest in nature.
I really want to know how long the Minister thinks it is going to take before the headquarters are transferred from Edmonton, and where those particular assets will go. I wonder why there should be a delay in transferring regulation to the Northwest Territories Public Utility Board.
I cannot help but note as well that the recommendation of the subcommittee that there be a full write-off of the debt was not accepted. However, I must assume there was some hard bargaining in the negotiations between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal Government, and that the Government of the Northwest Territories got the best possible deal consistent with the realities that we here in Ottawa face with a consistently and persistently high federal deficit.
I want to commend the Government of the Northwest Territories for its abiding concern for its employees. I wish them well as they take another step in the direction of devolution of full responsible Government. As this process continues, I do have a lingering question about the future role of the Department of Northern Development with its approximately 800 person-years. When the Minister meets the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with his Estimates, I want to probe further as to why this Department is not being wound down in the interests of expenditure reduction. It is becoming more and more puzzling to myself and other members of the committee what exactly is the role of the Department of Northern Development now that so much devolution has taken place and now that so many other departments are active in the North, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of the Environment, and so on.
I cannot conclude without once again expressing the hope- although I have to believe it is probably futile to do so-that somehow the Meech Lake Accord could be amended to deal with the concerns of the North, our Canadian citizens who live in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. However, in raising these additional concerns I wish in no way to detract from the progress we are making in this House today in the interests of Canada's North. What we are doing today is a good move. It is a welcome step. It is a positive development.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I, too, am pleased to rise and make a few comments on this Bill and, on behalf of my Party, to say that in essence we support the Bill and the transfer of the Northern Canada Power Commission to the Northwest Territories. As a Member for the Yukon I am particularly interested in what this kind of transfer represents to northerners. As was mentioned by other speakers
April 13, 1988

in March, 1987, the responsibilities for the Northern Canada Power Commission for the Yukon were transferred to the Yukon. There is indication that that is going very well in the Yukon, that the territories have shown that they are able to manage these corporations well. I am sure the same will be true for the Northwest Territories.
I was interested in reviewing the Minister's comments at the time that the transfer to the Yukon took place. On March 25, 1987, he said that it is consistent with the philosophy and policy of the Government that government services should be provided as close as possible to those who are directly affected.
That is really the intent in principle of the Bill we are discussing today. For that reason, as a northerner who has often said exactly the same thing about a number of issues, I can support it, as does my Party.
There are a number of aspects to this Bill which, again, represent principles of devolution which many northerners have been fighting and speaking for for a long time, that is, the principle of transferring the assets and the ability to administer the program and giving full control over to the territories. This is a particularly important point to which I would like to return in a few minutes.
There are a couple of concerns about the Bill which the other speakers have raised. I understand, through my discussions with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for the Northwest Territories, that there are a couple of outstanding items to be negotiated. One in particular is contained in Section 11 of the memorandum of understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories concerning the Inuvik Utilidor.
Many people will probably think that this is something from outer space. The Inuvik Utilidor is actually very interesting. It was a model project in 1959. An above-ground system for water, sewer, and heat was developed for an Arctic community which has proven to be a very interesting model for Arctic communities. Of course, 28 years have passed since 1959. This facility is in need of repair and is still essential for the community. This remains an outstanding item in the agreement and it is hoped that this can be satisfactorily resolved.
We know of the difficulties in so many areas in our municipalities with the lack of funding for municipal infrastructure. One who is familiar with the northern communities flags this issue in particular when reading the agreement. This is clearly an area in which I hope the federal Government will continue to negotiate favourably with the NWT and give them the assistance required.
Another section of the agreement to which I, as a northerner, thought should be paid attention is Section 10 which says that future capital projects of this utility will be financed by funds raised from sources other than the federal Government. It seems to me that this could certainly pose some problems in
Northern Canada Power Commission
the future because the tax base is very low, as we know. It has been mentioned that this utility services about 13,000 households. Therefore, the revenue which can be raised is pretty limited. However, as has been mentioned, the Legislature of the Northwest Territories has given its assent to this Bill and these are issues with which it will obviously have to deal itself in the future.
As I mentioned earlier, the devolution of responsibilities is an extremely important factor to consider in looking at Bill C-125. One must understand the underlying principles of this. Although it has taken considerable time, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) has followed through on his promise made in 1987 as he did with the transfer of NCPC to the Yukon Government.
There are other outstanding issues. People have heard northerners talking for a long time about the need for selfsufficiency saying that devolution of programs and responsibility to our duly elected legislatures, both in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, is extremely important to the constitutional development of those territories.
The previous speaker mentioned the Meech Lake Accord. It is very important that we understand that the transfer of programs such as this to the territories underscores the ability of the territories to manage their own affairs. The Minister certainly deserves considerable credit for that in this Bill concerning NCPC. He has not had quite as much success with his colleagues in other similar Bills concerning energy, interestingly enough.
The Minister has been attempting to come up with a policy under the Northern Accord which would transfer much of the potential revenue from gas and oil resources, both onshore and partially offshore, to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, but it seems to have been bogged down. It is important to mention this while discussing a Bill which transfers responsibilities because it illustrates one of the essential problems with which the territories are forever having to deal.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has a good understanding of the North. He has travelled there, spoken with many people, and dealt with many groups. He supports things such as the Northern Accord and the transfer of these responsibilities. However, as the Calgary Herald of November 1987 said, one of the biggest stumbling blocks of the Minister is his colleagues, and particularly his colleagues in energy and finance who are worried "that transferring one-third of Canada's energy reserves to 50,000 people is fraught with folly".
For many years federal Governments have tended to look at the North as the storehouse of resources for the South. As the previous speaker alluded to, it is also a bit of a storehouse of work for federal bureaucrats at times as it is an area left in the country over which bureaucrats can have some control at the federal level.

April 13, 1988
Northern Canada Power Commission
There is often resistance to this kind of transfer. In the Northern Accord we see an instance in which the Minister responsible can see the legitimate value and need for this while his colleagues are much more reticent about it. This, of course, has very much to do with money and with who will receive the revenues. The territories now receive substantial revenues from the federal Government and the intent of things like NCPC and the Northern Accord is to ensure that the territories will be able to raise their own revenues and become much less dependent on federal revenues, to become much more selfsufficient which, indeed, has been a stated goal of the Northwest Territories' Government as well.
The Government Leader, for example, is quoted in the Edmonton Journal in January of this year in reference to this energy accord describing what it really means to the territories. He states that the ensuing royalties could provide the means to "break the cycle of economic dependence on the South, so that we can solve our frightening social problems such as drug and alcohol abuse and a Third World birth rate".
As the previous speaker said, the elected government leaders of the territories do not even attend First Ministers' Conferences and therefore often do not have input into many of the policy and decision matters which are taking place in Canada today. We must work toward building the blocks of selfsufficiency. I would agree that the Bill under discussion today does that.
1 would like to outline a number of principles which this Bill represents which are very much the principles which we would like to see developed in other areas in the transfer and devolution of programs to the territories. I am sure my colleague from the Northwest Territories would agree with these principles as well. First, this Bill is built on the basic principle of a commercially viable operation. In this case, the NCPC has to have the assets and administrative control in order to develop a commercially viable operation. At the same time, it cannot be saddled with a huge debt load accumulated by previous administrations. So the assumption of the debt load by the federal Government has certainly been a positive aspect of this territorial transfer. The other principle, of course, is the deference paid and the consideration of the workers, the fact that a number will be asked to transfer from the head office in Edmonton to some community in the Northwest Territories.
They would be welcome to come to the Yukon, but I suspect the Government of the Northwest Territories would like them to move there. There has been fairly careful attention paid in this agreement to the requirements of the workers with respect to severance benefits where required and to ensuring that current employees can have a position with the Northern Canada Power Commission should they wish to move to the North. That is another very important principle.
I would like to give an example of how that principle in other areas is not as easily developed. For example, in the Yukon at this time there are a number of programs under discussion for devolution, one of which is the health and the hospital program. The hospital in the Yukon was built in the 1950s and certainly needs to be replaced. It has many requirements. It is under-financed and under-staffed at this time. Therefore, there has been a reluctance on the part of the Yukon Government to accept the transfer of that understaffed and under-financed facility. The federal Government, on the other hand, is quite willing to transfer the administration of an under-financed facility, but we in the Yukon are certainly not going to accept that.
It would be wished that other ministries, in this case, the Department of National Health and Welfare, would accept the same principles that have been accepted and elucidated in this Bill, the principle of making these things financially viable. Transferring a program that is under-funded, giving the territories responsibility for programs which already do not have enough funds is not enhancing the self-sufficiency and autonomy of the territories. It is simply moving a problem over to someone else. As I say, fortunately in Bill C-125 this is not the case.
Under the principles governing the sale are the particular points with respect to consideration for staff. Again, in other items of devolution and transfer to the territories this has not been a consideration. It would be hoped that in the future some example would be taken from this kind of agreement undertaken with the Northwest Territories.
There are a number of areas one can talk about when one talks about the North, the assumption of powers in the North and the transfer of federal programs. 1 mentioned having consulted with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the Northwest Territories, and we are in agreement with the passage of this Bill. We have some minor concerns but they are ones which will basically be negotiated between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. I think it is important to look at this Bill in the context of its importance for the territories and their selfsufficiency.
There is an interesting article on the political evolution of the Canadian north by Gurston Dacks. He states in part:
Will the North stagnate or will it grow politically? The answer to this question will depend on many factors, but chief among them will be the policies of the federal Government. As in all colonial situations, the colonial power, Ottawa, has the ability to define the terms of political debate. It alone has the power to respond to claims for greater self-determination.
In conclusion, I would say that it is our view that this Bill in many ways does that. It has been the subject of fairly lengthy negotiations, as these things usually are, but it is an example of a transfer of responsibility that will enhance the eventual political responsibility of the territories, in my view. On that note, I would like to say simply that I am sure, as has been the case in the Yukon, that the Northwest Territories will very efficiently and effectively manage this resource.
April 13, 1988


B. Keith Penner: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) is present in the House. You will have noted, Madam Speaker, that there is unanimity among all the Parties. May I ask, therefore, if the Chair would seek the consent of the House for us to proceed through all stages of the passage of this Bill so that it can be ready to go for Royal Assent?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I just want to indicate that there had been previous discussions between the Parties and, as a result of the nature of the issue being examined today, we are in complete agreement that we ought to proceed through all stages. Therefore, may I say on behalf of the New Democrats that we are quite prepared to complete all stages of this legislation in terms of moving it expeditiously today.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Government, let me say that we would be inclined to accept that offer. Am I to understand that we will be guaranteed completion of all stages expeditiously today? There will be no carry-over? Is my understanding correct? I gather the discussions took place between the opposition critics and the Member from the Northwest Territories on our side and that this is where this agreement originated. Is this the sense of the agreement? I would just like to be sure of what I am agreeing to.


B. Keith Penner: Yes, Madam Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, we in this Party would be prepared to move through all stages expeditiously. During the Committee of the Whole stage I will have just a few brief questions to put to the Minister, but that would not fall outside of the definition of "expeditious".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the House Leader for the New Democratic Party, I think, was about to rise to say that my understanding was correct.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's eye. I was attempting to rise to indicate that it is our intention to move through all stages today, although one is never able to predict the actions of the House. Assuming that all goes according to Hoyle, it would be our intention to complete the debate in all stages today.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent for the motion to be changed accordingly?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the Chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-125, an Act to enable the
Northern Canada Power Commission
Northern Canada Power Commission to issue shares, to authorize the sale of those shares to the Government of the Northwest Territories, to repeal the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, and to provide for related matters.


B. Keith Penner: Madam Chairman, if Clause 1 were called I would be prepared to raise a few questions, although not many, with the Minister. In this way we could move expeditiously, which is what we promised to do.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Because of the Standing Orders I have to stand Clause 1, which is the title. All that the Hon. Member has mentioned can be done on Clause 2.
On Clause 2-Definitions


B. Keith Penner: Madam Chairman, I thank you for that correction. I meant to say Clause 2. It was a slip on my part.
I want to begin by asking the Minister about the headquarters in Edmonton. I recall from the occasion when the subcommittee visited Edmonton and spent some time at headquarters that it was a very good quality building. I would like to know if the Minister can share with the House any information about when this asset may be disposed of. Is there some other plan that the federal Government has of which the Minister is aware? I know that this matter is not his direct responsibility but that of the Department of Public Works. However, since the building is now being occupied by NCPC, I would like to know what future plans there are.
As well, I am curious as to whether in fact it is a Public Works building or whether it was owned outright by the Crown corporation. That is something about which I am not certain.
If the building is sold and if in fact it is a NCPC asset where will the revenues from its sale go? Will they be part of the write-down that was referred to in the Bill, a $43 million writedown? What exactly is the destination of those revenues?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Chairman, at the outset I would like to thank both opposition Parties, and in particular the Hon. Member for Western Arctic who conducted the negotiations on behalf of the Government, with respect to proceeding to all stages today.
The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior has a great deal of knowledge about NCPC and has expressed points of view on which he and I agree in the report that was tabled. He was a member of the committee. The report recommended the divestiture.
The headquarters, which the Hon. Member correctly described as being valuable, are part of the assets of NCPC and will be included in the shares transferred to the Government of the Northwest Territories. The Government will become the owners of the asset through the share purchase. Therefore the revenues that would accrue from the divestiture by that Government would be used by that Government. It is

April 13, 1988
Northern Canada Power Commission
not a Public Works building. It is part of the assets and will be transferred with the shares.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Chairman, I have a question for the Minister. I understand from the memorandum that the issue of the Inuvik Utilidor is an exclusion, or that there is some dispute about it. I suppose it would be correct to say that there is a difference of opinion about who it belongs to and so on. Can the Minister say something about what kind of negotiations will go on about that?
It is obvious that for that type of infrastructure there is a certain amount of maintenance that is required. I understand that there is some reworking that has to be done in order to allow it to continue to be functional. It is essential to the community of Inuvik. Can the Minister comment on what plans the Government might have around that specific item? I know that it is somewhat ancillary to this, but it is mentioned in the agreement.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member for Yukon is correct, it is mentioned. There have been discussions and it was not part of NCPC's assets. It is an important utility in Inuvik. At present the Government of Canada is discussing with the Government of the Northwest Territories the future of the commitments that both Governments will have to make towards its upkeep. It is not an asset which is sought after by either Government. That, I think, would be an accurate way of putting it. We realize that it is important and we are having discussions with the Government of the Northwest Territories. I am sure that we will come to an agreement in due time to continue to have the upkeep and the necessary maintenance dollars expended. It will cost some money to maintain that utility.


B. Keith Penner: Madam Chairman, the agreement in principle of February states in Section 8(1) that after the transfer the electrical utility operations will be subject to regulation by a regulator appointed by the GNWT. I take it that that will be a public utility of the Northwest Territories.
I am curious, however, that in the background information that was provided to my office by the Minister and his department, for which I thank the Minister, it states that NWTPC will eventually, after a transition period, be regulated by the NWT Public Utility Board. I am curious as to why there is a transition period. As soon as this Bill is given Royal Assent and gazetted why could that authority not take place immediately? Is there some difficulty, some problem of which the House should be aware? Does the difficulty lie with the Northwest Territories? Is it something that it wants to resolve? Or is the Government of Canada in any way creating some sort of an impediment to this full transfer of regulatory power?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Chairman, both parties agreed to the transition period. It was up to the Government of the Northwest Territories to regulate. They wished a period of time to become familiar and to establish a board and to establish the groundwork for a board and what other utilities
or activities could be undertaken by the board. It was entirely at the request of the Government of the Northwest Territories. We were pleased to assist them. They wish to take this over. They wish the responsibility, but they also wish to do it properly and to be prepared when it is done.


B. Keith Penner: 1 want to check my arithmetic with the Minister to ensure that my calculations are correct. The $96 million of debt of NCPC is being put into a new capital structure, $53 million in promissory notes, and $43 million in share capital. It is the $43 million that is a write-down by the Government. The sale is going to the Government of the Northwest Territories for $53 million. It is also noted that there are some $25 million of retained earnings. Therefore, the actual cost to the Government of the Northwest Territories is $28 million. I want to receive confirmation from the Minister that that is in fact the case.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am informed that indeed the $25 million is part of the share offering that will be transferred. I am also informed that one may not necessarily calculate the $25 million off the $53 million. For some reason that may not be accurate. It is part of the asset and the costs could be written or prescribed, or I would assume that other shares could be written or issued by the Government of the Northwest Territories including the $53 million, not only the $53 million minus $25 million.


B. Keith Penner: I will not push that particular item. I would like to make a request of the Minister that perhaps there could be a clarification in writing from the officials in order that I could read it once, twice, thrice, and actually understand it.
I wonder if the Minister could advise Members as to the total value of the Public Works housing that is being transferred at no cost to the Government of the Northwest Territories. The Minister may not have that figure handy, or it may not be in his possession because it is another government department.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: There is not a market value assigned to the DPW housing, but the replacement cost could be identified at anywhere between $8 million and $10 million. The market value is not something that we prescribe to those structures.
I assure the Member that we will provide the information as to the mathematics of sale.


B. Keith Penner: This is my final question, Madam Chairman, and perhaps it is a rather large question. I would only like some indication from the Minister. For a long while now the standing committee has been concerned about the continuing role of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs as devolution continues a pace moving toward full responsible government. Also, the so-called old Chretien formula has long been abandoned. In the days of his Ministry it was strictly adhered to that no government department, Minister, or agency went into the North without the consent, advice, and
April 13, 1988

counsel of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. That has long since been abandoned. The big players now are Energy, Fisheries and Oceans, Environment, Transport, and so on.
I wish to ask the Minister whether any thinking is going on among his policy makers that eventually we can wind down northern development with its 800 person years. I know that in the last four years the Government has been attempting to find ways to reduce the deficit. I continue to be puzzled as to exactly what these people do except research so extensively the polar bear that I am sure there is not a polar bear's toenail that has not been looked at. Surely to goodness this is a big price to pay for so much research. I think it could be done easier in other ways.
Would the Minister share with the committee what is his thinking about the future of this government department?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The question that the Hon. Member puts is a question that I observed when I was given the responsibility of northern development. The history, which is known to the Hon. Member, going back to 1966 and the creation of the department of northern development has had ups and downs.
I can say that in the department of northern development and the Indian services side of the Northwest Territories and Yukon, we do find that we have a duplication. It is not my intention to make changes at this time.
The role of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, other than some of the esoteric research referred to by the Member, has been that of being involved in the devolution process. I think the Member will understand that it is easier to devolve services and be very supportive of that when they involve other departments rather than when they involve one's own. That being a fact of life is an important role for the department at this time.
We have been involved in the transfer of forestry, we have been involved in the transfers of health, and in that way reducing the federal presence and allowing the people who reside there to have the responsibilities for which they are certainly capable and should have.
The only other point on the energy side is that we are having discussions about a northern accord. The role of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs in the issuance and the onshore energy side is a paramount role, and it is one that will allow us to have discussions and continue discussions with both the Yukon and NWT as to the strengthening of the role of the people and legislative assemblies of those territories in controlling that important aspect.
I do not wish the Hon. Member to think that we want to stay there any longer than necessary. But I do believe that the Department, as it is described and as its mandate was originally intended, allows us to be active in the important role of devolution with the Governments of the two territories.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I would like to follow that issue up a little in that it also refers to NCPC, as the Minister is well aware. With the land claims negotiations continuing, there is much discussion about the devolution of programs separate from that process. Many of the aboriginal groups feel that no devolution should take place, and others feel that it should take place with consultation. In areas like the Northwest Power Commission, was there any consultation with aboriginal groups outside of the NWT, because I know that was the main negotiator?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: There were discussions between the Government of the Yukon and CYI before that transfer took place. There were discussions with the Government of the Northwest Territories before the transfer took place.
I believe that if the legislative Governments of both territories wish to become involved in the devolution and receive the responsibility that it is up to those legislators to have discussions with their electorate as to the appropriateness. In NWT, particularly in the transfer of forestry, there was an agreement by the Dene/Metis to have that transferred. Other transfers such as discussions on a northern accord in the NWT have led to discussions with the Inuit and the Dene.
Clauses 2 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 12, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Benjamin (p. 14369).
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to resume debate on Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited, as well as a number of other initiatives. Of course the issue we are addressing in the Bill is the whole issue of privatization, the turning over of certain Crown corporations to private investors. I want to say very clearly that this is becoming a trend.
Specifically we are discussing today an amendment which would see Bill C-121 set aside for six months to enable the

April 13, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Government to get its house in order, to get its program, plan, or strategy together, so that there is a clear indication of just what direction it is taking on the entire matter of the privatization of Crown corporations which are owned by the people of Canada.
I realize that our remarks today should be focused on Bill C-121, but they would still be appropriate if we were referring to the most recent announcement that the Government plans to proceed in a relatively similar way with Air Canada. However, we need not get into that at this moment. 1 expect that we will have ample opportunity to deal with that in future when the Government brings in appropriate legislation.
My concern today is the environmental implications of Bill C-121. In considering the environmental aspects of Bill C-121, consideration should be given at the same time to the situation not only at Eldorado Nuclear now but to the wider implications of uranium mining in the newly merged company, which will inevitably encounter various challenges when it comes to the mining of uranium.
Eldorado Nuclear has severe environmental problems to deal with, especially at its Port Hope, Ontario refinery and at its northern Saskatchewan mine sites. Essentially its Port Hope dump site is full, which situation has been summarized by the Library of Parliament research staff. I think it is appropriate to read this report into the record because the implication is absolutely staggering. I should like to quote from the document wherein it indicates:
The effluent treatment process at Port Hope refinery produces approximately 600 tonnes/year of solid waste that is mainly calcium oxide (lime) containing calcium fluoride and uranium at 500 to 1000 ppm.
This is quite astonishing, as an aside. It continues:
This material, and much smaller quantities of other solid wastes that contain metallic impurities including arsenic, are dumped at a licensed site near Port Hope (the Granby dump site). This depository is close to being full and yet no alternate site or plan has been selected. Eldorado has been waiting for the federal government to decide what should be done with this dump, and presumably the new company will also wait for direction. Any plan that requires the removal of the material to a new site will be very expensive (mainly transportation), and according to the details released with the merger plans, the costs will be borne mainly by the federal government (possibly to as much as $100 million).
The resolution of the Port Hope situation is mainly to dump the responsibilities on to the federal Government which will pick up the bulk of the costs. The first $2 million will be borne by the company. Of the next $98 million, 23.5 per cent will be borne by the company and 76.5 per cent will be borne by the federal Government. About $100 million of clean-up costs will be borne by the federal Government in total.
This raises the following spectre: What are the economics of the deal? When the federal Government picks up the entire financial obligation of clean-up and assumes a good part of the debt, naturally it is a good deal for the private sector. However, once again it is the taxpayers of Canada who are picking up the tab and the benefits are accruing to persons in the private sector.
We must ask why there is such a sweetheart deal for a company being purchased as is. Companies are normally purchased with assets and liabilities. However, some of the key liabilities in this transaction have been taken over by the federal Government.
Let us look at the mergers and takeovers which have taken place in Canada in the last 2.5 years. I think in excess of 3,000 Canadian companies have been taken over. When they are taken over or purchased by a foreign company, the foreign company buys both the liabilities and the assets. This would be traditional in a business transaction of this nature, but not in this case where the key liabilities have been taken over by the federal Government.
The question is why. I know that is the question which most Canadians listening today must be asking. Why is this the case? The answer is simple. It is that the Government is desperately anxious for a good share price in the flotation of the new company stock. Let us face it that the whole matter about which we are talking is flotation, the flotation of stock at the best or most attractive price possible. What better way than for the federal Government to assume the liabilities of environmental responsibility as well as Eldorado's enormous debt.
Eldorado's environmental difficulties do not end with the dump sites. Madam Speaker, I know that you would not think for a moment that we are simply concerned about the dump sites. There are further problems at Port Hope and in the Saskatchewan mines.
Returning to the report to which I referred earlier, it indicates:
Continued operation of the Port Hope facility, especially at the present high rates of production .. . ,will generate considerable levels of solid and liquid waste. With the proximity of the plant to both Lake Ontario and the town site, the new company would do its image a great deal of good by committing itself to efforts to recycle or clean up and sell all such wastes.
Most of us have been disappointed because no mention was made of this type of approach in the legislation. There has been no indication of what will happen in terms of the efforts to recycle waste materials or to clean up in some way. That is the disappointment which most Canadians feel in terms of this legislation.
Clean-up problems also exist at the mills in Saskatchewan. While we have been focusing our comments on this one facility, there are clean-up problems in Saskatchewan which must be addressed as well. The tailings that are produced contain small amounts of uranium, radium and other elements. Very good effluent treatment is required on an ongoing basis and a thorough understanding of the principles involved must be taught to the personnel involved. Historically, such an understanding has been suspect, at the very best.
These are two areas that have been identified as problems which the Government has yet to acknowledge. It leads to the
April 13, 1988

suspicion that the Government feels that the less said about environmental aspects of uranium production the better. We know where this attitude has led us in the past.
Here are two critical environmental areas that fail to be addressed in the legislation. This is unfortunate when we consider that this Government assumed office with the expectation that it would examine the inherent difficulties of the nuclear fuel cycle. During the election campaign in the summer of 1984, commitments were made on a number of occasions that the whole matter of the future of the Canadian nuclear industry was of concern to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The Prime Minister has been in office for nearly four years but still there is no initiative in terms of a public inquiry into the nuclear fuel cycle. When he was asked about this, the Prime Minister indicated that it was not a priority at this time.
Fortunately for Canada, such an inquiry is now under way. It is being conducted by the New Democratic Party, chaired by the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). They have been examining the process surrounding the nuclear fuel cycle for some months and will soon submit a complete report based on their evaluations and on public and private hearings that have been held at various locations across the country.
It appears that the Government is backing away from involvement in the nuclear industry while indicating sincere concerns about uranium mining. At the same time, it is proposing legislation that essentially passes this matter on to new jurisdictions without any indication of improved categories of safety. I do not want to deal entirely with the environmental problems associated with this legislation.
There are problems in this legislation in terms of processing and mining itself. I do not believe we should proceed with this legislation until the Government has a clear policy on the nuclear industry. Perhaps the appropriate place to raise questions of this nature would be in the legislative committee where presumably this legislation will move very quickly.
We are also concerned about this legislation in light of our history of dealing with the nuclear industry. This country's track record is not very good. I can recall the government sponsored uranium cartel in the 1970s which, quite frankly, has never been satisfactorily explained to the people of Canada. The causes of the cartel were economic and brought about by an over supply and closure of the U.S. market in 1984. The cartel had a profound effect on the price of uranium, which went from $7 a pound in 1973 to as high as $40 a pound two years later. The cartel was investigated and lawsuits were brought in Canadian courts. However, to my recollection no knowledge of this cartel has ever been made public from a governmental point of view, and the charges were ultimately dropped.
A whole set of questions were left unanswered. Eldorado was a member of the cartel alongside Denison Mines. There
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
was an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act by the director of research, Mr. Robert Bertrand.
I believe that all of this should be made public, as was demanded by the present Government when it was in opposition. This is a chance to clear the air and an appropriate piece of legislation by which to do it. The Government's only commitment in this area is to say that the new company will be subject to Canadian competition law. That does not bring much comfort when one considers that Canadian competition law is probably one of the weakest of any country I know. It is very little comfort to know this company will be subject to our competition law. The legislation also overlooks the very messy episode of uranium marketing in Canada. The possibility of that happening again is a spectre that haunts us to this day.
The reaction to this legislation by the men and women who work for Eldorado Nuclear or the SMDC has not been positive, in spite of what others have implied in earlier speeches. The United Steel Workers and the Energy and Chemical Workers have indicated clearly that they oppose this transfer of authorization. The steelworkers who represent the employees at the Key Lake mine and Rabbit Lake and the three locals at Eldorado uranium refinery at Port Hope are clearly on record as opposing this initiative. They fear for their health and safety, for which I do not blame them.
The privatization of these companies will not be a major step in the right direction toward workplace health and safety. More than 1,000 men and women in Canada are killed in the workplace each year, to say nothing of the tens of thousands who are seriously injured. When a man or woman who works in the police force is killed on the job, people are quite rightly outraged at that act. However, these people are in an environment of occasional violence. When one considers that there is not much comment ever made about the hundreds of men and women who are killed on work sites every year in this country, it indicates that we must pay much more attention to what is happening there. In that respect, this legislation is certainly not a step in the right direction for the men and women working in the mines, refineries and mills of the companies we are concerned with today.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I want to make a short comment on my colleague's interesting debate on the proposed amendment. I think many Canadians understand that when the federal Government has responsibility for a particular company, organization or Crown corporation, the expectations are greater than those for the private sector that such things as a regard for environmental issues will be particularly addressed by the Government and it will assume responsibility for the resource company that it owns.
My colleague mentioned the kind of public inquiries being undertaken by some New Democrats in this House into the whole nuclear fuel cycle. I would like to ask my colleague what his views are on the responsibility of the federal Government to have one of its Crown corporations clean up its act before it is sold on the private market. The Hon. Member raised the

April 13, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
question about nuclear dumps, and I would like the Hon. Member to comment on that aspect of it.
Mir. Riis: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to that thoughtful comment and to the question that followed it. What is the responsibility of the federal Government? It is clear that it is not responsible for the Government to simply wipe its hands and walk away from this.
If there is one thing common to Canadians, it is that they have more questions than answers when it comes to the nuclear industry. There are whole sets of questions that have yet to be answered satisfactorily. I suspect the most obvious such question is how to guarantee the safety of a nuclear installation.
We are all still haunted to this day by the Chernobyl incident, and we are still finding around the world the results of that particular disaster. Other disasters come to mind as well, but I believe that was the most graphic one which indicated that when something goes wrong in one of those installations, the implications are anything but minor, they are horrendous, and that the final impact may perhaps be unimaginable.
As well, there is the whole question of waste material. I referred briefly in my comments to the dumps at Port Hope and the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste material that has not been adequately dealt with there. It cannot be dealt with adequately because we do not know how to get rid of nuclear wastes in a safe and satisfactory way. Until we do, I think it is folly to continue on as we have and particularly as Canada has been doing.
I feel that we have made a gross error in judgment with the whole matter of food irradiation. We are developing irradiated food technology in an effort to market it in the developing countries. Quite frankly, that is frightening, and of course the responsibility of the federal Government ought to be to proceed with caution. The only way to proceed with caution in this instance is not to proceed at all.
The Hon. Member has raised the appropriate question, which is what is the Government's responsibility. The Government's responsibility is vast and that responsibility is not present in Bill C-121. It seems to me that the Government is simply wiping its hands of the opportunities it would have if this legislation were not to be passed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member on Monday when he indicated in the closing part of his speech that it is time we send this matter to committee for closer examination. I do agree with him that the matter is complex and that the committee, where we may hear from witnesses, is the proper place to get on to the public table his concerns, some of which I share.
I was encouraged to hear the Hon. Member say that it should go to committee soon. I simply wanted to comment that I concur with him. I think it should go to committee soon.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to get on with dealing with the various witnesses and the clause-by-clause examination of the Bill. However, we were interrupted today to deal with Bill C-125 which we have just completed through all stages. That Bill, of course, was the Bill to enable the Northern Canada Power Commission to issue shares.
It is unheard of for opposition Parties to volunteer to set aside the traditions of the House in order to facilitate the movement of certain legislation. We were convinced that it was in the nation's business to do just that, and I am pleased to say that we were more than pleased to co-operate with the Government and to approach the matter in a business-like and thoughtful way. We did our homework, and consulted all the parties involved and worked expeditiously. The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that he was pleased with that and we were pleased to co-operate.
In the closing moments of the day, we are continuing the debate on Eldorado Nuclear. We have already debated the matter for a few hours. Considering the extreme importance of a debate about the nuclear industry and the federal Government's role in it, the Government is taking quite a significant step.
As I say, we are pleased to participate in this debate, and of course it is not our intention to prolong it, but let us have all the appropriate views presented. I know that my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood wishes to make some comments regarding the environmental impact of this legislation and some of the environmental issues on which it touches. Knowing how interested the Parliamentary Secretary is in environmental issues, I know that he will be anxious to hear her comments. With that, I will wrap up my comments by saying that we look forward to proceeding expeditiously with this Bill but not particularly to rushing legislation of such profound importance to the country.


Mr. Skelly:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Kamloops-Shuswap. When this Government came to power, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), recognizing how seriously Canadians feel about the entire nuclear question, had, in my recollection, promised an inquiry into the nuclear industry and nuclear energy in Canada. Would it not be appropriate for the Prime Minister to come clean on his election promise before we sell off an operation like Eldorado Nuclear? Would it not be more appropriate for the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government to live up to their election commitments to launch an inquiry into the concerns of Canadians over this industry before they sell off this corporation?
April 13, 1988


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, this is getting exciting. I am hearing many thoughtful questions about why the Government has not lived up to its commitment.
1 think it is appropriate to say that the Government has failed in living up to this particular commitment. It has not conducted an inquiry into the nuclear fuel cycle. That was a promise made by the Prime Minister, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) and my friend from Mission-Port Moody on a number of occasions. However, because of the Government's unwillingness to proceed at this point, we have had to conduct our own inquiry.
Once again, the New Democrats felt that someone had to do this inquiry. We do not have the resources the Government has, but it is too important to set aside so, with limited resources, we held our own inquiry. We held public hearings across Canada. We talked to the experts and the people interested in the issue. If my memory serves me correctly, within a few weeks the reporting process will be completed and I hope we will have a chance on an opposition day to present our views, our findings and our recommendations to the Government on the future policy direction for the nuclear industry of Canada.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have a further small question for my colleague from Kamloops-Shuswap. It is my understanding that when the Conservative Government sold Teleglobe Canada, there were some very serious concerns about the way that particular government operation was sold. 1 wonder if the inquiry launched by Consumer and Corporate Affairs into the propriety of the sale of Teleglobe Canada should not be issued to the public and to the House before we launch into another divestiture of a Crown corporation. In this way, some of the problems that occurred in that divestiture that I am sure would be brought to light if the report were to be released could be avoided when dealing with this one. I wonder if my colleague has any comments about the Government releasing that report before the House goes ahead with this venture.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I think it would be appropriate for a whole set of reasons. Without going into those reasons, I would simply refer to the fact that one of the major players in the uranium business has been Denison Mines. Mr. Paul McKay, in a very special report in The Globe and Mail of April 9, 1988, had this to say:
Medical records and royal commissions have shown that a pathetic army of the miners Mr. Roman employed at his uranium mines in Elliot Lake, Ont., have gone to their own early graves because their lungs were needlessly poisoned with radioactivity and mine dusts.
The late Mr. Roman used to head up Denison Mines. The article goes on but because of the time, I will not have a chance to comment on pages and pages of these reports indicating the very serious dangers those people involved in the mining industry face. For that reason if for no other, more effort should be made to inquire into the propriety of turning this company over to private interests now.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I cannot say I am pleased to be rising to speak on Bill C-121. Certainly we do not want to see this Bill before the House at all. I guess I am more pleased to be speaking on the proposal to suspend a decision on this Bill for six months in order to look at the whole question more thoroughly.
While we have to look at the question of privatization, we have first of all to look at what kind of industry this is. After all, Eldorado is not producing popcorn. It mines and processes uranium. That, of course, is a very dangerous product for which we have as yet no safe means of disposal. That alone is reason enough not to proceed with this industry. The question of whether it should be a public or private industry should be addressed if we are going to have such an industry at all. However, I suggest the more fundamental question is why should we be pursuing this means of energy production when there are so many better and safer forms, forms which would create more jobs and not pollute the environment. We should be exploring those options and not the question of whether we want our uranium in private or public hands.
Frankly, if 1 thought we would be able to get rid of this harmful industry by privatizing it, if I thought the terrific liability entailed in uranium mining and processing, and in nuclear facilities, would be ended, I would be happy to see it privatized. We are only beginning to count the cost of the harm this industry has caused because it is of course a very complex matter. How do we develop the figures on the mortality rates, the diseases that normally take a very long time to develop? We are talking about leukemia and other forms of cancer. We are talking about birth defects which are the result of exposure to radiation, including low level radiation. All we have are estimates.
When we have instances of sudden death from a product, whether it is some kind of toxic poisoning or some accident, we have very firm figures. The House is quick to act when that happens. I am thinking of the mollusc poisonings when a couple of Canadians died. There was a terrific outcry, as of course was only proper. When a couple of people are killed by toxic poisonings of this sort there should be an outcry. However, why is there not more of an outcry when thousands of people are harmed, sickened or who die prematurely after exposure to low level radiation from the various stages of uranium mining, processing and the use of nuclear facilities?
The Standing Committee on the Environment and Forestry conducted a study of the disposal of high level radioactive wastes. As a result, the committee recommended there be a moratorium on nuclear facilities until a safe means of disposal became available. Some members of the committee thought a safe means of disposal was almost around the corner or would be discovered in time. They were more optimistic than I am that we are going to find a safe means of disposal for high level radioactive wastes. However, it was nonetheless unanimous

April 13, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
that we should not be going ahead without such ability. Since we do not have it, we should not be going ahead.
That concerns just high level radioactive wastes. When you look at the low level radioactive wastes, that is a quantitatively much worse problem because there is more than a hundred million tonnes of such wastes. We have uranium tailings from mines, Eldorado being prominent among them. These tailings are not properly stored. We do not have adequate protection for the public. I have met with people in the Paudach Lake region near Bancroft, Ontario. They have old tailings which have been around for decades, before the AECB insisted on at least some measure of clean-up after the fact. It was not perhaps adequate enough and there is some in storage now, but these old tailings are still there and there has not been adequate containment of them.
That is just one very modest example of inaction on a problem which has been ignored for a long time. A company makes a profit from the mine and the tailings are the responsibility of the public. The taxpayer has to fork over the money to do this. That is precisely what we have in this Bill before us today. This company will be privatized if the Government proceeds with this ill-advised scheme. What happens to the responsibility for waste disposal or waste management for the thousands of years to come? The profits will go to the owners of this company and the responsibility will go to all taxpayers, whether they can afford it or not. It seems to me that this is extremely unfair. It is the public who is left to pay the bill for things which cannot be counted in dollar terms, things such as illness, early death, communities upset by living close to mines or processing facilities. All of those are good reasons to be extremely concerned throughout the process.
I would like to highlight a couple of particular reasons. Of course, much of the product of Eldorado has gone to military use. This supposedly stopped in 1972 because we have an understanding that our uranium will be used only for peaceful purposes. In fact, we have been responsible for some proliferation contrary to our intentions, and there are two major ways in which our uranium goes to military purposes, contrary to our public undertakings. One is in the process of enriching uranium for military purposes and nuclear reactors for the production of electricity. For every six pounds of uranium that is treated in this way, only one pound goes to domestic use and the production of electricity. The five pounds left over, the so-called depleted uranium, can then be used in further processing into plutonium for weapons purposes.
Canada exports uranium from Eldorado mines to France where it goes through this process. The military end product from the so-called depleted uranium in France is tested in the atmosphere, contrary to all our understandings that nuclear weapons should not be exploded in the atmosphere at all. Canada is still doing that and that is the kind of question we should be addressing. Why should we be doing this with this resource? Why should it be used for destruction? Why should it be used in a way that will cause cancer, birth defects and premature death of a large number of people?
I can think of other scandals in the history of Eldorado. It was a major player in the evolution of the uranium cartel in the 1970s to drive up the price of uranium after there had been a drop because of the loss of American markets. This scandalous cartel was protected by some of the worst censorship legislation we have ever seen in this country. We have never had a proper accounting of what happened in that incident. The Government appointed the Bertrand Commission and a report was produced.
Members of the Government, while they were in Opposition, demanded publication of this report because the scandal goes back to the Liberal Government days. The Conservative Government, which protested at the time and demanded the publication of the report, now has the power to act and produce this report in order that we can be a little wiser as to what happened in this period of the uranium cartel. I call on the Government to do that, as have other people. I hope the Government will see the wisdom of coming clean on this information and giving us the full information.
Eldorado Nuclear is involved very substantially in Saskatchewan. The New Democratic Party caucus task force held hearings recently in Saskatoon before which many Saskatchewan environmentalist groups, the mining association, and people on both sides of the issue appeared. One of the major concerns raised there was the plans for uranium mining at Wollaston Lake.
There is a proposal for three new uranium mines to be dug under Wollaston Lake. This is not a very deep lake. It is a very sensitive lake, and it is impossible for people who know that area to imagine how there could be any containment of the uranium to keep it from entering the lake itself. There is, in fact, commercial fishing in this lake which is important to the economy of that region. Yet, plans are still going ahead to permit uranium mining in this extremely environmentally sensitive area.
1 must flag again the horror I feel that the alternatives are not being examined. All of this concern is raised when it is theoretical for sustainable development. The federal Government itself has approved the Brundtland Commission report on development and the environment. The Saskatchewan Government and all provincial governments across the country have endorsed those recommendations in principle. Those recommendations say very clearly that damage to the environment must be counted, that the cost must be estimated, and that the costs must be plugged into economic decision-making.
In the case of uranium that means looking very carefully at the costs to the local environment, the health costs, and the long-term waste disposal costs. All of those costs, which are not being taken into account now, must be added into the decision. I suspect that many, if not all, of the decisions to open new mines, to create new facilities, and to increase transformation and so forth, would be economically foolish if
April 13, 1988

all of the environmental damage costs were added up. On economic grounds alone we would not be in favour of this industry. I refer to Wollaston Lake as only the latest in a long list of horrors along this line.
Let me quote the Inter-Church Uranium Committee from Saskatchewan and Ploughshares Saskatoon. They say:
Eldorado Nuclear wants to build three new uranium mines in and underneath Wollaston Lake, a huge and magnificent lake in northern Saskatchewan and a valuable commercial fishery source. One of these mines ... is to be constructed 230 yards out into Wollaston Lake where waters are currently 45 feet deep. It is difficult to believe Eldorado's claim that Wollaston Lake will not be permanently scarred and polluted.
I find it difficult to believe that as well and I find it difficult to understand why those kinds of questions do not occupy the Government's mind when it considers the issue of what is going to happen.
We have been told that uranium is safe, cheap power. I would like to contest both those aspects of the Government's argument. With regard to the safety, we do not have an adequate accounting of the health costs. Estimates have been made by Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a world acknowledged expert on this, who counts the premature death world-wide from low-level radiation in the millions. When you infer estimates from the epidemiological studies, there are millions of people who are affected in some place or another from the mining, processing, transportation, and disposal.
It is not safe and it is not cheap. There has been no adequate accounting of the disposal costs. What will it cost to pay one night watchman to guard an area for 300,000 years, which is the half-life of some of the radioactive isotopes in the waste which must be disposed of from this immensely dangerous product? It is arrogant of people to suggest that we have a solution around the corner.
A solution around the corner for waste disposal which can take 300,000 years? How can we be sure that there will not be an earthquake or some other kind of environmental disaster for 300,000 years? Whatever the safe disposal mechanism is which might last for 50 years, we cannot be sure that there will not be erosion and seepage of the radioactive wastes into the rivers and drinking water systems of people who may live far away from, let alone near to, those sites.
How many sites are there going to be? We already have enough on our hands now. If we continue and expand this industry, as is the Government's intention, there will be even more. We have not even been able to solve the problem for the wastes we have at the present and it is arrogant to suggest that we can handle even more of it in the future, that we can find even more waste disposal sites which will be safe.
There are implications for the uranium question in the Mulroney-Reagan trade giveaway. The Government tried to seek more access for Canadian uranium to the United States because in the past there have been American politics and American supply questions which have meant that our uranium sales have been curtailed. Canada gave away the
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
requirements to process in Canada in order to ensure access to American markets. This decision was made without any consideration for the environmental consequences.
The Government agrees with the principles of the Brundt-land report on integrating the economy and the environment in decision-making and then signs this trade deal, one of the elements of which is to expand uranium as an energy source and to look for new markets for uranium without having solved the problems which we already have. I consider that to be enormously irresponsible.
Canada produces 19 per cent of the uranium in the world's market. It is the greatest producer and the greatest exporter in the world. We like to think of ourselves as being environmentally conscious and as peacemakers in the world, yet we allow proliferation and allow our uranium to be used for military purposes so long as it is done by the back door and not the front door.
We are now seeking even more markets for our uranium without any greater safeguards. The domestic uses themselves are equally as dangerous. I am not objecting only to the military uses by any means. The health consequences and the environmental damage happen irrespective of the ultimate use, whether for weapons or the production of electricity.
I would like to close by referring to the fact that we do have alternatives. In terms of job creation, these are not good jobs. It is a capital intensive industry so not many jobs are produced, and there is a great deal of danger. We should be seeking alternatives for the people who work in this industry. In the case of energy production, which is enormously important for our economy, we should be seeking other forms of energy. We should be developing renewable sources of energy. We should be looking at energy which does not pollute. We should be putting our research and development money into creating an energy future that will be safe, cheap and will provide jobs for Canadians. We do have options.
The Bill before us today is an extremely misguided measure which I hope this House will defeat. I hope at this first stage that Members at least will support the six month's hoist. I hope they will take another look at the whole question of our nuclear future.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. Hopefully, the Government will see the wisdom of her remarks and withdraw the Bill.
One of the most dangerous aspects the Hon. Member pointed to during her speech was, of course, the use of the products in the nuclear cycle which produce weapons. I wonder if she would elaborate a little more on the dangers of that particular aspect and Canada's role in exporting that material.
The other area is the area of occupational health and safety which is extremely important to the people who live and work

April 13, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
in the areas where this product is mined and processed. Would she elaborate a little more on the important and dangerous aspects of this particular industry?


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to both very important and complex questions. To begin with respect to the military question, I think the hypocrisy of the Canadian Government is particularly disturbing. It is not just this Government, but previous Liberal Governments also. We are supposedly a non-nuclear country, a nuclear weapons-free country, yet we participate in the production of the major necessary element for nuclear weapons.
Throughout the 1950s massive amounts of our uranium went into the American nuclear weapons stockpile. Fortunately, those weapons have not been used, but they are stockpiled and they contain our uranium. Who knows if they will be used, and we participated in their production.
We supported the non-proliferation treaty. We were a signatory to that treaty. However, we have allowed the export of our Candu reactors and our uranium, so we have some responsibility for the reprocessed uranium from reactors for subsequent military purposes. It was not intended in the first place, but that is what happened. Canada has not been careful enough in ensuring that it would not happen.
Military uses and the so-called peaceful uses of this power are intertwined. When military uses of nuclear power became so horrendous to people, the nuclear industry realized it could not survive without a respectable front. So we had hope, and perhaps for some people it was a very genuine hope, that there would be the peaceful atom and peaceful uses. Indeed, a nuclear future could help as an energy source for Third World countries. All kinds of idealistic aims were given for the development of the nuclear industry. But I think we should look behind this front. It is a very pious front, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The industry needs both. In order to do the production for military uses, it has to have the pretence that it is going into peaceful uses.
Both France and the United States, where our uranium is enriched for some reactors, process uranium for both peaceful and military purposes. They do it at the same place. We have this fiction that our uranium is being processed only for peaceful uses and this kind of mythological accounting system that our uranium goes in and the enriched uranium that goes out for military uses did not come from our uranium. Perhaps it came from someone else's uranium that was sent to the same processing facility. So the Government convinces itself that it is really not Canadian uranium which is going into those atmospheric tests in France or into even more nuclear weapons in the United States. I think we should be disillusioned with this idea.
The question of occupational health and safety is a very complex one. I know other Members have dealt with it in their remarks so I will just say very briefly that we do not have adequate safeguards at all. Miners have considerably higher
risks of lung cancer from exposure to radiation at the workplace. Accident rates are very high.
Occupational health and safety is an extremely important matter. Perhaps with better technology these risks could be reduced somewhat, but I do not believe anyone could be so naive as to suggest that this will ever be a safe industry, a really desirable industry, one in which people can look forward to working under healthy and safe working conditions. It is always going to be a highly risky industry. That is another reason why I would much prefer to see the development of renewable sources of energy that will not be harmful to health and which will be less capital intensive for the number of jobs produced and which will result in the creation of even more jobs. We need to have a switch over. We need to develop those alternatives. We need to provide safe and healthy jobs for people. Certainly uranium mining and processing is not a place where we find these things.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have another small question which I think is of critical importance to this particular debate. From my perspective and from the perspective of many people in this House and in this country, the nuclear energy question is a critical one. People justifiably fear it. They know of the dangers and disasters which have occurred. I want to call to the attention of the House the complete absence of the Liberal Party. There is not a Liberal Member sitting in this House, and there has been absolutely no demonstration of concern for the issue. I think the Liberal Party when it was in Government was one of the most profound malefactors on this issue-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will interrupt the Hon. Member and remind him of something he does know, I am sure. It is not proper in this House to mention the absence of Hon. Members who may be detained elsewhere. I know the Hon. Member knows that quite well. There is one minute left in the question and comment period, if the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) cares to answer.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, without referring to their presence or absence in the House, I can certainly refer to their position on the debate. Their position has been wholly unsatisfactory. The Liberals have been in Government for most of this period and they have ignored the health and safety questions. They have turned a blind eye to the military uses of nuclear energy. They have spoken pious words about proliferation but have not done anything to ensure it does not happen. They talk in the environment committee about soft energy paths and say pious things there, but they have not dealt with the really tough questions of research and development, and developing alternative sources of energy so we would not be dependent on a source of energy that is killing people in increasingly larger numbers.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments is now over.
April 13, 1988


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members of the New Democratic Party indicated earlier that the House could expect this matter to go to committee soon. We are currently dealing with the six month hoist amendment. Can Your Honour check with the Members of the House to see if there is a disposition to dispose of the amendment and go back to the main motion?


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's concern. Before any consideration of unanimous consent is given, and my colleague from the Liberal Party who has just appeared in the House will want to comment on this, if this matter is referred to committee might the committee be prepared to travel across Canada to hear the concerns of other Canadians? Perhaps this might be considered before we think about giving unanimous consent to the Hon. member's request.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the traditions concerning parliamentary form are that decisions have to be reached first by committees as to the best way to undertake their examinations. The committee members are not named until the debate has been completed. I think that we would have to wait and see. In principle, the Government would have no objection.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Raymond John Skelly: On debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I feel the same reservation about having to speak on this particular legislation as my colleague the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) expressed. We are not pleased at the prospect of seeing what we consider, and what many Canadians consider, to be a completely irresponsible act of the Government undertaken. I refer to the privatization of Eldorado Nuclear Limited. This is a move which indicates that the Government is willing to put into the hands of the private sector a very questionable industry. It is one that should be carefully regulated.
There has been a history not only in Canada of incidents that have indicated how dangerous this industry is. There have been a number of incidents at Chalk River. There are a number of Armed Services personnel who we refer to as atomic veterans who have received profound injury. It has taken them years to have the Government acknowledge the damage that they suffered as a result of radiation. We know of the dangers of this particular industry.
We have heard Members of the House talk about the danger of a massive amount of radioactive tailings that are in the environment associated with this activity. There is no effective
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
way to store these particular wastes. From the danger point of view, privatization is completely irresponsible.
With respect to Bill C-121, there are also some concerns about the privatization mechanism. The House and the country are looking with serious concerns at the Teleglobe privatization in which there were serious accusations of wrongdoing. Those accusations of wrongdoing have not yet been adjudicated. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs undertook to do an investigation into the matter and to put together a report, which has not been released. The House is entitled to see that report and to see what government investigations revealed in terms of that privatization initiative before we embark on another initiative such as the one that is before us.
We are quite prepared to ask in the House whether or not friends of the Conservative Party will benefit from assets of the people of Canada. This is a serious question which must be answered. We want the report from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs before this Bill goes forward.
Privatization in the nuclear industry should not take place. Indeed, there is a good argument that greater government involvement in this area is justified. As was pointed out by other colleagues, is the Government now prepared to let a private sector operator go in, make a profit on this industry while at the same time shift the major costs dealing with nuclear waste storage and any potential harm that may come from it on to the taxpayers of Canada? That is completely unacceptable.
If the Government would listen to the people of Canada, it would not privatize this industry. It would hear the message very clearly. It hears it from members of the New Democratic Party. If there were any Members of the Official Opposition in the House then it would hear it from those Members as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It must be getting late in the day. Hon. Members have very short memories. However, the rules are still the same.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I apologize. It was certainly an oversight. As Your Honour pointed out, it is nearing the magic hour.


Mr. Oberle:: But you are right.


Raymond John Skelly: The Hon. Member from Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) has noticed the absence as well. Thus my point is clear.
I wish to move on to a second serious point. It is that Eldorado Nuclear became involved in a cartel. There was the international uranium cartel which was investigated by the competition branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We would like to see the report on that matter. That report deals with the way in which those companies joined together to fix the price of uranium and to drive it up.

April 13, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
We can see in the future that in the private sector it will be even easier for this to happen again. It will be easier to create artificial shortages and to increase prices. In terms of the ability to market the product, who knows how loose it will get. In terms of our experience with the previous uranium cartel it is important that this company not be passed into the private sector, and that it remain under the control of the Government of Canada and that the Government use great care in supervising its activities.
There is another example of the type of scrutiny that the previous Government gave with respect to the question of cartels. In the past we saw a question with respect to oil companies, another energy group in which there was a massive inquiry conducted by the Director of Competition, Mr. Bertrand. In the final analysis the Government took no action except to organize an inquiry which cost the taxpayers of Canada hundreds of thousands of dollars.
With respect to any protection the Government might give in terms of Eldorado becoming involved in a monopoly or a cartel type operation, it is clear that the Government has no effective competition legislation. It has no political will to protect the people of Canada in any way whatsoever. We want the report on the previous uranium cartel. We want effective action in terms of controlling situations such as that before the question of privatization is even asked.
With respect to tailings, my colleagues have pointed out that we are dealing with 100 million tonnes of nuclear waste. We have no effective method of dealing with this waste. We are prepared to put into the environment radioactive wastes and saddle future generations with them for God knows what length of time. The Government is quite prepared to extend uranium mining, as are other Conservative Governments in Canada. This will generate 200 million tonnes or 300 million tonnes of waste before an effective plan of disposing of it is developed. Thus it would be completely irresponsible, and we are not saying that the Government is not completely irresponsible, to consider the privatization of this particular company before we resolve the issue of radioactive tailings and radioactive wastes. Those questions have to be resolved before any rational Government or any rational individual in the Government ever considers turning that company over to the private sector.
Not only is the Government not prepared to deal with the question of the safe storage of those wastes in order to protect Canadians and future generations of Canadians, it is quite prepared to offer inducements to go ahead and to expand the activity. There is a great deal of concern in British Columbia in this respect. There has been a moratorium on the activity in that province. There is a fear that we will see uranium mining again in British Columbia. We will see expanded uranium mining in Saskatchewan. The Government is extremely enthusiastic about the prospect of creating a much larger-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is called jobs.


Raymond John Skelly: -danger to Canadians. The Hon. Member opposite says that is called jobs, these dangers which are being created for Canadians. That is an issue which the Hon. Member's Party ought to be going to the polls on. There are millions of Canadians who want nothing to do with the nuclear industry. They say that Canada and the world will be safer if we were well out of it. The hypocritical position that has been taken on this nuclear issue cannot be tolerated. If the Hon. Member thinks that the majority of Canadians are looking for jobs in this sector, he should get out on the hustings because he is absolutely dead wrong, the result is very clear, and Canadians will tell you that.
My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis), and other people who have spoken in this House have spoken with great concern about the fact that Canadian uranium which we suggest is strictly for peaceful purposes is a major component in the nuclear weapons race in the world.
We are selling it to France, we are selling it to the United States, and we are working behind a facade that says; "Our uranium is being used for peaceful purposes", when in reality that uranium forms part of an enrichment process that follows a fuel cycle into nuclear bombs. There is no doubt that we as Canadians have dirty hands in this business. If the wishes of Canadians were followed, that Canada would be a nuclear weapons free zone, we would not produce the material that nuclear weapons are made of. It is one thing to produce it and sell it to somebody else and say "What a dirty bunch they are", but in reality we have dirty hands on this issue, or the previous Liberal Government did and now the Conservative Government definitely has dirty hands on this issue.
The previous Government sold India a package from which it built a nuclear weapon. The previous Government proposed to sell to some of the foremost countries in the world, countries at that time operating with a tremendously high moral standard such as Argentina and Brazil. They talked about selling nuclear weapons to South Korea, Taiwan, and to a number of other countries that were quite excited about producing nuclear weapons, if they had been given the opportunity. They probably lost out in the competition because of more successful weapons merchants through the guise of nuclear plants. But certainly Canada is involved in supplying materials for nuclear weapons and Canadians are totally opposed to that. If it read the population and the electorate correctly, the Government would know that this is the case and that this should stop.
On the issue of occupational health and safety, the unions involved are absolutely opposed to those sales in privatization. The unions are concerned that if the Government walks away from this industry, standards will relax and the workers lives and their families will be jeopardized. In Canada we know the massive problem of occupational health and safety. In this
April 13, 1988

particular industry the question of occupational health and safety is critical. These people are working in a dangerous environment. They are exposed to very deadly materials. In the private sector, it is not difficult to visualize those standards being relaxed and a failure to adhere to the responsibilities that the corporate sector has in many other areas. The matter of occupational health and safety is a critical issue.
The second matter is the broader issue that also concerns the unions, the fact that they have 100 million tonnes of tailings that are not being properly handled. In the processing industry there are environmental concerns about the highly radioactive materials that come from that sector. They are not only concerned about the occupational health and safety on the job, but they are certainly concerned about the broader environmental impacts. They have children, they will have grandchildren, and they realize what the Government is proposing to saddle Canadians of future generations with.
Therefore, there is a great expression about the broad environmental concerns of the manner in which this industry is treated. In order to make a profit, and in order to maximize a profit for the companies that become involved in this privatization, there will be a very large incentive to relax the occupational health and safety and also the broader environmental concerns and standards. When a company does not invest in preserving those standards, it maximizes or improves its profit picture, and there is a serious incentive in the private sector to do this.
If a person believed that the nuclear industry in Canada was a useful contributor to the economy and the country instead of building a danger today and a time bomb for tomorrow, one could believe that it was a public utility, a thing that is so dangerous and of such great concern that it should be closely controlled and under the responsibility of the highest authority in the country, the federal Government.
When the nuclear industry first started in Canada, Canada took control of that industry under its discretionary power in the Constitution. That is the type of priority that Canada gave to it. Today the Conservative Government, in an act of what I and my colleagues would define as complete irresponsibility, is proposing to turn this over into the private sector where the motive for profit will place a constant constraint on occupational health and safety, and a constant constraint on spending in environmental protection. It has been repeated many times that only a Conservative would not learn by experience.
My colleague from Saskatchewan expressed great concern about the developments in the Wollaston Lake area, about the possibility of three mines being dug in this very environmentally sensitive area. Eventually those mines will produce hundreds of millions of tonnes of tailings that, unless the technology for handling those tailings is developed, will create another environmental danger and time bomb to be paid for by future Canadians. This enthusiasm, a clear signal that by turning this into the private sector and saying "Let's get rolling with it", by increasing the activity of the uranium mining in northern
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Saskatchewan, by increasing the activity in British Columbia, is building a very serious problem for the future. If the Government was prepared to go to the polls on this issue alone, it would be defeated.


Mr. McDermid:: You are dreaming in Technicolor.


Raymond John Skelly: "Dreaming in Technicolor", say the Conservatives. If one can believe the former Minister for International Trade and her recent statements in Vancouver, we will be getting a chance to raise this in the polls this fall. She made a very clear statement that we will be going to the polls and we will in fact get a chance to read the Canadian-


John Horton McDermid: That is not her prerogative.


Raymond John Skelly: I did notice that she was trying to cover her derriere today, and was having a great deal of difficulty doing it.


John Horton McDermid: What a sexist statement.


Raymond John Skelly: We all have derrieres and from time to time we are all forced to attempt to cover them. I tend to believe the former Minister for International Trade that we will be going to the polls, and we will certainly be getting an opportunity to test the population, and then we will see who is dreaming in Technicolor.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given comments made earlier by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party and supported by the Government, I think that there is a predisposition in the House to get this matter to committee. I notice that we are nearing the normal hour of adjournment. I would ask that you might seek permission of the House not to see the clock in the normal fashion in order that we might enable Members to make the comments that they want to make, yet still conclude, in order that we can move on to other important matters tomorrow, and perhaps even more important the committee can begin its work to examine the types of issues which the New Democratic Members are putting on the table. There will be expert witnesses, it would be helpful to the Canadian people, and it would be helpful to Parliament to have that examination begin as quickly as possible. I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to not see the clock until we have disposed of this second reading debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River.


Raymond John Skelly: I would like to continue with the debate and the committee question. The committee question is that we are very concerned that the Government has attempted to limit the number of witnesses in a number of committees. If this Bill ever goes to committee, and we would hope that enlightened-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Do I understand from the Hon. Member that there is unanimous consent to continue the debate?

April 13, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Raymond John Skelly: Absolutely not.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being six o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, April 14, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers