1988-04-11

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, a number of citizens in the National Capital Region have united to ask that all levels of government in the area proclaim this Public Servants' Day. On behalf of the federal Government I would like to salute the contribution which public servants make to the quality of life in the National Capital Region.

The federal Government is the region's biggest employer, employing over 74,000 public servants in many different fields. I am thinking, for instance, of scientists, clerks, meat inspectors, museum curators, architects, marine biologists, veterinarians and word processor operators, to name only a few. They all contribute to the quality of life in the National Capital.
In addition, another 40,000 residents in the region are employed by provincial or municipal governments. The general public does not generally make subtle distinctions between these various levels of government, and that is why, today, I think it is appropriate to take this opportunity and join provincial and municipal governments serving this region in paying tribute to our public servants.

A word of thanks is due to the organizers of this event. With volunteer help they have promoted this day throughout the region so that public servants at all levels of government might be the recipients of a well-deserved tribute. I would also like to extend my thanks and the thanks of the Government, not only to the public servants here in the National Capital Region but to all of those equally deserving Canadian public servants who are working all across Canada and abroad.
Seldom do we have the opportunity or the occasion, as a major employer, to thank our staff. I would like to take this opportunity to do just that. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen,
for the quiet dedication and professionalism you have shown in serving the Canadian public.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to join the Minister and all Members of this House in emphasizing the importance of this occasion. As the Minister said himself, it is true the work of Government employees is often not given due recognition by Canadians. There is a tendency to use the old cliches of the Fifties in commenting on their work. It is time we dropped this approach.

Public servants are indeed hard-working people devoted to their work and conscious of the importance of the role they play in the administration of the country.
Over the 15 years that I have been present in this House I have paid particular attention to the preoccupations of public servants and have, on many occasions, drawn the attention of the House to some of the difficulties which they experience as groups and sometimes as individuals. I want to tell them that we always welcome their visits, that we appreciate their advice and will act accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to wish all these public servants a very good day. I think this initiative which was taken by Mayor Durrell and a number of people in Ottawa-Carleton is a good idea and perhaps it should be repeated every year.
If there is anything to criticize, I think it would be the present Government's attitude towards its public servants. 1 would like to recall that although today we should be celebrating, federal public servants have not forgotten a number of problems they have with this Government. It is ironic that it should be the President of the Treasury Board, or I should say, his Associate Minister, who is thanking our public servants, when we know that this Government has cut 15,000 jobs in the last three and a half years and intends to go on doing so.
Mr. Speaker, what did this Government do when language training programs were cut back and, with them, nearly 50 per cent of the jobs involved? I may remind the Government that these public servants are still on strike and that it is doing nothing. What did the Minister do when negotiations with

April 11, 1988
Petitions
Treasury Board on labour relations came to a standstill? What did the Minister do when public servants demonstrated across this country to .. .


Mr. Speaker:: I must remind the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to respond to the Minister's statement concerning Public Servants' Day. As the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party, I welcome the Government's expression of appreciation for the contribution made by our public servants.
However, I also wish to point out that it takes more than fine words to create and maintain an effective public service. In this respect I very much regret the difficulties in which the Government now finds itself with respect to Public Service bargaining. The new negotiations are stalled over basic issues, such as the number of bargaining units, with the Government rejecting a very cost effective proposal by the Public Service Alliance to reduce the number from 31 to 7.
As well, we have had the adamant attitude of the Government refusing to bargain with its language teachers except on the basis of a majority conciliation report that was rejected by them almost unanimously last September.
Dare say that I wonder about the spirit of Meech Lake when I see this kind of cavalier treatment meted out to those who must implement the policy of getting to our two major language groups service from the federal Government.
Finally, I also believe that any government that has the true interests of its employees at heart would have long ago realized that the pension de-indexation in Bill C-33 is completely out of step with developments in pensions policy in the private sector and should be dropped.
A government which took action on these kinds of issues could result in a Public Servants' Day with real meaning and some real celebration. I hope that will be forthcoming next year.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents pursuant to Standing Order 106.
These petitioners are concerned that the trade deal signed between the United States and Canada would have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence.
They believe that the trade deal suggests that there will be significant loss of jobs, not only in many sectors of the economy but also in many regions of Canada.
Therefore, the petitioners request that the Parliament of Canada obtain a very clear mandate from the people of Canada during a national debate on this issue in a national general election. They are asking for Parliament to dissolve to enable a national general election to take place during which a debate on the trade deal can occur.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, once again I stand on behalf of a number of people in British Columbia and others in cities across Canada. The petition concerns the whole question of killings using knives. There have been two such recent killings in the City of Vancouver.
The petitioners have asked repeatedly that the federal Government amend the Criminal Code to prohibit the carrying of knives by citizens in public places. Exceptions from this ban would only include activities where the use of the knife was integral to the legitimate work or when it was carried for religious reasons, such as with the Sikh religion.
They call on the Government to fulfill its promise to do something about this.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling petitions signed by residents of La Dore, Quebec; Fredericton, New Brunswick; Chibougamau, Quebec; Glenside, Saskatchewan; Brome Lake, Quebec, Fertile, Saskatchewan; and Mississauga, Ontario.
If we add their 106 signatures to other petitions I tabled in the House previously, we now have a total of 32,639 signatures. The undersigned are aware of the fact that since 1974, federal motor vehicle safety regulations allow self-inflating bags to be installed in the driver's seat of private vehicles and that this device would reduce the number of fatal and serious injuries.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly pray Parliament to make the following compulsory: First, installing inflatable bags on the front seat of motor vehicles and second, installing adjustable shoulder seat belts for passengers on the back seat of motor vehicles.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk]
April 11, 1988
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise the House that I have received two applications under Standing Order 29 for an emergency debate. I will first hear the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek leave to move a motion under Standing Order 29 that the House do now adjourn. If you find that motion in order, I would be prepared to debate that later this day.
The reason for my motion is that national unity is in peril from the difficulties relating to the recognition and protection of the Canadian duality, the fundamental characteristics of our country which both Saskatchewan and the House of Commons acknowledged by approving the constitutional resolution of 1987.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of national importance that a debate be held in this House to clarify the manner in which certain provinces interpret the Meech Lake Accord and, especially, to discuss in this House a decision made by the Province of Saskatchewan that would restrict the basic rights of Francophones in that province.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), who also gave you notice that he intended to rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 29 to seek leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing what has become a vital national issue.
The whole matter of minority language rights goes to the very core of what Canada is all about. It has been an issue which has been with us from the very beginning. We were pleased during the last recent debate in this House with respect to the Meech Lake Accord to see those potential wounds healed over in term of the division between anglophone and francophone rights.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
The decision of the Saskatchewan Government to initiate legislation that would compromise francophone language rights in that province has, unfortunately, the potential, at least, to reopen some of these old wounds.
As a Parliament, we believe we cannot shy away from this issue however sensitive it might be. This issue is fundamental to our country. For that reason, we would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to favourably consider permitting an emergency debate to take place later today to discuss this issue.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker. I just want to point out for the record that I appreciate the difficulty in which my hon. friend found himself where the notice was given by his Leader. Technically, under the rules, the notice and the person speaking to the notice must be the same person. In view of the subject matter and in view of the fact that my friend's remarks were brief, I did not interrupt at that time. I think we should try to respect that rule, if we can, but I appreciate that there are times when one cannot.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis). He, of course, correctly put the procedural position. However, the Chair felt, given the subject matter, that it would hear the Hon. Member for Kamloops Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a brief second to indicate clearly that it was the intention of my Leader to be here at this moment but he was inadvertently delayed in coming to the House. I want to acknowledge the generosity of the Deputy House Leader for permitting this statement to take place in my Leader's absence.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his comment.
I have listened carefully and I am giving the matter, of course, serious consideration. I will reserve until this afternoon.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 29, 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.
Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that, because of the Ministerial statement, Government orders will be extended by eight minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m.

April 11, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
I recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I led off this debate, but because of the Royal Assent to certain Bills I did not complete my remarks and I still have left a few minutes of the time allotted to me for my speech.
I want to deal with one more aspect of this proposal which I consider important, that is the downside of this proposal to privatize Eldorado and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation. We heard of the supposedly good reasons from the Minister. However, what the Minister did not tell us is that in order for this privatization to go forward, in order for this stock flotation deal to succeed-and that is all it really is-the public sector will underwrite the risks inherent in this deal by assuming the debt of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation.
The federal Government will also assume the further liability of Eldorado's nuclear waste problems at Port Hope at a cost of perhaps S75 million.
This take-back of debt has been described by the financial advisers to the Government as necessary for the success of the flotation. Eldorado's debts are substantial. We have calculated them in the range of $550 million. The federal Government will receive from the newly merged company approximately $250 million, leaving $300 million of debt which must be made up in the sale of shares in the new company before the Government breaks even on its debt obligation alone. This has nothing to do with the accumulative investment in Eldorado in the form of government equity. Therefore, the Government needs a high share price or it will wind up with a brick in its hands, something like the British Columbia resources privatization put through by the Bennett Government which issued shares at $5 and which now trade for about 90 cents. There is no evidence that this privatization deal will be any more successful.
We have to ask ourselves if there is any certainty of a high share price. Uranium markets are currently in chronic oversupply and prices are depressed. If the United States were once more to close its market to foreign producers in response to the distress of its domestic suppliers, conditions would be chaotic and, of course, the trade deal would do nothing for Canadian producers caught in this bind.
We know that uranium producers in the United States, like our friends in the Canadian Government and Canadian business, are gung-ho to see the free trade deal go through, but the reality is that if their interests are pinched, the uranium producers in the United States will become just like any other private corporation. One cannot blame them, when they see the competition they are getting and will get from Canada, for screaming that Canadian producers are being subsidized by the Government and there ought to be limits put on the sale of uranium to the United States. There are no guarantees that
the federal Government will get its investment in Eldorado back, let alone cover the debts of Eldorado.
What are the other advantages or disadvantages of this deal? 1 talked about this in the earlier part of my speech. There are really no job guarantees. In fact, rather the opposite.
The Minister spoke of the rationalization of the two companies. Most companies know what rationalization means. "Rationalization" means being more efficient, and being more efficient means fewer workers, and fewer workers means layoffs. If the Government does not realize this, the unions certainly do. They have a desire to protect the workers in this industry. They are, to say the least, very doubtful about this whole proposal.
I want to deal with one other issue. The claim has been made so often with respect to the uranium industry that somehow Governments which operate companies as public corporations cannot be efficient and cannot look after the interests of their shareholders, in this case, the people of Canada, and that somehow privatization will be much more efficient and so on. Nothing could be further from the truth, as a matter of principle, and particularly when it comes to the uranium industry.
One does not have to be a wild-eyed socialist who believes in public ownership of everything to say that the uranium industry is a perfect example of how private industry is not efficient,and how private industry could only have existed by massive subsidies from the people and Governments of Canada.
Anyone who doubts that claim need only look at an article which appeared in Canada's national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, a few days ago on April 9. The article was entitled, "The less-than-holy Roman empire", written by Paul McKay. Mr. McKay has done a much better job than I could hope to do. I wish to put on the record some of the points made by Mr. McKay. It is as devastating a critique of a privately owned corporation as I have ever seen; its lack of concern for the welfare of its workers, its insistence on being guaranteed that in no way would that company lose money, its insistence on the part of its president, that great exponent of the free enterprise system, Stephen Roman, that he could only continue by the most massive continued and constant major subsidies by the public, by the Government of Canada, and by the Government of Ontario through Ontario Hydro.
Let me put on the record some of the points made by Paul McKay in his article:
Medical records and royal commissions have shown that a pathetic army of the miners Mr. Roman employed at his uranium mines in Elliot Lake, Ontario, have gone to their own early graves because their lungs were needlessly poisoned with radioactivity and mine dusts-a company that refused to spend more than a pittance on mine safety equipment and a wilful ignorance of study after study proving uranium miners were being ravaged by cancer and lung disease.



April 11, 1988

Let me ask a question. What assurances can we receive from the government that when we get rid of Eldorado Mining as a Crown corporation, where hopefully there was some consideration for the workers who worked for that company, the type of attitude and approach followed by Mr. Roman in Denison Mines will not be the policy of a new privately owned company, with the same complete disregard for the welfare of the workers shown by Mr. Roman?
Let me further quote from the article:
The truth is that Mr. Roman's uranium empire was founded on no-risk, guaranteed, cost-plus government weapons contracts, that his empire would not have survived its first 20 years without more than $1 billion in government subsidies, sweetheart contracts and special bail-outs, and that his company was pulled out of its last major tailspin with the help of a secret international uranium cartel.
This from a company whose president never got tired of preaching the benefits of the free enterprise system and condemning government intervention in the affairs of privately owned companies.
Let me further quote from the article:
.. . what the federal government, through Crown-controlled Eldorado Nuclear Ltd., was willing to sink into uranium properties. The package of subsidies included up-front development money, guaranteed sales at guaranteed prices, tax holidays, extravagant depletion allowances, millions of dollars' worth of free research and development work, and no capital gains tax if the property was sold within five years.
In short, Eldorado was promising a no-risk, no-tax, cost-plus contract if Mr. Roman could get his mine into production by 1957.
It is lucky for the Government, the Liberal Party, and for those believers in the free enterprise system that the type of facts which we know about this situation are not known by most ordinary Canadians. If they did know those facts, we would have a revolution about the type of unfair tax system which we have in this country.
One Member of Parliament called the deal to which I referred "the biggest piece of pie ever handed to private industry in the mining industry in Canada". Every ounce of the uranium produced by Denison Mines went into United States nuclear bombs; the amounts and prices were guaranteed.
The Government of France wanted to make a deal with Mr. Roman. It wanted to buy 50,000 tons of uranium over the next 25 years at a price in the $700 million range. Mr. Roman had a lot of trouble with that because the Government of France did not want to give the assurances which the then Canadian Government insisted upon, that the uranium would not be used for military purposes. The then Government of Canada said to Mr. Roman that it would not permit that deal, but that it would arrange it so that Ottawa, the Government of Canada, would buy lots of uranium, stockpile it, and hope for sunnier days. The biggest beneficiary of the two Government's stockpile programs in the 1960s, which were worth a total of $100 million, was Denison Mines owned by that great exponent of the free enterprise system, Mr. Roman.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
In late 1970, a third stockpiling program worth $39 million was announced. A new Crown corporation, Uranium Canada, would be created to run it. In early 1972 there was a situation, because of the falling price of uranium, where the Government officials set in motion the notorious uranium cartel which, through a system of phoney price bids and market quotas, triggered a 700 per cent increase in the world price of uranium in less than four years.
Who was the major beneficiary? Mr. Roman. It was the biggest sweetheart deal of them all. A 30 year cost-plus multibillion dollar contract was arranged to supply uranium to Ontario Hydro, not at the price it should have been if the free enterprise system was working and where because there was a surplus of uranium the price should have come down; oh, no. Mr. Roman was very happy to participate in the government cartel which gave him a guaranteed price far higher than the price should have been.


Mr. Blaikie:: Socialism for the rich.


David Orlikow: My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) states "socialism for the rich". That is what we can expect from Liberal and Conservative Governments. Socialism for the rich and-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Free enterprise for the poor.


David Orlikow: -free enterprise for the poor.
Denison Mines found itself with a gold-plated deal that it still enjoys today. In making this deal hydro was betting that awesome amounts of uranium would be needed in the future. It was prepared to give incentives to ensure reliable long-term production for the deal. Ontario Hydro is now paying three times the world market price for the privilege of obtaining uranium mined in Ontario.
1 notice, Madam Speaker, that you are telling me that my time is coming to an end. What we have here is a situation where the people of Canada have paid hundreds of millions of dollars, most of which went to Mr. Roman and Denison Mines through this agreement. The people of Ontario are paying through the nose; paying higher prices for electric power than they should be paying because Ontario Hydro was willing to make an arrangement wherein it paid far more than it should have for the uranium used in its atomic power plants.
We said at the beginning that the deal was a bad deal for the people of Canada. We are opposed to this privatization proposal because it is not in the interests of the people of Canada, nor in the interests of the people of Saskatchewan. We intend to oppose the Bill in every way we can.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Questions or comments, Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are no questions or comments after the 40-minutes speeches. The

April 11, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) was the first speaker for the New Democratic Party.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, the Bill before us respecting the proposed Eldorado Nuclear Limited reorganization and divestiture Act was introduced in the House by the then Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs on March 29, an agreement having been reached between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan in February to merge and privatize the assets of Eldorado Nuclear and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation.
In outlining the reasons for the merger the Minister stated three criteria which she had in mind; first, that the Crown corporation was no longer serving a public interest or public policy function which needed to be carried out by government. Second, she stated the view that privatized corporations should be given what they need to be viable after privatization. I will return to this point, because it seems as though rather a lot is being given to the Government of Saskatchewan in this deal and one must question whether it is in the best interests of Canadians. Third, the Minister said that in arriving at the decision the interests of the employee and of public safety and the rights of Canadian taxpayers to have their financial interests protected were all considered. These are good principles, but we will want to ensure at committee that the rhetoric is in fact matched by actions on the part of the Government.
In 1983 the Liberal Government of the day transferred the shares of Eldorado Nuclear to the Canada Development Investment Corporation, and was also considering privatization. I myself consider that if the private sector can do well and responsibly anything that government is now doing, there is certainly a strong argument to transfer that function to the private sector.
However, with this Government, which on a number of occasions seems to be operating on the basis of ideology- rushing to privatization without careful examination of the economic costs, without careful consideration of environmental and other public policy goods-we will want to examine this transfer very carefully, indeed.
Eldorado Nuclear has been in existence for 61 years. It is the oldest uranium producer in the world. It is also the only integrated producer in Canada, which means that it can process ore to create uranium products for use in Canadian reactors to serve Canadian energy needs, as well as for export. It has new, modern, and efficient plants and owns and has interests in uranium mines.
The other partner, the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, is also a large supplier of uranium, producing 7 per cent of the western world's capacity in 1986. It has sales contracts which extend well into the next decade. It has emphasized exploration and has some of the world's largest commercial reserves.
In her speech on March 29 the Minister said that a merger between the two would produce a company which would be not only viable but would also have the potential to grow and develop because of the amalgamation of assets including reserves, production facilities, and research.
We will have questions about this, to which I will come in a few minutes, because the deal, on the face of it and on the Minister's own information, will cost Canadian taxpayers a fair amount. That is not quite consistent with the very rosy picture being given of the benefits.
The Minister says that she wants control of this new company to remain in Canadian hands, and Article V of the Bill imposes constraints on the issue, transfer, and ownership of voting securities in the new company. We will want to examine these points very carefully to ensure that in fact Canadian ownership of this important resource is protected.
The Minister also pointed out quite correctly that the rules concerning waste disposal and the rules arising out of Canada's adherence to the non-proliferation treaty, the international treaty concerning control of nuclear energy products, apply equally to the private sector and to the public sector. However, the fact that the rules are in existence and the way they are applied are two different things, and we will have further questions about it.
The intention in the Bill is to set up a task force which will order the transition as we face the amalgamation of a Crown corporation of Canada and a Crown corporation of Saskatchewan.
In her speech introducing the Bill the Minister said that she was very proud of the two-stage merger and privatization process which she was proposing for Eldorado Nuclear. It will be important to see whether that pride is in fact justified or whether this will be another case of misplaced enthusiasm for privatization without the adequate mechanisms in force to ensure that it really is a benefit to Canadians.
On the face of it, as our energy critic, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) pointed out, it is not strictly a business proposition. The deal would appear to be loaded in favour of the Province of Saskatchewan which is receiving a multimillion dollar package, courtesy of the federal Government. I have no objection to the Government deciding as part of a program for regional development to make a grant to the Government of Saskatchewan, but it should be clearly identified as such. It should not be disguised as a commercial transaction which is of equal value to all taxpayers in Canada.
Furthermore, when we look at the prices we find that Eldorado Nuclear has been undervalued and by an interesting process. For the purpose of this transaction, the assets of Eldorado Nuclear are placed at $915.9 million, while the assets of the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation are valued at $973.2 million. The Government of Canada will
April 11, 1988

have a 39.5 per cent share of the new company while Saskatchewan will have a 61.5 per cent interest. The new company will issue promissory notes valued at 40 per cent of the fixed assets to cover all of the debt owed to the Saskatchewan Government and only $230 million of the $570 million owed to the Government of Canada, so the promissory notes cover all of the debt of the Province of Saskatchewan but only about half of the debt of the Government of Canada. It seems that after this company is rolled over into one corporation and eventually sold to the private sector, the Province of Saskatchewan will have recovered all of its debt and losses while the Government of Canada will still be out $100 million.
It appears that in arriving at a value the two companies were evaluated from a discounted cash flow basis rather than from an asset basis. The Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation had a lower operating cost, primarily as a result of lower royalties but, interestingly, Eldorado was determined to be lower in value as a result of its less profitable refinery business. The refinery business was regarded as a detriment to the value of Eldorado Nuclear.
In the publicity surrounding this merger the two governments of Canada and Saskatchewan have said that one of the advantages of the merger is the capacity to process uranium in house. Let me quote directly from the joint press release:
A merger-will result in a company with an improved balance between its
mining and refining capacities.
This is very puzzling, Madam Speaker. On the one hand the value of Eldorado was downgraded in this transaction because the refinery was not profitable. On the other hand we are told that one of the great advantages, one of the great potentials for future profits of the merged company is the fact that the refinery exists. Which way is it? Is the refinery an advantage or not?
There are a number of other questions of this kind. There are clauses which seem, worrisomely, open ended about what the Government of Canada will put into this transaction. The Bill also leaves the Government of Canada liable for any debt or liability of Eldorado. There is no indication that there is legislation in Saskatchewan which leaves the Saskatchewan Government liable for any debts or obligations of the Saskatchewan partner.
We are left with many questions. What will be the actual cost to the taxpayers of Canada? What is the Government's position on disposal of low level waste? What is the commitment of the Government to ensure safety of handling of these materials at every point?
This merger will create the world's largest uranium producer with assets of $1.9 billion, but that market value is probably greater than Canadian investors can absorb. While the Minister has talked about the possibilities for Canadians to invest in this corporation, it is all very vague. At first blush we are left to wonder if there is any economic value whatever in this merger to the taxpayers of Canada, whether the merger
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
achieves anything except greater concentration in an industry which already has high concentration.
The new corporation will be responsible for disposing of low level radioactive wastes left by its predecessors up to a cost of $25 million and it is not clear who bears these costs. It is not clear that the question of safety has been addressed or will be addressed.
The Minister reported that the sale of shares would cover all of the debt owed to the federal and provincial Governments, but this is not clearly required in the legislation. In fact, a single strong shareholder with 25 per cent of the voting share could, to use the Minister's words, "guide" the new corporation, "under certain circumstances". This question of Canadian ownership is worrisome and needs to be addressed much more carefully than it is in this Bill.
Complete divestiture by the two governments is expected to be complete by 1995. I would stress that I am not against privatization in the uranium industry particularly. It is a cyclical and vulnerable industry and it seems reasonable that risks should be borne by private investors and not taxpayers, to a large extent. But this Bill before us is not achieving that end. It leaves the taxpayer holding a big burden while removing some of the controls of Government.
The whole question of the use and management of uranium and the disposal of waste products is probably one of the most important and serious environmental issues facing this country and it gets little or no attention in this Bill. By 1995, when it is expected that the whole matter will be in the private sector, we are asked to take it for granted that the private sector will have adequate standards to protect the life, health and safety of Canadians. There is no indication in this legislation that the Government will deal with that problem effectively.
While we will not oppose the principle of the Bill at second reading, that is, the privatization, we will certainly want very considerable amendments, standards and safety requirements built into it at committee stage, not only to protect the Canadian taxpayers' pockets but also to protect issues of safety and environmental control.


Mr. Kilgour:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member indicated that she was not opposed to privatization in principle. Would she tell the House which companies now in the public sector she would be favourably disposed to privatize, if any?


Aideen Nicholson: Madam Speaker, that is beyond the scope of the present Bill.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member. We New Democrats, who are not wedded 125 per cent to the virtues of the free enterprise system, understand that when an important sector is facing difficulties, beyond its ability to deal with them, it is sometimes necessary for the Government to step in. For example,

April 11, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
we support proposals which stabilize the price farmers get for grain.
I would like to ask the Elon. Member why the former Liberal Government, when it was in office, agreed to participate with a number of other countries in a cartel which kept the price paid for uranium ore at a very high level. As I indicated earlier when I quoted from a speech reported in The Globe and Mail, the price was 700 per cent higher than it should have been.
Not only did the Liberal Government participate in that cartel, but at that time, and since then, it used every method it could, legal and otherwise, to keep the details of the cartel arrangement secret-not just at the time but ever since. The people of Canada still do not know why the Government participated in that cartel which had such a deleterious effect on Canadian people because of the price they had to pay. Why did it do that at that time and why has it continued to block every effort to make the details of that terrible cartel public?


Aideen Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I was not the Minister of Energy or the Minister of Finance in the Liberal Government at the time the arrangements on pricing the Lion. Member discusses were entered into. I have no information other than that which has been made public, but I certainly would take issue with his statement that the Liberal Government of the day used all means, legal and illegal, I believe he said-


David Orlikow: I did not say that, I said otherwise.


Aideen Nicholson: "Otherwise"; well, I think I would certainly take strong exception to the suggestion that the Liberal Government of the day had acted in any way outside the law.
As for the Lion. Member's statement that we are now withholding information, may I point out that we are not in power. The administration of the Freedom of Information Act is in the hands of the Government of the day, not in the hands of Liberals.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the question raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) concerns a very important matter. I would like to add to his question.
The Hon. Member from Toronto will perhaps know that the cartel that was set up by the Government of which she was a supporter cost Ontarians, for example, a great deal of money in terms of the cost of hydro. She will perhaps know that the two assistants to now Senator Austin were charged criminally, as I recall, and the Senator who was then the principal officer of the cartel was not charged. Perhaps she would make a comment on that.
Does the Hon. Member realize, for example, that an Order in Council was passed barring Canadians from talking about that cartel? In short, it was one of the sorriest moments in Canadian history for those of us who believe that Governments should not break the law in the name of trying to enrich a
Crown corporation. Does the Hon. Member have any sensible comments to make on any of those matters I have just raised?


Aideen Nicholson: Madam Speaker, may I point out that the Bill before us is a Bill arranging for the amalgamation of a Crown corporation administered by the Government of Canada and one administered by the Government of Saskatchewan. I cannot see the ancient history that the Hon. Member is describing as having any relevance to this Bill.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I thought that someone from the government side might want to rise to defend what they are doing, but I suppose I can understand that they might not want to do that.
I begin by acknowledging a certain ambiguity that I have experienced in this debate. We have here a classic example of what is wrong with privatization and particularly what is wrong with privatization as it has been implemented by this Government.
This is a classic case. The people of Canada and the people of Saskatchewan, through the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, invested many, many millions of dollars over the years in these two corporations. As a result of the ideological commitment of this Government to privatization and the ideological commitment of the Saskatchewan Government to privatization, these two Crown corporations are to be merged and then privatized through the sale of shares in a way that involves the Canadian people and the Saskatchewan people, the Saskatchewan people being in double jeopardy because they have contributed to both corporations. These people are now picking up most of the risk because all the debts and liabilities are being picked up by the Government in order to make this particular privatization possible.
We see that this is not a case of the Canadian taxpayers benefiting from privatization. It is a case of whoever comes to be the shareholders and particularly the majority shareholders in this new company benefiting form the investment that has been made over the years by the Canadian people and the Saskatchewan people in these two corporations.
Having said that, I want to make it clear that it is not appropriate to be against privatization in every and all cases. I recall that not so long ago, in my own riding, a decision was made by the Manitoba Government to privatize Flyer Industries. In my judgment, at the time that decision was made, that was the thing to do. It was regrettable that the corporation faced the difficulties it did as a publicly-owned corporation, and some of the difficulties it faced were as a result of the fact that it was a publicly-owned corporation. These difficulties existed not through public ownership in and
April 11, 1988

of itself but because, as a result of it being a publicly-owned corporation, other and more powerful private companies in the bus market-place made life very difficult for that publicly-owned corporation.
One recalls that at one point in the 1970s the Ontario Conservative Government made it clear to municipalities, which were looking for transportation grants, that if they wanted grants for the purchase of buses they had better buy their buses from General Motors rather than from Flyer Industries in Manitoba, which was publicly owned. The last thing that the Conservatives wanted to see succeed was a publicly-owned bus company.
However, I stray from the point. We are talking about the privatization of Eldorado and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation. I could not resist getting in that point about Flyer and the way in which the bias against public ownership on the part of the Conservative Party has, from time to time, led various federal and provincial Governments of their ilk not to let the market-place work, and publicly-owned companies to compete freely, but to try to skew the marketplace in such a way as to guarantee that these corporations would not succeed as well as they might in order that they could then point, with all due sanctimoniousness, to the fact that these corporations had not done as well as some had hoped. They then blamed it on public ownership instead of on their own intervention in the very market-place they say ought not to be intervened in.
On the question of privatization, I had the privilege of being in the British House of Lords one afternoon when the Earl of Stockton, the former Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain, Harold MacMillan, now deceased, was giving a speech. He was speaking about the privatization program of Margaret Thatcher. I was very impressed with the ability of the former Prime Minister at the age of 92 to deliver a 20-minute speech without notes of any kind.
In his very articulate comments on the Government's privatization programs, he referred to the privatization of British Crown corporations being comparable to selling off a family's silver for short-term fiscal goals, creating a longer term situation of poorness in terms of assets and one's ability to determine one's own economic destiny, et cetera.
It was a very good speech and a good analogy of what this Government has been tempted to do. In many respects it has been selling off the family silver. Some of the privatizations with which the Government has gone ahead have been particularly ill-advised and have certainly fallen into the category of selling off the family silver. However, I am not absolutely sure about this one. This privatization shows what is wrong with privatization in the way in which the public picks up the risk and the private shareholders get the benefit.
Anyone who has been in this House for any time knows that I am not a great fan of the nuclear industry, uranium mining,
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
or nuclear power, all of the things involved in the economy with which these two corporations are tied. I would be less than frank if I did not say that I would just as soon that many of the things in which these corporation are involved were not happening, whether privately or publicly-owned.
One of the problems with the nuclear industry in this country has been that it has been so wrapped up in the public sector and the Government. Indeed, it was so close to both the Liberal bureaucracy and the Liberal Governments of the day that it is still impossible for Liberals in this House to say anything critical about the nuclear industry. That is their baby.
We had hoped that the Conservatives might have been more critical. They made a number of promises back in 1979, that they would have a full-scale inquiry into the nuclear industry in Canada. They made the same promise again in 1984. We pressed them on that in 1985 and 1986 and all we could get from the then Minister of Energy, who has since then been through several portfolios until she finally landed up in the Treasury Board, was that she would ask AECL whether it thought an inquiry was a good idea.
I think one must see the irony in a cabinet Minister of a Party which once promised an inquiry into this very Crown corporation and many of its activities rising in the House to say that she was thinking about an inquiry but was going to check with the Crown corporation to see whether or not it thought it was necessary. The Hon. Member can check the record. That is exactly what the Minister said.
It was very soon after that that we lost hope that the Conservatives would be able to muster the critical distance from the nuclear industry which we had hoped they might muster given some of the promises they made when the Liberals were in office. We then launched our own inquiry. We have been to several cities across the country and hope to have a report very soon which will make very clear the view of the NDP on a wide variety of issues pertaining to the nuclear industry.
I would not be crazy about many of the activities in which these two Crown corporations are involved whether they were done by a publicly or privately-owned company. This may be only wishful thinking, but I hope that one of the by-products of this privatization would be that the Government of Canada and other Governments, to the extent that the nuclear industry is privatized-in this case these two mining corporations- might be able to feel less attached to the whole industry.
I do not have any grounds for that wish because, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) pointed out in such detail, the private corporations in this industry have basically been able to do whatever they wanted to over the years and to attain whatever public governmental support they happened to need, whether in the form of direct subsidies, price fixings through cartels, or whatever.

April 11, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
So certainly there is no basis in history for hoping that the private nuclear industry will be treated with any greater critical attention than was the public sector. In fact, just the opposite has been true. The private companies have been able to operate with even less attention. However, I am hoping that at some time, some Government of Canada will turn its attention to the nuclear industry in the way that we have been calling for for some time and that it may be freer to do that if, in the case of uranium mining, these companies are completely in the private sector.
There is absolutely no doubt that there is a need for a full scale inquiry into all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle in Canada. This is something that the Conservatives promised time and time again but have not fulfilled. This inquiry should include questions of reactor safety, emergency planning and other post Chernobyl questions that have not been addressed.
The only place where any of the more difficult questions pertaining to the nuclear fuel cycle have been addressed is in some of the committees of the House. The Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry, largely at my own initiation some time ago, began a study of the disposal of high level radioactive waste. It published a very good report entitled The Eleventh Hour. I recommend it to all Members of the House who should be interested in this whole question of the disposal of high level radioactive waste.
As well, I notice that the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources is involved in a study of the economics of nuclear power. These matters are being discussed as a result of parliamentary reform because the committees have initiated these studies on their own. It is a credit to the reform that these things are happening, but we still have not seen the Progressive Conservative Party live up to its commitment to have a full scale inquiry into the nuclear fuel cycle in Canada. We will probably not see that inquiry as we enter the last stages of this Government.
If there is a shred of integrity left in the Government it will call an election before it attempts to implement the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement so that Canadians will have an opportunity to make some judgment on an agreement about which there was no intimation in the 1984 election. If the Government has any respect for democratic principles, there will be an election before that agreement happens.
Of course, this means that the Conservative Party will have gone through its four years in office without living up to its promise in 1984 to have an inquiry into the nuclear fuel cycle in Canada.
There are many other issues I could speak about, but it would require more time than I have available. I know that a Member from the Liberal Party wishes to speak and I hope that I will be able to entertain some questions.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, will the Member tell us the names of any public sector companies that NDP governments in British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Manitoba have privatized? While doing so, will he tell us which companies in the federal sector his Party would like to de-privatize if they had the chance to do so?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I gave an example.


Mr. Blenkarn:: You were going to privatize the banks.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I thought the banks were privatized. The Member is the Chairman of the Finance Committee and is talking about privatizing the banks. I would have thought he would have realized by now that they were in the private sector.
In any event, the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) asked me which companies provincial NDP governments have privatized. I cannot speak for British Columbia or Saskatchewan, but in the course of my speech I gave the example of a company in Manitoba, Flyer Industries, which was privatized. It was sold to a Dutch company which manufactures buses.
At this time the Manitoba Government is trying to find a buyer for MANFOR Industries in The Paw. Unfortunately, I would imagine that those negotiations are somewhat in limbo as a result of the election.
Far from being philosophically rigid about privatization, NDP governments have shown, quite rightly, a willingness to consider where privatization may or may not be appropriate. Obviously there is a difference between us and the Conservatives in that we do not have a bias against public ownership. We see it as a very positive, creative instrument for Canadians to determine the nature of their economy and to have more influence in economic decision-making.
Furthermore, where it is seen to be the best course of action, NDP governments have seen fit to privatize.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, the Provinces of Manitoba and Quebec, to mention two, have great potential to produce hydro-electric power by building dams and generators. Both provinces are understandably involved in negotiating with American states to their south for the sale of that power.
According to the news last night, the Government of Ontario is now making a decision to spend up to $500,000 to re-equip and improve safety in some of its nuclear power plants. Rather than rebuild those nuclear power plants and build new ones, would it not make better sense for the safety of Canadians for the Ontario Government to get into serious negotiations with the Provinces of Quebec and Manitoba to buy the power it needs from those provinces, which is produced by hydro-electric projects?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) points to a problem with the organization of energy production in Canada, particularly
April 11, 1988

when it comes to the production of electric energy. Every province is committed to its own strategy for the production of electric energy. There is very little co-ordination or effort to seek what might be best for the country as a whole or for a particular region in order to achieve some co-ordination.
At one point there was talk in western Canada of a western grid. Negotiations seemed very close to fruition, but apparently fell apart.
Rather than asking how we can sell and exchange energy between Canadian provinces in a way that is most beneficial to the Canadian environment and the safety of Canadians, every province is committed to its own somewhat isolated energy strategy. The hydro producing companies are selling hydroelectric energy to the United States while neighbouring provinces are building more nuclear reactors to get electric energy which they may well have been able to obtain from Canadian neighbours and avoid what I regard as the undesirable prospect of having to build nuclear reactors. So there is not that kind of co-ordination.
There is a lot of confusion surrounding the whole question of hydro exports. One of the areas of confusion, of course, is with respect to the whole free trade agreement and the way in which the Government is trying to make Canadians believe that through this free trade agreement they have scored some kind of victory over the coal lobby in the United States, that we will now be able to make sales to the United States of hydro exports that we would not have been able to make otherwise. The fact is that the Government was responding to a very small group of Congressmen from coal states who had the idea of having some kind of legislative prohibition against Canadian hydro exports to the U.S. That group would not have gone anywhere. It had absolutely no prospect of success. Yet, in response to that feeble threat by a small group of American politicians, the Canadian Government entered into this agreement. Now it wants us to believe that we have new opportunities to sell hydro to the U.S. because of it.
The fact is that the coal lobby actually won in this agreement. The coal lobby was very worried about these coal contracts with Ontario Hydro which will come up for renewal in 1990 and 1991, contracts with American coal producers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, or wherever it may be. They were worried that by that time Canadians would have gotten things together and would be prepared to buy low sulphur western Canadian coal, which would be of benefit to coal producers in western Canada and to everyone employed in transporting that coal from western Canada. It would also be of benefit to the Canadian environment in terms of burning low sulphur coal as opposed to high sulphur coal.
However, in order to do that, every study has shown that there would have to be some kind of subsidy, something like we have with respect to the transportation of grain, in the nature of about 2 per cent. The free trade agreement will make this
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
impossible. It will make impossible the very transportation subsidy that might have made possible the dreams of many of the western Canadian Conservative Members of Parliament who for years have asked why Ontario will not buy low sulphur western coal. Now, as a result of the free trade agreement, about which they are all frothing at the mouth so positively, their dream of selling low sulphur western Canadian coal to Ontario does not have a snowball's chance in hell. It will be their fault. It will be on their heads.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, I want to begin by assuring members of the Government that we in the Official Opposition are not planning to protract this debate to any great extent. We have had two speakers and I have a few words to add. I do not think I will take even my full 20 minutes. I will, of course, be happy to participate in the question period, then we will be happy to see this Bill, which we generally support, move ahead.
I want to indicate, however, that 1 have very grave reservations about the Government's privatization policy as a whole. I was intrigued by the question asked by the Hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). He asked what it was that the Government has privatized that should not have been, and what has not been privatized by former Governments or by New Democratic Governments which should have been? It is an interesting question.
I think it is very easy to characterize the position of this Government. It has a very limited view of public purpose, even in Government itself, let alone in Crown corporations. It is slavishly addicted to the market-place in the belief that the solutions the market-place provides are always right. Indeed, underlying the free trade agreement is the idea that if only the provincial governments of Canada can be forced to live with market rules, without the power to mitigate them in anyway, that somehow or other it will produce a better life for Canadians. It may certainly produce some greater efficiency. I am not challenging that. I think the great thing the market does provide is a discipline about production. However, there is more to life than that. There is even more to business than that.
I think that if the Government has made an error in its privatization approach, it is the error of thinking that no matter what it is, the market-place will do it better than planning by Government or planning by others to try to achieve other objectives than just the efficiency for which market operations are quite rightly famous. We in the Official Opposition feel it is wrong to begin with the ideology that everything should be privatized. We have objected to the privatization of certain aspects of Correctional Service Canada. We have objected to some other privatizations the Government has proposed.
For us it is a practical question. The question has to be to look at the Crown corporation and ask if there is a public purpose for it that cannot be achieved or that will be lost if the

April 11, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
corporation is privatized? When the Government asks that question, and it looks at Crown corporation after Crown corporation, it will tend to come to the conclusion that they should be privatized, because the Government does not have a public policy purpose for Crown corporations.
For example, we have a business in Petro-Canada, but it is also a business that was established by Government to achieve a certain public purpose in addition to complying with the market-place, to being efficient and to providing a service like the service provided to the public sector. We wanted Petro-Canada to be a force in the operations of a number of private companies, which certainly operating together do not follow the typical or theoretical rules of the market-place because they are few in number, they are huge and are in fact a classical oligopoly. We wanted Petro-Canada to be out there, to be, among other things, the honest broker in the field, the corporation that would set the standard and compensate for the limitations that existed in that particular sector of our economy where so few companies together handle such an enormous volume of business.
De Havilland was another example of a corporation which was privatized. I have to say that I think the discipline of the market-place will help de Havilland. It has already begun to help. But when de Havilland was held by the Government it had a public purpose objective as well. That public purpose objective is lost now that it is owned even by a very good multinational corporation which is based and directed from the United States. The public objective which was lost was having a domestic indigenous aerospace industry in Canada, run by Canadians and achieving national objectives in its operation.
No one can say that however successful de Havilland is from now on-and I am one of those who want it to be successful and who support it-it will ever achieve that public policy objective that we had in mind when it was held in the public sector and which might have been achieved in the private sector if it had been sold to a Canadian control group.
The Eldorado Corporation is about to be put into the private sector. I think the role it has played over the years when it was in public hands justified, to a certain point, keeping it in public hands, but, as I have indicated, our energy critic and our caucus have examined the proposal and we consider it to be a proper evolution of Eldorado Corporation.
At the same time I have to say that we are very disappointed that the environmental problems caused by the use, production, exploration, or mining of uranium have not been satisfactorily addressed by the Government. We had looked forward to a continuation of work in trying to find methods of dealing with nuclear wastes that had not been found to date. We had hoped that that would continue to be a high priority.
There is nothing in this proposal to indicate that that will be a high priority and that any more than the normal concern of a private corporation will be shown to a problem of national
importance and one which would have benefited from continuing high profile responsibility in the hands of the federal Government.
Like some of the others for which this Government has been responsible, we fear that this privatization is more ideology than a practical consideration of the best interests of the Canadian economy and the best interests of the corporation being privatized.
When privatization occurs, it gives the Conservative Government the opportunity to turn to its friends and give them contracts to bring them on board into the operation. I do not have to be more specific in reminding this House that the Government has abused privatization in the past as a way of rewarding friends and giving them opportunities which would not otherwise be available.
One of the other motives of privatization, which is not a legitimate motive, and which the Government has used in the past, is the use of privatization as a way of appearing to reduce the size of the Public Service. Technically, the size of the Public Service or those employed in the public sector are reduced when a Crown corporation is sold or when a government operation is privatized. Unless there is an actual reduction in that activity, I do not think the Government is justified in claiming the credit for honouring its campaign promise to reduce the size of the Public Service.
The most scandalous example of this is what the Government has done in Correctional Service Canada where people who were working in the service as parole administrators or people in charge of half-way houses owned by the Government have been fired and rehired by organizations established through public funding purportedly to continue the same type of service, but in some cases in a less effective and efficient manner than was being done while the operation was entirely within the Government.
In a case like that, what is achieved is not a cost saving or a reduction in the number of people who are being paid for their services out of tax money, but the appearance that the Public Service has been reduced in numbers because those who were formerly in the Public Service are now under contract to the Government directly or indirectly and doing exactly the same thing. Privatization has become a pretty shabby business in the hands of the Government.
In conclusion, I simply express the hope that that will not be the case in this privatization, in this merger, and in the underwritings and the share offerings that will subsequently take place, but that it will be run on an above-board basis, and that in the long term it will bring benefits to the users of nuclear fuel and to the production of nuclear fuel.


David Orlikow: I wish to ask the Hon. Member two questions. First, I wish to ask his views on the feelings of the union representing the de Havilland workers about privatization. While it has apparently meant more jobs at this time, what we have are more jobs in the production and assembly of the
April 11, 1988

aircraft. In fact what has been lost by this privatization is the ability of that company when it was owned publicly to do the research and development which is so necessary if the industry is to continue to develop and prosper in the future. I would like the Hon. Member to comment on that.
Since the Hon. Member was a member of the Cabinet in the former Liberal Government, I would like him to explain, if he can why the former Government participated in that cartel, together with countries such as the United States, Australia, and other countries that were involved, to keep the price of uranium ore hundreds of percentage points higher than it should have been? This cost the Canadian public hundreds of millions of dollars. Because Ontario Hydro was purchasing so much of that uranium for its atomic power plants, it cost the people of Ontario. Why did the then Government participate in that cartel? Even more, not only did it participate in the cartel, it used every possible method, and certainly every possible legal method, to keep secret the details of what went on, the arrangements made in that cartel and that cartel agreement, to keep the facts from the Canadian public?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Let me answer the last question first. Unfortunately, I do not have great first-hand knowledge of the facts in the nuclear cartel situation. I followed it with considerable interest, as did the Hon. Member, but I am not in a position to discuss the Government's motives, or the methods that it used.
It is obvious to anyone looking at it from the outside that one of the advantages of keeping a price artificially high is to encourage the continuation of exploration, development, and stockpiling of the resource. If prices are lower that will occur less. If prices are higher, that will occur more. I would assume that the primary purpose of having the cartel was to ensure that there would be continuing exploration and development of what is a very key resource in the nuclear age in which we live.
On the question of the concern about research and development, I am obviously as concerned as the Hon. Member that there be a high level of research and development at de Havilland. With the company in private hands, as it is now as a result of the action of the Conservative Government, there is less government control of that. Whether research and development occurs in Canada, in the United States, or at all, in relation to this propeller technology aircraft at de Havilland, no longer depends on the Government of Canada. It has given up the right to control that, because it is no longer the shareholder and it no longer appoints the directors of the company. That is one example of a consequence of privatization. However, I hope that the Government is calling on de Havilland, under the contract of purchase and sale which does give some rights to the federal Government and some continuing responsibilities, to assure that a high level of research and development does occur in Canada.
I can tell the Hon. Member that I have recently attended at the plant at de Havilland, and in the next few weeks a number of Members of Parliament elected in the area of the plant will be there. The amount of research and development that goes
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
on there is impressive. One hopes that it will continue and, if possible, will increase.
On the other hand, the new element introduced into de Havilland that I support, but that I admit might be controversial, is that it is beginning to do more assembly and fabrication of other aircraft than those it is making from beginning to end in the plant. I consider that to be a good insurance policy for the corporation. After all, a one-product company is as vulnerable as that product. While de Havilland's current plane is a very big winner or a very big success, in due course it will start to become obsolete. I hope that that is a long way down the road, but when that time comes I think the union and the Member of Parliament representing the area, myself, will be very happy that the company has other lines of activity which provide high paying jobs for very highly trained people who work in the plant.
I am not sorry that it has gone into the assembly business to the extent that it has, and I am not sorry that it is more than just a one-product plant. However, there is something discouraging, I must say, about making parts which fit into somebody else's aerospace vision or into planes being designed, assembled, and flown out of other factories than the ones de Havilland has in Canada.
I remember visiting other aircraft plants in that area of Toronto which were making tail assemblies, for example. That was the whole thing the company was about or the plant was involved in. One had to be somewhat saddened that the Canadian aerospace industry had the type of truncation that it would not be doing something where creative energy or vision or research and development could enhance what it was doing. It was just making as many tails as were needed for planes which had been designed elsewhere and which were being sold and marketed elsewhere, and so on.
That is the danger of the Mulroney trade deal. It is the kind of thing that we can see happening to our plants. As the takeover of American companies continues-and the agreement encourages takeover by American companies-it could lead to a lack of autonomy about Canadian entrepreneurship, Canadian economic creativity and invention, and so on. It is a very discouraging possible result of continentalism.
As long as the plant is designing planes and making them more or less from beginning to end, and as long as there is no suggestion that it will stop doing that, I will continue to support what is happening at de Havilland. As the Dash-8 meets its market and as new designs and so on come on, I hope they will come from de Havilland, not that de Havilland will merely be a piece maker for someone else's ideas.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is also a lawyer and I should like him to tell us, if he would, how he feels about the fact that two bona fide officials were charged as junior officers in Uranium Canada, that an Order in Council was passed indicating that Canadians could not

April 11, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
discuss that very important issue, and why the head of Uranium Canada, now Senator Jack Austin, was not charged when he in fact was the head of the company in which the two officials were charged.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member who asked the question knows that the decision about laying charges is not the province of a Cabinet or of Ministers in the aggregate. It is the unique and exclusive responsibility of the Attorney-General who is not to consult with his colleagues when decisions like that are being taken.
I think the implication in the question is that somehow or other I, as a former member of the Government, should have to defend a decision not to charge Senator Austin. If that is his point, as if it were a government decision, it is a misleading question and I would want to reject that aspect of it.
So far as the rest of the question is concerned, the Order in Council and so on, I really had no personal contact with the issue. I have nothing to add to the very full answers which were given to that question at the time it was asked of the Ministers in the Trudeau Government who were responsible for establishing the cartel.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that we should come back after the break to yet another sign that the Conservative Government continues to pursue its ideological course toward defeat.
The interesting question which arises when one starts to discuss privatization and public ownership is in fact the one which the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) raised some time ago-which kinds of companies, which sorts of enterprises would one want to see as private sector enterprises, and for what reasons would one want to see them in the public sector?
As a country we have had to make such choices on many different occasions throughout history. Ironically, earlier Conservative Governments often made the choice to put a company into the public sector for specific and important national reasons. It is for that reason that I find it especially unfortunate that the Conservative Government has taken an entirely ideological approach to reduce, for the sake of doing so, the number of companies held by the public as opposed to those in the private sector.
What is also interesting is that the approach it has taken in this area, as in so many areas, has been one of ideologically based nibbles. Yet it refuses to stand up forthrightly and take a position that reflects what it actually believes in terms of significant, large public enterprises, such as Air Canada, Petro-Canada, Canadian National, and CBC. There has not been any effort, despite ideological small harassments, to move against significant public enterprises, because it is so clear that public opinion is in favour of keeping public enterprises such as Air Canada, CBC, CN, and Petro-Canada in the public sector to ensure that they continue to serve the public as they have done in the past. Still, steps have been taken such as this one in
respect of Eldorado and a series of earlier smaller steps in respect of other companies in the public sector.
If one had a philosophy respecting the public sector of trying to assess which firms should be in and which should be out, it seems to me-and perhaps this is the last point I will make before the luncheon break-that a company with so much associated with it in terms of safety, in terms of environmental concerns, and in terms of the tremendous contribution of the Government to setting it up in the first place, is the kind of firm which one would inevitably say must be within the public sector.
May I call it one o'clock, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Because of the Minister's statement earlier, the House will sit until eight minutes past one o'clock. The Hon. Member if he wishes may continue.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, if I can pursue this point somewhat further, of all the companies which one might choose, a company which is dealing with nuclear matters is a company which should be under the most careful, most controlled scrutiny from the Government. A company which has received, as Eldorado Nuclear has, the tremendous support of government in assistance, both with respect to capital, development and marketing, through the cartel arrangements which have been discussed back and forth, that too is surely a company which should be kept within the public sector as something which the Canadian people have built and something from which the Canadian people should receive the returns.
Finally, of course, it is a company which potentially has an environmental impact that is frankly dangerous, that can damage communities and hurt workers. That too, is a company which has to be kept within the context of community ownership rather than allowed to go to the private sector where it will not have to face the same kind of responsibility to the community as a whole.
I think on that basis it is very curious that one would find this company chosen as a company to privatize. I think there are other considerations which also make it very difficult to justify the sale of this company to the private sector. One of those considerations is the simple fact that the workers, who work not just those for Eldorado but for the sister company, which will be joining it as part of the scheme, have come out absolutely and adamantly against putting this enterprise in the private sector. They have done so for the best of reasons; for reasons of health and safety for themselves as workers and for future workers as well. They have pointed to the fact that up until recently statistics have shown that for those who are within such plants as the processing plants of Eldorado Nuclear, those who are actually mining uranium, the rates of danger with respect to cancer and with respect to other
April 11, 1988

consequences of radiation are significantly greater than for any other group within the economy.
So I think it is an important consideration in our decision making with respect to this privatization that we take into account that those who belong to both trade unions, the group which come from the United Steelworkers and the group which come from the energy and chemical workers, have adamantly opposed this privatization.
I think it is crucial for us to recognize that this is a tremendous sweetheart deal being offered to the private sector. There is, for instance, with respect to environmental considerations, the fact that the refinery at Port Hope essentially will be bailed out by the federal Government. With respect to the costs of dealing with that dumpsite, only the first $2 million worth of costs will be covered by the newly privatized company. For the next $98 million worth of potential problems, 76.5 per cent will be covered by the federal Government. Anything which is above that $100 million mark will be borne by the federal Government entirely. That is not the reality of private enterprise with its risks and its uncertainties. That is instead a kind of public enterprise which is really being handed to a small group of people who will receive shares in this newly privatized company.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member may continue later.
It being 1.08 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1.08 p.m., the House took recess.
listen to these observers, suspend the deportation orders, and bring in substantial amendments or entirely new legislation.


TRIBUTE TO MARIO LEMIEUX
Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, the regular season of the National Hockey League has just ended and a new leading scorer, namely Mario Lemieux, centreman for the Pittsburg Penguins has been crowned. That young athlete who is a native of Ville-Emard in the constituency of LaSalle which I have the honour to represent in this House continues to astonish experts and hockey fans thanks to his natural talent as a brilliant hockey player. When we see him play with such spirit, we cannot but expect that his feats will soon become legendary.
He thus belongs to a very select group of Canadians with Maurice Richard, Wayne Gretzky, Bobby Orr and Guy Lafleur who have reached the greatest fame and are now the pride of all Canadians.
I invite all my colleagues of this House to join me to pay tribute to Mario Lemieux for his masterful performance throughout the season and to extend to him our sincere and well-deserved congratulations as world champion of scorers. Well done Mario Lemieux of Ville-Emard!
* *
*


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives are looking for someone else to blame for the shmozzle in refugee and immigration matters, they might remember the famous words of Pogo who said: "I have seen the enemy, and it is me".
The legislation before Parliament today has been denounced virtually unanimously by knowledgeable observers:	the
Canadian Bar Association, the churches, Amnesty International, Rabbi Gunther Plaut, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Canadian Labour Congress, to name only a few. The new Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) has the chance to start things off on the right foot. She should



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, now that the leaders of both the Sandinista Government of Nicaragua and the Contra rebels have entered into formal peace negotiations, I would like to express my concern about reports that the Government of the United States is considering strengthening the trade embargo against Nicaragua.
Until now, some Nicaraguan products such as coffee have been allowed to enter the United States legally through a third country. In the case of coffee, Canada happens to be one of those third countries. Therefore, it is clear that the proposed sanctions may have a detrimental effect on some Canadian interests. In short, these trade sanctions would make it illegal for Nicaraguan products of any type to be exported to the United States.
I urge the Government to oppose the actions of the Reagan administration. The Nicaraguan Government has clearly shown its willingness to resolve its differences peacefully with

April 11, 1988
other political factions in Nicaragua namely, the Contra rebels. By imposing further trade sanctions, the United States might destroy the spirit of the peace negotiations. Furthermore, in my opinion and in the opinion of my colleagues, such sanctions would also cause unnecessary economic and political hardship for the Government and the people of Nicaragua.



ABORTION


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the abortion legislation in the United Kingdom and in many American states stipulates that no health care provider is under any contractual, statutory, or legal duty to participate in a procedure terminating a pregnancy if he or she has a conscientious objection, unless it is necessary to save the life of or prevent permanent injury to a pregnant woman.
Any Canadian legislation dealing with abortion must contain a similar clause to ensure that our health care providers are not required by law to act contrary to their own consciences either.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Conservative government, through the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest), has decided to cut 2,300 summer jobs for students on the Island of Montreal and in Laval. Last year, the 23 ridings on the Island of Montreal and in Laval obtained more than $10 million for summer job creation under the Challenge 87 program, but this year, unfortunately, there will only be $6 million, a cut of $4 million, which represents a loss of 2,300 jobs that college and university students will not have this summer. Last year, there were 6,400 jobs; this year, there will be only 4,100.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by asking all members, both Liberals and Conservatives, for the 23 ridings of the Island of Montreal and Laval to put pressure on the Minister of State for Youth to correct this injustice and act fairly towards our young students from Montreal and Laval.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my constituents of Pakistani descent who live in my beautiful constituency of La Prairie my sincere condolences for the innocent victims of Islamabad in Pakistan, their brothers and sisters who were killed following the explosion of an ammunition dump.
To their families and friends and to the Pakistani Government, I would like, Mr. Speaker, to offer, on behalf of the Canadian people and my constituents, my compassion and my efforts, if they wish, to ease the misery of those innocent victims.
It is sad to see, Mr. Speaker, a war arsenal destroy in a time of peace so many human lives. It is a truly sad day. We are praying for them.



EDUCATION


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reports that nearly half of its 80,000 small and medium-sized businesses experience a shortfall of qualified labour.
We know that British Columbia has the lowest percentage of high school graduates advancing to post-secondary education of any province in Canada. Yet the British Columbia Government has just announced that it will actually reduce funding to the B.C. Institute of Technology. This prestigious and internationally renowned training and skill development institution should be provided with additional funds, well above the rate of inflation, to ensure that British Columbians receive the necessary education and training to enable them to assume their rightful place in the knowledge based economy of the future.
Instead, the British Columbia Government cuts educational funding for BCIT and, in spite of increasing enrolments, fails to fund its colleges, universities, technical and vocational institutions adequately. By this action the B.C. Government handicaps and limits as well as discriminates against its citizens and makes it impossible for British Columbians to have the same opportunities as Canadians from other provinces and territories.
April 11, 1988



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada must apply the law in the case of illegal Turquish or other refugees. We Canadians live in a law abiding society, otherwise we would face anarchy.
Mr. Speaker, we live in an open and generous country: never have our doors been closed to immigrants and genuine refugees, but we cannot welcome those who enter Canada by resorting to illegal schemes, because they take the place of men and women who have gone through normal channels and are waiting.
Parliament passed two immigration Bills aimed at substituting order for the immigration chaos which the former administration did not have the courage to eliminate. However, the Liberal bigwigs in the Senate have been filibustering and sitting on these two pieces of legislation for the past nine months.
Mr. Speaker, I too feel compassionate towards these courageous Turquish workers who sold all their possessions in their country to pay their lawyer and the organization which brought them here illegally and who had long since settled in Quebec with their children.
To those who blame the Government I say blame the Senate. Walk on the Senate and into the office of John Turner who has lost control over his highly-paid and utterly inefficient Senators who have been repudiated by most Canadians.



ABORTION


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most difficult issues with which Parliament will probably ever deal is that of abortion. MPs in all Parties have taken or will have to take a position on this very important issue.
I had taken a position on abortion, and I am now going to do something which is probably politically frowned upon by many people. I will admit publicly that the position I had taken was wrong and that I now believe that abortion is wrong. I informed my constituents last Saturday that I intend to vote against abortion in all cases except where the mother's life is in danger.
That was not a decision which was easy for me to take. I want to thank my colleagues in this House, in particular the Members for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and London East (Mr. Jepson), and many others who, either
knowingly or otherwise, have influenced me to make this decision.
I want to thank my constituents and all the people who stood by me and had the patience to put up with the wrong position which I held.
* *
*



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great time to be a Tory. The Government has created over one million jobs, most of them permanent. Unemployment is down, housing starts are up, and fairer taxation is on the way.
We have made but one grave error. We have adopted the Liberal policy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau on language. Bill 101 in Quebec continues to humiliate over one million Anglos in that province and 88 per cent of all Canadians, and no one decries it-a unilingual Quebec and bilingual Canada.
Congratulations to Grant Devine for not allowing a mere
23,000	in a population of over one million to push him around.
Bill C-72 is reverse discrimination. It makes second class citizens of Anglophones. It dead ends promotion in the Public Service, and it creates a bad judiciary and a language czar above the law. We cannot afford any of it.
I call on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to see that it is drastically amended or let it die in committee. Bill C-72 is wrong. We can then go on with building this great nation by passing free trade legislation and electing a PC Government for the next four years.
*
* *



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it was appropriate that Canada's print media reported the recent federal Cabinet shuffle on April 1, April Fools' Day.
While the joke was on the Canadian people, it was also on the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Government. The joke on Canadians was the suggestion that, by shuffling a deck of jokers, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) could deal himself a hand of aces. In fact the Prime Minister revealed once again his incapacity for leadership. He lacked the courage to discard some wild cards, like the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon).

April 11, 1988
Oral Questions

But the biggest joke was on Quebec's Conservative caucus. The Prime Minister is telling his 50 Quebec Members that they are incompetent.
Lucien Bouchard, the messiah from Paris, is also a friend of Brian. He is a big catch, a big fish.
The other Members are humiliated, isolated on Government benches with an April Fools' Day joke called Lucien Bouchard!



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the degradation of our fragile soil is a matter of great concern to all Canadians. The production of food to feed a hungry world is highlighted by soil conservation groups not only in Canada but all over the world.
We often say that we are living in the age of information, to indicate the vast knowledge we have at our disposal today. This knowledge points out how many of the accepted cultural practices are in fact very detrimental to the long term health of the land.
Canadian farmers recognize that they are the present-day stewards of the land and are becoming increasingly aware of their responsibilities to preserve and, in fact, enhance the productive capability of the soil so future generations may enjoy the abundance of food as well.
I want to recognize all of the individuals and various groups who are soil conservation advocates, as well as their theme, because "soil conservation is everybody's business".



INCOME TAX


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, although the 1986 changes to the Income Tax Act which sought to ameliorate the high cost of living in northern Canada by altering the tax treatment of certain northern housing and travel benefits have been of net benefit to northern taxpayers, many administrative details are still causing serious troubles.
In particular, the insistence on using so-called market housing prices in the city of Yellowknife, where no true market currently exists, results in people there having to pay many
thousands of dollars more tax than someone living a few miles
away.
This is most unfair and the problem must be solved by assigning the same deemed values to Yellowknife housing as is the case in all other territorial locations.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, hats off to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) for not succumbing to immediate pressure to allow the illegal Turkish refugees to stay in Canada. Why should these Turkish refugees be allowed to queue jump and break the rules when there are thousands of other immigrants and refugees who have followed the due process of the law and have to wait and take their turn?
I urge the Department of Immigration to carry out the law and pick up these lawbreakers and deport them to Turkey immediately.
Let the CBC Journal cameras and Toronto Star photographers follow them right to the plane's ramp if they want. It is time the media report the news and stop acting as political lobbyists.
Keep up the good work, Barbara.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Bill 2, tabled in the Saskatchewan Legislature last week, is a suppression of existing rights in favour of the French-speaking minority in Saskatchewan. The action of the Devine Government must be viewed as a backward step in terms of national unity. The Saskatchewan legislation runs directly counter to and contravenes the fundamental purpose of the Constitution of Canada which, after all, is to protect the basic rights of all Canadians.
Last week the Prime Minister wrote the Premier a somewhat ambiguous letter in which he said to the Premier of Saskatchewan that the Bill can be viewed from two different perspectives. He said it can be seen as open and generous because it implements long neglected rights and guarantees.
April 11, 1988

But he said, on the other hand, that the Bill can be seen as diminishing existing language rights.
What exactly is the position of the Prime Minister of Canada? Would he clear up some of the ambiguity in his letter and tell us whether he supports the Saskatchewan legislation or not?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have responded to that question in the very letter from which my right hon. friend quotes, where I go on to point out the position of the Government of Canada which had already been stated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Hon. Lowell Murray, who expressed the disappointment of the Government in respect to the legislation tabled and the wish that the Government of Saskatchewan would go much further in the protection of minority rights.
I am happy to tell my right hon. friend that conversations and meetings have already been initiated in this respect. Progress is in the process of being made, and I hope we will continue to make substantial progress in respect to the protection of minority language rights in Saskatchewan and, indeed, elsewhere in Canada, because it is a vital dimension of our citizenship.


TEXT OF MEECH LAKE ACCORD
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, while I welcome the tone of that reply, I want to be more specific. I have taken the view that the so-called Meech Lake Accord, which was enshrined in the Constitution amendment of 1987, was meant to enhance minority language rights in this country. Premier Devine seems to think otherwise.
I want to refer the Prime Minister to Section 2 of that Constitution amendment of 1987. It states that the existence of French-speaking Canadians is a fundamental characteristic of Canada. It goes on to say that it is the role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial Legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada.
Does the Prime Minister agree with my view that the legislation introduced by Premier Devine contravenes both the letter and spirit of the Meech Lake Accord as enshrined in the Constitution amendment? If he does, why did he not say so more bluntly, more specifically, and more categorically to the Premier when he wrote to him last week?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my right hon. friend's assessment of the Meech Lake Accord, that it enhances minority rights. It does indeed. The Meech Lake Accord takes the protection of minority rights a step further. I can say, I think quite categorically, that had the Meech Lake Accord been passed and accepted and was part of our constitutional formation as we speak, it would be infinitely more difficult for any provinces to pass restrictive legislation and would ensure our minorities of the possibility to invoke another serious argument against any
Oral Questions
restrictive legislation. So I am in agreement with the legal assessment given by my right hon. friend.
I have already indicated to my right hon. friend that, pursuant to a decision of the Government of Saskatchewan, we initiated discussions with the province yesterday. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development met, at my request, in Saskatchewan with leaders of the Saskatchewan Government in the interests of promoting discussions which will result in much greater justice, fairness, and equity for the Frenchspeaking minority in Saskatchewan. I hope my hon. friend will encourage that process.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Prime Minister endorses my opinion of Section 2 of the Constitution amendment. It is an amendment which, after all, was introduced into the Legislature of that province by the Premier of Saskatchewan and was adopted by that province. In other words, the Premier is contravening an amendment which his own Legislature has adopted.
Mr. Speaker, our Party critic, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, wrote to the Prime Minister on April 8 and asked for a unanimous resolution by the House of Commons, urging Saskatchewan to drop Bill 2. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has asked for an emergency debate by Parliament on Saskatchewan's language bill.
Why is the Prime Minister, through the Hon. Lowell Murray, refusing to support a unanimous resolution by the House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the circumstances such a resolution would be premature. Important meetings are taking place at this very moment between the Government of Canada and the Governement of Saskatchewan. We are trying to find an appropriate and honourable way to deal with a difficult situation, and in the circumstances, I would urge the Hon. Member to consider, for instance, a comment by Premier Devine quoted in Saturday's Le Devoir. "Saskatchewan will be bilingual... at its own pace", which, if I am not mistaken, is similar to the position taken by Premier Peterson of Ontario.
These situations are not perfect or ideal, but such positions are nevertheless encouraging and deserve serious dialogue on our part, and we intend to do just that with the Government of Saskatchewan.
In the circumstances, I feel that a resolution at this time might be premature. However, we intend to engage in a very serious dialogue with the Government of Saskatchewan in order to solve this problem.

April 11, 1988
Oral Questions


NATIONAL UNITY-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Prime Minister that the comparison with Ontario is not correct. As far as I know, there was no law in Ontario that for 83 years guaranteed access to the legislature or the courts.
In Saskatchewan, such a law existed, and that is the point. In Saskatchewan, there is a clear-cut loss of rights, and that is why we are raising the issue.
Perhaps I may remind the Prime Minister of what he said in this House on October 6, 1983.
He said, among other things, that the House has a duty to protect language minorities wherever they may be, because, and I quote:
There is only the sanctity of minority rights. There is no obligation more
compelling and no duty more irresistible in Canada than to ensure that our
minorities, linguistic and otherwise, live at all times in conditions of fairness
and justice.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: How can he reconcile what he said at the time with the action taken by the Saskatchewan legislature with Bill 2, which abolishes Francophone rights recognized since 1905 when the province was created? How does he reconcile this with a decision that is regressive and extremely damaging to our national unity?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect to reconcile positions that are sometimes totally divergent. One hundred and twenty years ago, Canada's Prime Minister had to deal with problems on the language front. That is still the case today, and I assume it will be a hundred years from now. It is part of the very nature of our federation. Language problems will always be there to upset us, to trouble us and also to divide us. We must show maturity, leadership and generosity in dealing with these issues, and that is what we want to do. That has been, I believe, the admirable attitude of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier since he became a Member of this House. I think that has been the position taken by the Leaders of the three political parties in this House, and we intend to maintain the same maturity and dignity in dealing with difficult problems.
We have a problem today, I agree. We will have problems five, ten and fifty years from now. However, there will always be people with the leadership and the resolve to deal with these questions in the appropriate manner, and I can assure the Hon. Member of my Government's clear commitment in this respect.


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL COMMUNICATE WITH ALBERTA PREMIER AND FRANCOPHONE MINORITIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Prime Minister that in the judgment rendered on February 25, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the situation in Alberta might be similar, in other words,
that Section 110 also applies to Alberta. Since an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, I wonder, and I realize he is sincere when he says that he is going to try and help the language minorities, I wonder whether today, the Prime Minister will immediately consider calling his provincial counterpart in Alberta, Mr. Getty, to make him see reason, offer him the federal Government's assistance and give him every necessary technical and financial support, and does he also intend to meet the minority groups that stand to be affected by the possibility of regressive legislation in Alberta?


Martin Brian Mulroney: We certainly do intend to meet with the minority groups. We have already been in touch with the authorities in Alberta as well as Saskatchewan. I mentioned in my letter, on page 3: ...
For its part, in addition to the items already on the agenda of the first
constitutional conference to follow ratification of the Meech Lake Accord, the
Government of Canada intends to address the issue of minority language
rights in their broadest context, so as to build on the achievements of the
Constitution Act of 1982 and the 1987 Constitutional Accord.
There is only one way to protect minority rights in this country, Mr. Speaker, and that is to entrench them in the Constitution. We had a chance in 1982 to do it perfectly, and we failed to do it perfectly. But we have built on it, and there were improvements.
In fact my hon. friend, who is perfectly consistent on this very important matter, as I recollect voted against the 1982 Constitution Accord because it failed to protect Frenchspeaking minority rights in the Province of Ontario. He has been perfectly consistent throughout the piece.
Improvements were made in 1982. Improvements are being made in 1987. But there is only ultimately one way to ensure the sanctity and the irreversible nature of the protection of minority rights and that is to have them in the Constitution. That is the commitment of this Government. That is what we have been working toward. Tomorrow we maintain the dialogue with the Province of Saskatchewan in a sensitive and important area to make progress on behalf of a Frenchspeaking minority in the Province of Saskatchewan.
The Premier of Saskatchewan has indicated, and if I may say to his credit, a degree of openness that he has put on the record that is encouraging, and to which we ought to respond in a mature and thoughtful way.
On behalf of the Government of Canada I propose to engage in that dialogue, with a view to providing excellent protection for our French-speaking minorities in Saskatchewan and elsewhere, for language minorities across the country, Englishspeaking and French-speaking. That is in the traditions of this House, that is what all Members seek, and that is to what this Government is committed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 11, 1988


POSITION OF SASKATCHEWAN GOVERNMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, as the whole country now knows, in Bill 2 the Government of Saskatchewan has replaced existing rights with the discretionary authority of the Government of the day. Most Canadians will think that this is an unacceptable course of action in a country that is deeply committed in principle to both official languages.
1 want to ask questions on this that arise in part from the letter that I sent to the Prime Minister on Friday and to which he replied on the same day. In his reply the Prime Minister said: "The position of the Saskatchewan Government is evolving".
Considering that the Minister of Justice in Saskatchewan has said that there will be no amendments accepted to Bill 2, and since on the weekend the Premier of Saskatchewan, to use his words, said that he had pushed his caucus to the limit on this matter, will the Prime Minister please tell us concretely what he, the Prime Minister, thinks the Premier of Saskatchewan should do?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that the Premier of Saskatchewan should do what, for example, the Premier of Ontario should do, and the Premier of Quebec, and the Premier of British Columbia, and everyone, which is to ensure absolute equality and perfect protection with fairness for every citizen before the law in Canada. That is what I believe should be done. That is my vision of Canada and a perfectly bilingual society. I know it is not for tomorrow. I know we are not going to get that tomorrow no matter how hard we try. What is important is to build on the progress and the attitudes that do exist.
I submit to my hon. friend that the comments of the provincial Minister of Justice are different from the information that was imparted to me by the Deputy Prime Minister, who had an excellent meeting yesterday with representatives of the Government of Saskatchewan. There is an encouraging attitude on the part of members of the Government of Saskatchewan.
In fairness to the Premier of Saskatchewan I would urge the Leader of the NDP to read the front page story in Le Devoir in which the Premier of Saskatchewan is quoted directly in response to the following question.

"Are you saying that in time, in ten or fifteen years, Saskatchewan will be completely bilingual?", Mr. Devine was asked. The answer: "Absolutely!", he said, without hesitation. Mr. Devine has said quite clearly that his province will become bilingual, and so forth. I think these comments are encouraging and deserve to be met with serious dialogue on our part. That is what we intend to do, bearing in mind the interests of minority groups, the interests of the unity of this country, and the interests of Saskatchewan as a province that signed the
Oral Questions
Meech Lake Accord and has a fundamental commitment to the principles of that Accord.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, one hopes that the long range forecasts of the Premier of Saskatchewan, as quoted in today's Le Devoir, turn out to be the case. However, I say to the Prime Minister with care-and I am sure that he would agree-that minority rights are important now, in the short run, not just the long run as well.
In that context the Prime Minister knows very well that just five years ago he, as the then Leader of the Opposition, the then Prime Minister, and myself met, discussed, and agreed to a resolution which had some substance to it. It was not just a body of generalities but exercised a concrete role.
Apart from the generalities with reference to rights a way down the road, is the Prime Minister prepared today to urge the Premier of Saskatchewan to do one of two things and to do them this week, publicly: first, say that he will accept amendments to Bill 2 or, failing that, say that he will not proceed with Bill 2 at this time?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon. friend, because I participated in it as well, that in October, 1983, the debate on the Manitoba minority language situation in which all three Party Leaders participated took place pursuant to a Supreme Court decision in 1979. The debate took place some four or five years later. The object of the resolution in 1983 on which we both spoke was to endorse on behalf of all Canadians the essence of the agreement reached by the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba with the participation of the Societe franco-manitobaine on May 16, 1983.
What had happened was that a decision of the Supreme Court had intervened. There followed discussions and negotiations between the interested parties, and the House of Commons was called upon to endorse that agreement.
What we are seeking now, as quickly as we can, is that kind of agreement that will find favour with the-

. . . Societe franco-manitobaine, Societe des Canadiens franqais de la Saskatchewan . . .


An Hon. Member:: Societe des Fransaskois.


Martin Brian Mulroney: ... of the Government of Saskatchewan and representatives of the parties in this House.
That is the difference between the situation at the time and the situation we have today, which in no way affects the merits of the Saskatchewan case.

April 11, 1988
Oral Questions


POSITION OF SASKATCHEWAN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Francophone representatives indicated very clearly before the weekend that the present Saskatchewan Government had not given any serious consideration to their concrete proposals, none whatsoever! My question to the Prime Minister is very simple: Does he agree with the Saskatchewan Government's present approach? If not, could he suggest a different approach, one of greater openness, to the Premier of Saskatchewan?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My
ultimate goal, Mr. Speaker, is not necessarily to seek as solution which would bring about confrontation, although I would favour that if it were conducive to any improvement of the situation. What I am seeking is an honorable and effective settlement for the francophone minority in Saskatchewan, for the 23,000 to 25,000 French-speaking Canadians who live their daily lives in Saskatchewan, far away from Quebec, who live in that part of the country and who are entitled to be heard and defended, along with their interests, at all times and in all circumstances. It is a situation which has been left unattended for a hundred years. The Supreme Court has spoken on the issue. As soon as the decision was made public, the Canadian Government undertook discussions with the Government of Saskatchewan and the representatives of the French Canadian societies in Saskatchewan. The results of a meeting held yesterday in which three senior federal cabinet Ministers took part appear to be encouraging. It is a process which I think should be supported by all Members of this House in the hope that an acceptable, just and equitable settlement is found for the francophone minority and for all the people of Saskatchewan.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. First I congratulate the Minister on her new responsibilities-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: -and express the hope, on behalf of many, many Canadians, that she will address the challenges of her immigration portfolio with an open mind and with a view to finding fair and humane solutions to the many problems plaguing the immigration system.
On this note I should like to ask the Minister if she will take advantage of her unique opportunity as the new Minister of Employment and Immigration to review carefully the Government's immigration policy, particularly the two refugee Bills
before the Canadian Senate, which have been vetoed by every non-governmental organization, with a view to amending these Bills so that together we can begin fairly and effectively to untangle the current mess and nightmare within the Department of Immigration.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, those Bills are very important to the refugee determination process, as the Hon. Member knows. I would not expect to introduce a Bill on a subject which is as sensitive and as important to Canadians without there being some controversy about it. That does not mean that the Bill should not be passed.
We have a big problem. We have 48,000 refugee claimants in Canada. We want to expedite the process and make it better. That is what those Bills are designed to do. They go together in order to do that, and we would appreciate the cooperation of the other place in order to get that done.


TURKISH NATIONALS-REQUEST FOR APPLICATION OF HUMANITARIAN CRITERIA
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. It concerns the more immediate immigration dilemma faced by the Turkish claimants.
While we on this side are not advocating the granting of refugee status, nor are we counselling them to break the law by ignoring deportation orders, nonetheless we believe that there is a compromise solution for the Government to take.
Given that last year the Government landed 27,000 individuals through its humanitarian program, and landed a further 16,000 individuals through ministerial permits which waived all necessary and regular processing, at the very least will the Minister consider applying the criteria of her Department's humanitarian program to these Turkish claimants on an individual basis, which will retain the ability of the Government to protect itself from health and security hazards, as one attempt to salvage and break the escalating human and emotional log jam?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I met with the Turks who are on their way to Parliament Hill on Friday night, and I explained directly to them, both individually and collectively, the process under which our legal system for immigrants operates.
I pointed out to them that it was not just these laws that are important but that one of the reasons people like to live in Canada is that it is the rule of law which is the most important contributor to fundamental justice.
There were 2,000 Turks who arrived in Canada. Several hundred of them have already returned to Turkey. Since the march began two others have gone back to Turkey.
What I have committed is that if they return and make application as other hopeful immigrants do, I will not exercise
April 11, 1988

my power, as my predecessor in this portfolio said, to stand in the way of their return as legal immigrants once they have been through that process.


EXPORTS OF URANIUM-UNITED STATES SENATE BILL
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The United States Senate has actually passed a Bill that imposes penalties on U.S. utilities that use significant amounts of Canadian uranium. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this Bill goes directly against the standstill clause in the U.S. trade deal?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is yes.
1 would remind the Hon. Members that this Bill has just passed the Senate. It still has many steps to go. Congress is really not interested in this particular Bill, and we believe that not only does it violate the standstill agreement in the free trade deal but it also violates the requirements under GATT.


CANADIAN POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the vote was 62 to 28. That suggests that there was a considerable amount of interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: Has the Prime Minister been in touch with his ambassador to the United States concerning this piece of legislation, and what instructions have been given to him to stand up and fight for Canada and for Canadian producers of uranium who are going to be hit by this attack?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden there is a new found interest from the NDP in the Canadian uranium producers. It is kind of encouraging. Isn't that something new and different?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: I might say that the Canadian Government has made very strong representation in this regard and will continue to do so. I can tell the Hon. Member that the administration is opposed to this legislation. I will repeat again that we feel it is in violation of the GATT rules and not only of the free trade agreement.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the new Minister of Transport. I want to congratulate him on his recent appointment, and I would hope that older workers who were cut off unemployment insurance will fare better under the new Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Last week, during the Easter recess, the Canadian National, a Crown corporation, awarded contracts for the building of 90 locomotives at a cost of $180 million. Unfortunately, 30 of those locomotives will be built in the United States, made in USA, and there is nothing for Quebec! The Minister knows that the CN headequarters are in Quebec and that Bombardier, which builds locomotives, is in Montreal. Can the Minister tell us whether he is going to talk to the CN management with a vow of ensuring a review of their decision, so that Quebec get some economic spinoffs and that the 90 locomotives ordered by a Crown corporation be all made in Canada?


The Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I might call on the CN management to find out exactly how those contracts were awarded. I think it is the first question of my hon. colleague. If he means whether I am going on a regular basis to start interfering with Crown corporations in an effort to alter their decisions, I do not think that he expects this to be the role of the Minister of Transport.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONTACT CN AUTHORITIES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. We are off to a bad start, and I wonder if I was right to congratulate him on his appointment to his new portfolio. But what really matters is that in Quebec at this time the Bombardier Company in Montreal East is in trouble. Could the Minister assure us today that he will call on the officials of the CNR, a Crown Corporation, and ask them to review the whole contract so that since at least 30 railway engines are to be built in United States-we know that GE and Bombardier have worked together before-Quebec may get spin-offs and Bombardier, in Montreal East can build motors and other parts, thereby maintaining jobs? But if the Minister should decide to behave the way he did in similar circumstances and say that he washes his hands of the whole thing, I will remind him that Easter is behind us and conclude that once again we were taken for a ride!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie did not understand my reply. What I said is that I would check with Canadian National officials about the procedures followed. I suppose the Hon. Member does not want us to intervene constantly, in this case it suits him-but another

April 11, 1988
Oral Questions
time he might ask us to do the opposite again because it suits him. The Minister of Transport must respect the rules set by the Canadian National, but I will have to check to see whether these rules were adhered to... I suppose they were, but I will certainly find out; again, I will certainly do nothing to force a Crown Corporation to change its rules to meet the requests of the Hon. Member.


AIR CANADA
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Air Canada is considering the purchase of a substantial number of new aircraft to replace aircraft which have been in use and are now obsolete. According to news reports, Air Canada is giving very serious consideration to awarding the contract to the European consortium Airbus.
Would the Minister impress on Air Canada that in any purchase of aircraft it be clearly understood that a substantial part of the work be done in Canada, as has happened in the past?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, Air Canada has not indicated exactly what its choice will be and I suggest it would not be wise for me or anybody else to presume the choice which Air Canada will make.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about jumping to conclusions. I am talking about Canada following the procedures it has followed in the past.


FUTURE OF MAINTENANCE BASE IN WINNIPEG
David Orlikow: 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister, Mr. Speaker. A substantial amount of the maintenance work for Air Canada aircraft is done in Winnipeg on DC planes.
Could the Minister assure the workers in Winnipeg that, whatever new planes are ordered, maintenance work to the extent it has been carried on in the past in Winnipeg will continue to be carried on and done in Winnipeg?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer to the press release by Air Canada dated March 24:
Regardless of the aircraft type which is eventually selected as the replacement for Air Canada's B-727 fleet, the future of the Air Canada maintenance base in Winnipeg is not in question.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. News reports indicate that Turkish migrants plan not only to visit Parliament Hill tomorrow but to camp on its grounds. If this should be attempted, would the Minister advise the House what the Government's policy will be?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think the policy of the Government is clear. There are regulations which do not permit anyone to camp or park on Parliament's precincts. I am advised that the Turks have no intention to camp, but the RCMP have responsibility and 1 am sure they will exercise it in the usual and appropriate way.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport, whom I wish to congratulate on his appointment and who may rest assured of my full co-operation.
I trust that as far as CN is concerned, the Minister unlike his predecessor will show them who is the boss.
The Minister is aware that in Moncton, CN will have to pay between $10 and $12 million per year to laid-off workers who are protected under a collective bargaining agreement.
Does the Minister intend to take action against CN's decision to purchase thirty locomotives in the United States, while these locomotives could have been built in Moncton? Couldn't the Minister persuade Canadian General Electric to use the CN workshops in Moncton to at least manufacture components for the new locomotives?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is going to confirm exactly what I said earlier to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. For three minutes the Opposition has been trying to convince me I should have intervened in Canadian National's affairs to ensure that the locomotives are not built in Montreal-this for the benefit of the Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie-but in Moncton.
Mr. Speaker, I think this proves the Minister of Transport must start by respecting the decisions made by Canadian National, which does not prevent me from making enquiries. I don't expect Canadian National will tell me it should have done so, at least not in the two locations suggested.
April 11, 1988


Fernand Robichaud: I think the Minister should at least make sure the locomotives are built in Canada, either in Montreal or Moncton.


WORKERS' PLAN-MINISTER'S POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister intend to consider the problem of the Moncton workshops? There is still time to save 350 jobs. Workers have suggested a plan that would actually save those jobs. Is the Minister prepared to consider this plan and above all, is he prepared to persuade the people at CN to look at this new plan? Three hundred and fifty jobs are still at stake.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think my predecessor did a good job in the case of the Moncton workshops, and that he did what he could. However, as part of the review process ...


An Hon. Member:: The truth is hard to swallow!


Benoît Bouchard: As part of the review process a Minister usually undertakes upon arriving in a new department- obviously, I intend to look at the matter of the Moncton workshops and become acquainted with the various proposals that have been made. Subsequently, I will consider what my assessment of the situation will be. However, with all due respect for the Hon. Member, I would rather not raise any false hopes that, as a result of this process, there would be a change in policy from that of my predecessor.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the evidence that the South African Government is sending assassination squads, called Z Squads, around the world to kill ANC representatives in places such as the U.K., Belgium and France, as well as the front-line states, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate what measures the Canadian Government is taking to ensure that ANC representatives in Canada and anti-apartheid ex-patriots in Canada are protected against this kind of activity?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that would more properly be directed to my colleague, the Solicitor General, but in his absence I will certainly take the opportunity to advise the Hon. Member that we take this situation very seriously. There have been consultations among the federal
Oral Questions
police and other police forces which would be involved in guaranteeing the security of Canadian residents or Canadian citizens. That has been done both generally and in the specific cases of people who might be affected if there were in fact a threat of this kind.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I would be sure that the Secretary of State would agree that a telephone call to Mr. Saloojee asking if he needs help is not quite the way of doing it, and I would hope that more is being done.


POSITION OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, has the Secretary of State called in the South African ambassador to indicate to him that if there are any assassination attempts on South African ex-patriots or ANC representatives in Canada, the Canadian Government will hold the South African Government accountable?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the principal point here is to try to do everything we can, which is what we are doing, to guarantee the safety of residents and citizens of Canada. We are doing that. That has involved much more than an individual phone call.
With regard to the representations the Hon. Member makes, I will consider whether that would be a useful thing to do.


AIR CANADA
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question with the Minister of Transport as well. In answer to a previous question he cited a press release issued by Air Canada. The part of the press release he did not quote goes on to say that Air Canada will keep using the facilities to maintain the 727 fleet or one of the other aircraft types we already own.
There is no assurance in anything Air Canada or the Government has said that a new aircraft purchased by Air Canada will continue to be maintained at the Air Canada maintenance base. That is the question I would like to ask the Minister today. I would like to ask him for the assurance that any replacement aircraft for the 727s purchased by Air Canada will be maintained fully at the Air Canada base in Winnipeg.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered that question in my earlier answer when I quoted the press release issued by Air Canada. Air Canada gave a very clear answer: regardless of the aircraft

April 11, 1988
Oral Questions
type which is eventually selected, the future of the Air Canada maintenance base in Winnipeg is not in question.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister can quote selectively but he should go on to read the press release which states that they may try to secure work to maintain other aircraft of other airlines as part of that future. That is not the answer for which I asked. I want an assurance from the Minister that the replacement aircraft will be maintained at the Air Canada base in Winnipeg.
I ask the Minister why it is that everyone in this town, from Frank Moores down to taxi drivers, knows that a decision has been made on a replacement aircraft but the Government has deliberately pulled it off the decision table twice in a row? Is the Minister waiting for the date of April 28? Is that why he is holding back on that decision?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think, as he did when he was Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is always mixing up the Crown corporations with the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benoît Bouchard: I just want to repeat that as a good Minister-


Lloyd Axworthy: You own the airline!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it seems like the truth is disturbing the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. He had so many assistants at that time, they were all looking after the problem of the Crown corporations and he did not have the time to-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister aware that chartered bank prime rates are about to rise for the First time in six months as a result of the continuing increase in the bank rate and that the high level of the Canadian dollar is jeopardizing Canadian jobs and Canadian exports and is now jeopardizing investment here in Canada? How long will the Government continue with its policy of high interest rates and high exchange rates, a policy of curbing growth in Ontario at the expense of jobs in the rest of Canada?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware that the House did not sit last Friday and therefore the Hon. Member would want me to remind him that the unemployment rate is now down to 7.8 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have a very healthy economy but there are some signs of inflation in the economic performance of recent months and that is the purpose for the-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Because of your taxes, Mike.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member does not want to listen to the answer. That is the reason for the policy that is being followed by the Bank of Canada, supported by the Government.
I have indicated very clearly that we want to avoid the problems we ran into in the 1970s and the early 1980s when the previous Government did not pay attention to inflation, allowed inflation to get out of control, left us with very high levels of interest rates and left us with permanent damage to our competitive position. This caused the problems of unemployment in the early 1980s and the very serious recession we ran into.
That is the purpose of the policy we are following: it is a policy direction that is looking forward, past the next week or two, and I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member would cast his mind past the next week or two to understand the implications of what we are trying to achieve.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain to Canadians outside Ontario just what his policy actually is? Is it not a fact that the Government now has a policy of full employment in southern Ontario, within a few miles of the CN Tower and around Toronto, and is letting the rest of the country continue to have high levels of unemployment without action from the Government? Why does the Government continue with that kind of policy? Why does it not bring interest rates down now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the Hon. Member reflects on that question he will understand that that just does not follow the policy which we have been following. As a Government we have taken great pride in getting interest rates down from the levels at which they were when we came into office. We understand the implications of that and the importance of that in the economic performance which we have had over the last three and a half years.
We are trying to maintain a healthy economy for another three and a half years and on into the future. We can do that if we control inflation right now. We know that when inflation
April 11, 1988

started to go up in previous years in parts of central Canada it spread very quickly to other parts of the country which could not support that level of inflation. That is what we are trying to avoid.


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and concerns the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel, the mess that will not go away. Why did the Minister, after announcing that he intends to dismantle all or part of the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel, go on to appoint, of all people, a defeated PQ MNA, Jocelyne Ouellette, to run this scandal plagued organization? Why did the Minister not seize this opportunity to do the right thing, instead of going strictly for political partisan considerations again?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Lands Company is winding down its business. Unless a new mandate is given to it, its principal functions will be completed by the end of May with only a few bits to finish thereafter.
Ms. Ouellette was appointed on a part-time basis purely because of her competency. She has a tremendously enviable record of accomplishments in this kind of activity. The Hon. Member should enthusiastically endorse appointments of this calibre.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the period allowed for Question Period has now expired. I have a matter of some importance to all Members.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29(1) NATIONAL UNITY-MINORITY RIGHTS-MR. SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: Before I call Orders of the Day I wish to inform the House that I have given very serious consideration to the application of the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) for an emergency debate.

The House is aware that I reserved my decision this morning, because I considered the matter was one of fundamental importance, but nevertheless, after due reflection, I feel
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
that the request by Hon. Members does not at this time meet the procedural requirements of the Standing Orders.
Both questions and answers during Question Period were most interesting, and it may be that the matter was not proceeding to the satisfaction of Hon. Members, but for the time being it does not constitute an emergency as defined in the Standing Orders.

As I hope I have made clear, that is my response today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at 1 p.m. the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) had the floor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the key theme I wanted to put before the House this morning with reference to this Bill, that is, that the Government has not thought through, in any sort of systematic way, which companies should be in the private sector and which companies should be in the public sector. What justifies Air Canada, Petro-Canada, and various other such companies being in the public sector and what justifies putting other companies such as de Havilland and Canadair into the private sector?
1 do not believe that the Government has logically and sensibly analysed the public purposes of a given company or the particular nature of that company's activities, but rather has casually looked at the public opinion polls and seen that the Canadian people support keeping such companies as Air Canada, Petro-Canada, and CN in the public sector. Other companies of which the Canadian people are not as aware are potential victims for what is in effect an ideological commitment to transferring companies out of the public sector just for the sake of doing so.
That is in fact what has happened. It has already cost us some significant possibilities for the future of the country. For example, in our aircraft industry we had the possibility, with Canadair and de Havilland, of creating an aerospace industry controlled and owned by Canadians which would contribute to a high-tech future in our industrial sector. Instead, we split these two companies and privatized them. The consequence has been, as was noted by one of the Members who spoke this

April 1 1, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
morning, that de Havilland is now more and more producing parts of Boeing aircraft for someone else rather than aircraft designed by Canadians creating jobs here of a high class for designers and producers, which would give the country a sense of export potential as well.
In the case of Eldorado Nuclear and the mine which is being privatized at the same time by the Saskatchewan Government I see the same kind of ideological thinking that lies behind what this Government has done so far. It is an ideological thinking that simply does not carry with it a logical, analytical point of view which looks at the nature of the companies themselves.
I said this morning, and stress again at this time, that when you are talking about an industry, such as the nuclear industry which has serious health concerns and serious consequences for the environment, like uranium mining and uranium refining, an industry on which we in this country have decided to take the military policy of not allowing our uranium to be used for military purposes-when you have an industry as unique as that, as clearly tied up with public purposes as that, that is precisely the sort of industry that we should keep in the public sector, because of these considerations.
I urge the Government to seriously reconsider its decision to privatize this company. I believe the deal it has made is financially very poor and risky.


Mr. Valcourt:: You said that before.


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, and it turned out to be true before. 1 urge the Government to back off from this piece of legislation and recognize the potential of this company to still contribute to this country and to the workers who for so long have depended on their employment at Eldorado Nuclear.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, the former President of Denison Mines was a great exponent of the free enterprise system. Would the Hon, Member comment on the information we now have as to the tremendously large subsidies that company and others have received both from the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario, through Ontario Hydro, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars without which they probably could not have continued to operate?


Steven W. Langdon: The reference to Denison Mines and its owner makes it precisely clear why an industry like this should be kept in the public sector. Denison Mines itself was perhaps the most heavily subsidized, government supported, most coddled and nurtured of any corporation in this country. At the same time, the President of that company went throughout Canada preaching the virtues of unrestricted capitalism.
As was indicated in an excellent article in the The Globe and Mail, the truth is that Mr. Roman's uranium empire was founded on no-risk, guaranteed cost-plus government weapons contracts. His empire would not have survived its first 20 years
without more than $1 billion in Government subsidies, sweetheart contracts and special bail-outs. His company was pulled out of its last major tailspin with the help of a secret international uranium cartel.
Incidentally, it was a cartel organized by the government of the country.


An Hon. Member:: Liberal government.


Steven W. Langdon: I would add. a Liberal government, for the sake of my Conservative colleagues.
Let me refer again to the article by Mr. McKay in The Globe and Mail, Mr. Roman himself was actually more hopeful about other metal prospects until he found out what the federal Government, through Crown controlled Eldorado Nuclear Limited, was willing to sink into uranium properties. The package of subsidies included up front development money, guaranteed sales at guaranteed prices, tax holidays, extravagant depreciation allowances, millions of dollars worth of free research and development work and no capital gains tax if the property was sold within five years.
That is precisely the kind of crucial public industry serving a public purpose which should be within the public sector. It seems to be absolutely illogical to put this industry into the private sector. Its lack of logic is demonstrated even more by the tremendous government support which Mr. Roman received when he with his firm was the only private sector operator in the country.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, in light of some of the articles he has written and speeches he has made, will the Hon. Member tell us why he does not think it would be better to have all the automobile manufacturing companies in the public sector as well, considering all of the arguments he has been making?


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, the points that I made with respect to how one distinguishes between a firm that makes sense as a public sector firm and one that makes sense as a private sector firm answers that question.
When one considers the environmental dangers associated with uranium mining and uranium refining, one could not associate them with automotive production any place in this country. Radiation hazards from Chrysler Corporation's activities do not exist in my constituency. They do exist from a nuclear reactor which sits just across the border. That has much more potential danger for my constituents than would be the case with the automobile industry.
If we take the question of the massive subsidies and cost guarantees which were given to the uranium industry, which I outlined in answer to the last question, that too is something which cannot be associated to nearly the same extent with the automotive industry.
It is true that loan guarantees have been provided to Chrysler Corporation in my constituency. Frankly, my position
April 11, 1988

would be that if Parliament decided to provide money in the form of a large scale grant to Chrysler Corporation, as was the case with Ford's engine plant in my constituency, the Government should have some return in the form of equity investment to make a response for that particular contribution. However, that is not the case which was made with respect to Chrysler Corporation.
Finally, if we take the question of worker health and safety, it is quite clear that from the point of health and safety, the workers in this uranium industry are much more at risk. They are much more at risk because of the radiation factor and the whole nuclear connection that that implies than is the case with the workers of the automotive firms to which my friend referred. So I do not think any of those factors follow.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I take pleasure in participating in this debate, but I must say I have a real problem with Bill C-121 which intends the sale of Eldorado Nuclear and the merger with the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation. I see heavy public subsidies being paid out in order to minimize the risk for the private sector.
I have been thinking about this question of privatization. One of the question asked by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) was if there were any circumstances in which the sale of a Crown corporation could be acceptable and would make sense to New Democrats. The answer, of course, is yes. As my colleague, the Hon. Member Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), said this morning, the sale of Flyer Industries by the Manitoba Government, for example, which is currently underway, is a sale which, in this case, has been compelled, if nothing else, by market conditions and by a reluctance on the part of other provincial Governments involved in the transportation field to make it possible for Flyer to continue to prosper as a publicly-owned concern, and there may be other reasons as well.
What we are faced with is not a group of decisions about which is the best way to carry out certain objects of public policy. It seems to me, if we judge questions of industrial development where Government is involved according to that yardstick, there would be certain cases where it makes sense to use the public centre to create or expand a Crown corporation to achieve a particular public goal. In other cases, it would make sense to have mixed enterprise, some kind of joint venture or co-operative venture or some kind of sharing between the public and the private sector. In other cases, it makes more sense to leave a particular enterprise or industrial initiative in the hands of the private sector without public involvement, or with very loose public involvement.
I think most Canadians would agree that to talk in those terms is quite reasonable. They support public enterprise with such very substantial and important corporations as Canadian National, Air Canada or Petro-Canada. These are part of our
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
daily lives as Canadians. They help to knit the country together. They carry out important mandates on behalf of the people of Canada and help to maintain Canadian control in important industries such as the energy sector.
The bulk of Canadians believe these Crown corporations should remain in public hands. I think what Canadians as a whole resent, and what people I talk to resent, is the ideological approach taken. Dare I say it? If we were ideological about it, the New Democrats might be criticized on this particular question. Certainly, the Progressive Conservatives are criticized on this particular point.
Since coming to office the Government has taken the view that the private sector is by its nature good and should be supported and encouraged, and that the public sector is by its nature bad and should be discouraged. Therefore, what we are seeing is a kind of one-way flow of publicly owned Crown corporations sold off by the Conservative Government. Many have been sold at great cost to the taxpayers. We know about de Havilland and the amounts of subsidies involved there. Boeing was virtually paid to take de Havilland off the hands of the Canadian public. There was the sale of Canadian Arsenals, the sale of Teleglobe Canada under somewhat questionable circumstances, the sale of Canadair and so on.
There has been a whole series of sales. But somehow, according to this Government, there are never any important initiatives which need to be taken in which the public sector perhaps needs to be involved or if the public sector does need to be involved, there are grants, tax subsidies, concessions and contracts, that kind of thing. But these are all maintained at arm's length. When we have suggested, for example, there should be public equity in return for tax concessions or other subsidies given to the private sector, we have had scorn heaped upon us for being socialists who would bring down the fabric and structure of the enterprise system in Canada. Of course, that is absurd.
If we look to the south, to the United States, the home of free enterprise, we find that the degree of subsidization and public involvement in the private sector is, of course, even greater than it is here, particularly through its Department of National Defence. The Americans have used all kinds of tricks and devices in order to, shall we say, make private enterprise look good. I would suggest that that is not a particularly good policy to offer here.
I suggest there are reasons why Canada is somewhat different from the United States and that those reasons justify the use of public enterprise in some cases, they justify the use of mixed enterprise in some cases and they justify private enterprise in many cases, because the market can be an effective means of allocating resources. It certainly is an effective means of decentralizing decision-making. One can argue with some justice that the Government cannot make all the decisions all at the same time. When it tries to do so, it finds itself in situations which can be counterproductive.

April 11, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Let me come back to this particular suggestion of privatizing Eldorado Nuclear. My colleagues who have spoken on this issue have already indicated our reservations. They have indicated the reasons for our opposition to Bill C-121, beginning with the fact that it is a bad deal. The Government of Canada is forgiving close to $600 million in loans.
There are advances which have been made to Eldorado Nuclear. In addition, it is taking on the lion's share of any environmental risks from clean-up of the Port Hope refinery. A sum of $75 million is specified and it could go much higher than that if the cost of clean-up exceeds $100 million. On top of that, there is no indication at this time of just what the share flotation of Eldorado Nuclear, or this merged company, will yield as far as the Canadian taxpayer is concerned.
1 would suggest that if we judge this deal on pure private sector criteria it would in fact be found wanting. The uranium markets in North America right now are depressed. The price is low. Unlike Denison Mines, the two companies in Saskatchewan do not have the benefit of sweetheart contracts with Ontario Hydro to carry them through rough times. Even though the oil reserves of the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation are relatively low cost to produce, it is not a good time to be looking for substantial profits in this particular industry. The future prospect is not a heck of a lot better, I suppose, because there are questions being raised about nuclear power. The number of new nuclear power stations is very limited, so that the future demand for uranium will no longer grow at the rate anticipated in the 1970s when Ontario Hydro entered into that very rich contract to which I have just referred.
If this was Canada incorporated, a conglomerate which ran a whole range of enterprises, as in effect the Government of Canada does, and it was decided to prune in certain areas in order to augment activities in other areas, there would be real questions about selling at the bottom of the uranium market, which is essentially what is being done in disposing of Eldorado Nuclear at this particular point in time.
On top of that, there is the question of the responsibilities of a responsible shareholder, in this case the Government of Canada. Are there other reasons besides profit which induced the Canadian taxpayer to take over Eldorado during the Second World War? The answer, of course, is that there certainly were. At that time it was a new technology. It was connected with the atom bomb. At that time there were concerns, which persist to this day, about the health and safety of workers exposed to radioactive substances. Today we know a lot more about the incredible problems with respect to the disposal of nuclear wastes, refinery tailings and so on.
I am not satisfied that in privatizing Eldorado Nuclear we are seeing a situation in which the taxpayers are going to see those risks privatized. If they do see those risks privatized then it may be at the expense of the workers involved. We do not know what the situation will be for them. All of the honeyed words of the former Minister of State for Privatization have
not convinced me that the jobs that will be affected will be secure, something which she tried to tell the House before this debate was adjourned prior to the Easter break.
If there are undue risks to be borne by the workers, then I have questions about that. I believe that the nuclear industry is a particularly sensitive industry. If there are risks to be assumed which will be borne by the taxpayers, then I want to know what those risks will be. What this really means is that there is a great deal of cosmetics used in order to try to make this sale look good and in order to get the company out of public hands. For what reasons? As I stated a few moments ago, it is for ideological reasons.
When the debate began I was reminded of the way the country developed. It is amazing that there has been a great deal of public intervention in Canada's economy since the foundation of our country. We have to ask why that has been the case over the course of so many years. Perhaps it is because it is something which is unique to Canadians. Perhaps it is also related to the size of our country. We would not have a country stretching 3,500 miles east to west which has been as successful, significant and important as Canada has been next to our southern neighbour if we had not interfered with market forces that would have turned Canada into a series of economic colonies of the American regions to the south.
If most Canadians were asked whether they would be willing to become new Americans and perhaps see a 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent increase in their standard of living as a consequence or whether they wanted to stay Canadians, you, Madam Speaker, know very well that their answer would be, "We wish to remain Canadians, thank you very much".
That is a strong feeling in the country. We are different in our way of doing things. One of the things that my good friend Herschel Hardin pointed out in his excellent book entitled A Nation Unaware: the Canadian Economic Culture is that Canada has a public enterprise culture. In other words, we have become quite good at using public enterprise as an instrument for national development. I suppose this came from the intendant Jean Talon who was the economic genius who helped to build the economy of New France back in the 17th century in and around what is now Quebec City. That was at a time when he worked as the Minister of Economic Affairs in conjunction with Bishop Laval. The Government of Canada assisted with the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway at that time in terms of land grants. That was a premature or primitive form of public intervention. However, it ensured a national railway for Canada without which we would not have a country today.
We pride ourselves today on the competitiveness and the productivity of our steel industry in Hamilton, Sault Ste. Marie and other parts of the country. It is forgotten by those private enterprise advocates who say that Stelco and Dofasco are fine instances of Canadian productivity compared with the
April 11, 1988

American steel industry that the Canadian steel industry was a wartime creation. It began life in the public sector. It was a force-fed type of economic development to give Canada a sufficient steel industry with which we could participate in the war effort during the Second World War. It is on that basis that we have an industry which has been in place for 45 or 50 years. It did not exist before that time. It would not exist had it not been for the initiative of the public sector.
Defenders of the market ignore the fact that there is intervention by any Government. The United States Government intervenes when the Senate brings in a Bill, as it just has, which will limit Canadian uranium exports and penalize American utilities which seek to use Canadian uranium as a source of energy.
The United States has a policy of intervention in the market when there is discrimination against competitively priced Canadian softwood being exported to that country. That country intervenes when it uses its countervailing procedures which are grossly unfair in order to force the price of Canadian potash above market levels and to bring them in line with the uneconomic prices of potash produced in mines in New Mexico. The American Government intervenes constantly in terms of the way in which it develops research and development contracts with the private sector for the development of weapons, something which is done in the public sector in other countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Israel.
It should not be said that there is no intervention. Almost any Government makes decisions about interest rates, credit policy, consumer protection, trade policy and tariffs. The list is endless. All of these measures represent intervention in the economy.
One form of public participation in the economy is through the use of public enterprise. There is nothing wrong with it. It is fair to add that it does not mean that it is necessarily justified in every case. As a New Democrat I believe that we should put a halt to the constant strain of piecemeal privatizations which are being brought about by a Government which somehow wants to prove to a few of its backers, such as Mr. Bulloch, the National Citizens' Coalition, the Fraser Institute and others, that it is living up to an agenda which was enforced under Ronald Reagan's Government. It has been enforced under Mrs. Thatcher's Government in Great Britain as well. It is something which has brought economic misery to large parts of Britain even today. It has not been demonstrably aided in terms of innovation and initiative in many cases. I believe it is blinkered and wrong, given the important role that public enterprise has played in Canadian and other foreign economies over many years. I do not believe that it has come to an end.
I think that when the NDP forms the Government we will have to look at the portfolio of enterprises that are in the public sector. We will have to decide that perhaps certain ones should be expanded, be given a new mandate and be allowed and encouraged to grow. Certain ones are extremely competitive and extremely effective. I refer to Air Canada. However,
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
some are short on equity investment because of a penny-pinching attitude on the part of the Government of Canada. That is because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), his Minister responsible for privatization, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and other Members of his Cabinet have burned into their minds that private sector is good, public sector is bad. Therefore they want to demean a sector of the economy which is extremely important to many Canadians and which is the only way in many cases by which we can ensure that there is economic and social justice for large numbers of Canadians.
Today in the House of Commons I asked the Minister of Finance about the Government's policy concerning interest rates and exchange rates. They indicated that the Government wants to legislate for southern Ontario and ignore the problems that prevail in many parts of the country which do not have the buoyant economy of the area around Metropolitan Toronto. In Newfoundland there may be no other way to develop jobs and to develop enterprise except through the participation of the public sector. The provinces increasingly find, as do American states, that they have to be involved in different ways. This sometimes has to be through ownership, participation, subsidies and tax concessions.
What does it say to the people of Newfoundland if there is a Government which says, "Public sector is bad, private sector is good"? What it says is that appropriate solutions to the problems which are out there cannot be used.
That brings me back to the particular question with which we are dealing today. We think this is a bad deal. We think that the Government is paying excessively to try to make this particular deal look good. We think that the type of blank cheque that the nuclear industry as a whole has received from Government in terms of the risks that it may be forcing the Canadian public to bear is unacceptable. This is an example of how the Government intervenes in order to reduce the risk for the private sector so that it can then say, "Private sector is good, public sector is bad".
I do not want to pursue this matter too far. I find the whole tenor of thought excessively illogical and unacceptable. I fear that after this measure is passed we could see a monopoly develop, particularly if Denison Mines under its new chairman and chief executive officer bids for majority control. We could see a situation in which the United States Government decides to close the door to future exports of uranium from Canada. I would imagine that that would be a disaster for the uranium industry in Saskatchewan. I am not sure how this new corporation would be able to deal with that.
I wish to conclude by saying that there are implications for the workers which have not been met, there are implications for the environment, and there are implications in terms of future economic policies in this country, if we have a government that continues to blind itself to the fact that the public sector and public enterprise can do an effective job under

April 11, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
certain circumstances. They should not be categorically ruled out, which is the position taken by the Government. It is wrong to take that position.


Mr. Ricard:: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the Hon. Member who just spoke, and I wish he would explain. He said in his speech that when privatizing a privately-owned corporation, it was not a good idea to do it this way, because it was economically destructive and also a threat to the workers. I wish he would explain what happened to Canadair and de Havilland when they were privatized. Did it destroy the aviation industry and were people laid off or did it create more jobs? I wish he would explain, because if I remember correctly, at the time the New Democractic Party was against privatization, and I would appreciate hearing his views on the subject.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, that is a good question. If we look at de Havilland, since we have no clues as yet how Canadair is going to operate, I must say the Government did not really pursue any of the alternatives. For instance, would it not have been possible for de Havilland to conclude a marketing agreement with a company like Boeing, in order to ensure a greater market share for its aircraft? That was not pursued because the Conservative Government felt the only way to proceed was to privatize de Havilland, even if they had to pay Boeing to take over the company. I agree de Havilland is in pretty good shape today, but I suggest that if the Hon. Member were responsible for a business he had acquired for practically nothing, although it had assets worth between $700 and $800 million, he could make a profit from privatization as well.
That was the case with de Havilland, which partially explains why the company is now operating with some measure of success.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I wish to ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) a couple of questions. The Canada Development Investment Corporation was created by the former Government to market four Crown corporations: de Havilland, Canadair, Teleglobe, and Eldorado. There has been successful marketing of three of those corporations. De Havilland doubled employment and now has a list stretching into the 1990s for the sale of aircraft from that corporation. There is solid, first-class employment and excellent R and D; it is at the leading edge in short take-off and landing aircraft. Canadair with new contracts is indicating a new spark and go. That was a first-class privatization with the sale to Bombardier. Teleglobe has blossomed forth with a sale to Memotec. Now we have Eldorado and a situation where we want to wind up Canada Development Investment Corporation and we have a partner that has massive uranium resources, and we can combine that with the refining capacity of Eldorado.
I cannot understand why my friend would oppose that privatization or the winding down of corporations that not only
this Government but the prior Government felt were no longer needed or the ownership by Canada of which was no longer in the public interest. Here is an opportunity to complete what has been a program not only of this Government but of the prior Government.
It is a situation where we continue to own shares in the corporation, where we combine with a province and a provincial Crown corporation that itself wants to bring in outside capital. I wonder where the problem is. What is the hang-up? Is the hang-up the same hang-up the Hon. Member had on the de Havilland Bill, the Canadair Bill, and the Memotec sale? Is the hang-up not that the Hon. Member does not want us to get out of business, and that the Hon. Member wants these corporations?


Michael Morris Cassidy: I hear my colleague, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, the Hon. Member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn), with whom I normally enjoy quite cordial relations, suggesting that the Government should get out of business. I guess what he means is that he wants the Government of Canada to sell off Air Canada, Canadian National, and Petro-Canada. I am not sure what else is on his list. The Hon. Member should reveal his shopping list. This is what is bothering me with respect to the question of Eldorado. The fit in terms of community of interest between Saskatchewan Mining and Eldorado is a natural one. I do not dispute that. But there is no particular reason why that could not have been explored in terms of the two companies working together or joining together and remaining under public ownership. But the Government intends to privatize them and sell them off.
In my speech I suggested that what is particularly objectionable is the fact that the Government is saying that it only has one solution to those questions, which is to privatize. Under no circumstances does it envisage a role for the public sector. That represents a very substantial and, I believe, undesirable turn of policy.
I remind you, Madam Speaker, that it was the Conservative Party in power which established the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Air Canada. These things have been done in a pragmatic manner by Conservative Governments in the past. It was an ultra Conservative Government in Alberta that brought Pacific Western Airlines into public ownership for a period of time. I do not see the hang-up that the Government has. Until that hang-up is over, I do not want to entrust all of the assets of the people of Canada in the industrial sector to a government that simply wants to sell them off.
Canada Development Investment Corporation is about to lose its raison d'etre. The Canada Development Investment Corporation, which started with such promise 20 years ago, has now been privatized. Basically, the present Government has completed a process started by its predecessor, the Liberal Party, which effectively deprives the Canadian people of instruments by which, where public sector involvement is justifiable, we can be involved.
April 11, 1988

There may be a strong case for having a federal merchant bank or investment bank which would use investment criteria as well as public policy criteria for its involvement. That might serve the taxpayers considerably better than ad hoc hand-outs on such projects as the upgrader in Lloydminster which are not subjected to investment tests and where the public has no means of telling whether or not it is of benefit and a good use of public funds.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a supplementary, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: 1 am delighted that we now know that the New Democratic Party is against any development of an upgrader in western Canada to upgrade heavy oil.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I did not say that.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am surprised that it is coming out so strongly against that investment.
What we are dealing with here is a situation where there is a single company in the uranium refining business with some mining operations that we can either wind down and wind up, or we can sell off. I do not know whether my friend would have the Government of Canada pour more money into Eldorado, buy up some more mines, and get rolling in the uranium business, or whether he really wants us to wind down the uranium business and sell off our assets to people who are in the mining and refining business on a commercial basis anyway.
Does the Hon. Member really think that we ought to make Eldorado grow and be prosperous, or should we get out of the business? It has to be the philosophy of the New Democratic Party. Is that philosophy that the Government ought to be in the mining and refining of uranium, and that is what we ought to pour more taxpayers' money in, or should we leave that matter, as we have in an arrangement with Saskatchewan, to co-operate with them and get ourselves out of this business?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member must have taken an ideological pep pill before making his intervention. I suggest to him that under certain circumstances it may make sense to sell off assets which are in the public sector. However, just as we are opposing the Bill, I do not think the circumstances prevail here. Just as it makes sense in certain circumstances to enter into mixed enterprise agreements, we are working to initiate measures in the public sector. However, we cannot do it just in one way. We have built the country by a combination of all three-public enterprise, mixed enterprise, and private enterprise.
In certain areas public enterprise has been a leader. I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that from time to time it can be necessary and desirable to act in that particular way. This is why I reject the kind of ideology that the Government and particularly my hon. friend from Mississauga have been
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
trying to impose where every decision has to be: "Let's sell it off regardless of the consequences for Canadians".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time provided for questions and comments has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Official languages-Use of French in courts- Request that Deputy Prime Minister contact Saskatchewan Premier; the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse)-Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation- Lack of affordable housing in Toronto; the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy-River (Mr. Parry)-Taxation-Northern deductions-Eligibility of communities.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to participate in these debates, particularly after having listened to an argument between the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), accusing each other of being reactionaries on one side or another of an argument and discussing between them which one has the worst hang-ups either for or against public or private sector enterprise.
Of course the recipe is neither solely private enterprise, as the Conservatives would sometimes want us to believe, nor is it as simple as to say that if we socialize everything including the local hardware store it will solve all problems, the way New Democrats sometimes pretend it will. Life is a little more complicated than that.

April II, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Our country has been a prosperous nation because it has sought and achieved a good balance between private and public sector involvement in various areas. Of course from time to time it becomes necessary to adjust the policy, acquiring things from the private sector and equally disposing of things to the private sector if and when particular endeavours no longer achieve a useful purpose.
We in the Liberal caucus are basically in favour of the principle of disposing of that particular asset, but we have some reservations. Of course we know that the assets of Eldorado are in the area of S915 million, while the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation has assets of some $973 million. In other words, both are roughly the same in terms of assets.
We are told that the corporation will have a 38.5 per cent share of the new company while Saskatchewan will have 61.5 per cent. Of course there are questions to be asked in that regard. One must ask why it is that the merger is, if not in the form of a gift, certainly a bargain basement opportunity for the Government of Saskatchewan. As I said previously, it does not mean that we are against the privatization endeavour per se. However, it would seem that the Government should at least do a better job in justifying the means and process used to arrive at the stated price.
I should like to refer to a press release dated February 2, 1988 which was entitled on one side "Canada" and on the other side "Saskatchewan". The press release speaks of the particular merger and future privatization of both uranium companies. It indicated:
"Both governments want individual Canadians to participate directly in the ownership of this world-class uranium mining company," said Mrs. McDougall.
It went on to indicate:
The new company we are creating will be fully privatized through a series of public share offerings. Precisely when all shares in the company are in the hands of the private investors will be determined by market conditions. But 100 per cent of the company will move from public to private ownership within seven years.
The next sentence is a very important one:
At all times, the control of the new company will be in the hands of Canadians.
Just how can we be that sure? Of course we are sure that it will be in the hands of Canadians while we are divesting; that is rather obvious. I see the Hon. Member for Mississauga South waving a copy of the legislation. I know that it is covered in the Bill. I do not want unduly to agitate the Hon. Member, but I bring to his attention that we could very well see again the other partners signatory to the so-called trade deal upset by a legislative measure which, when passed in the House, could very well be seen by them-and I am speaking of the Reagan administration in the United States-as a measure which in their language, not mine, is unduly restrictive for them in terms of potential investment opportunities.
I am not saying that everyone in the United States will rush to buy shares in the particular endeavour. However, human nature being what it is, all we have to do is tell people that they cannot do something and suddenly it becomes almost a prize catch if one is able to get whatever is forbidden. The perception of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence on many occasions creates that particular circumstance.
Much has been said about the Bill in the House of Commons. Many Hon. Members have spoken on it. I do not intend to delay its passage but merely to reiterate some of the concerns already expressed by my colleagues in the House. Of course my comments will be of their usual brevity, which you have undoubtedly known before, Madam Speaker.
We are informed that the head office of Eldorado will be moved to Saskatchewan. As a Member of Parliament from an area which has been subjected to transfers of government staff from time to time, namely, the Ottawa area, I want the assurance-and I have not received such assurance-that the 50 or so employees at the present head office of Eldorado will be relocated appropriately. As a matter of fact, we are led to believe that they may very well end up without jobs. We want an assurance that those people will be treated properly. We should like to see them kept on and receive appropriate treatment in terms of relocation or, in the event that employees are not willing to relocate, given fair and just compensation packages, so that they do not receive the all too familiar public service treatment given by the Conservative administration to so many of my constituents and many other people in the national capital area and elsewhere who happened to be unfortunate enough to work in the Public Service at the time the Government was elected.
We all remember that when the Government was elected it said that it had no plans for lay-offs. As a matter of fact it said that those people who were saying that the Government wanted to lay off 15,000 per year were fear-mongers and so on.

Well, Madam Speaker, Canadians know better today. Indeed Canadians are aware that this Conservative Government has been laying off public servants since the 1984 election, notwithstanding the formal commitments and the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he was Leader of the Opposition.
Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party has also expressed concern about the possibility that a company or a group of individuals might buy shares up to the 25 per cent limit, and people are wondering why the Government chose the magic figure of 25 per cent. Would it be that a prospective buyer is prepared to acquire exactly 25 per cent of the shares, or was a more objective criterion used? Why not 10 per cent as in the case of a bank? Why not some other figure? The Government has yet to tell us exactly why it did favour this 25 per cent share-selling process.
April 11, 1988

The previous Minister said in the House of Commons that 25 per cent would enable an individual or a shareholder to guide the new corporation under certain circumstances. What does that mean, Madam Speaker? We are not sure. We really need clear statements from the Government why it has arrived at that particular figure and whether there is a potential buyer or buyers right now looking for that stated magic 25 per cent.
Having aired those concerns in the House today, I do not want to delay the passage of this Bill unduly. I want to reiterate the concerns expressed by my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), who has been our lead spokesman on these issues, and an excellent lead spokesman he is, and I know, Madam Speaker, that you would want me to say that about the distinguished Member.
I will now conclude my remarks and hope that the Government will be able to answer not only the questions that I have raised in regard to this deal but also those expressed by the Member from Cape Breton-The Sydneys and other Members of Parliament during the last days of debate on this Bill.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member suggested that I should ask a question and I wanted to make certain of being responsive to his suggestion.
The question I want to pose arises from the comments of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) who suggested that the CDIC was established with the express purpose of privatizing Crown corporations associated with CDIC.
As a member of the Party which formed the previous Government, would the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) tell us if that is the case, or was it not a much more ambiguous and careful situation than that, a situation where CDIC was to be expected to review the operations of various companies under the auspices of the corporation to see if there were some that could be amalgamated to carry forward activities more successfully in the country? For instance, there was the proposal that de Havil-land and Canadair be amalgamated, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) suggested in his 1984 election campaign, thereby giving us a publicly owned aerospace company that would be able to afford the tremendous investments often required for new developments in the aerospace area.
Would the Hon. Member comment on that from an historical point of view? Perhaps he would be prepared to give us an idea of present Liberal Party thinking with respect to companies such as these which have been grouped together under CDIC?
Mir. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to see that the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has heeded my request to ask questions in this debate. I
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
listened, as he did, to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South. My interpretation of what he said was that CDIC's role was to get rid of Crown corporations. It could very well be that one of the functions would be to dispose of whatever Crown corporation does not fulfil a specific or necessary public sector interest or mandate. But that does not mean that that is either its reason for existing or its sole purpose. The organization is there for a number of reasons: to review the management and operations of certain Crown corporations to determine the necessity for their remaining in the private sector and to merge some of them where required. To pretend that all we need to do now is to dispose of a few more Crown corporations, then also get rid of the agency altogether is not quite what we planned. That is a gross exaggeration. We have had that agency in place for many years. Obviously we were not planning to dispose of those assets when we put it together.
There are obviously government assets which from time to time have to be disposed of, not only Crown corporations but other things too. Other things do not have anything to do with the government-run agency. There are means of disposing of other assets elsewhere and, as I said, they are not handled through this mechanism. There could, indeed, very well be an overview in process with specific recommendations that two Crown corporations be merged and remain in the private sector. I think that that would be a totally legitimate and useful thing to do if it were determined that the Crown corporations in question would better fulfil a mandate by remaining in the private sector. It is wrong to suggest that the only thing that we want from this organization is to get rid of everything so it can do itself in as quickly as possible. It is a little more complicated than that. Of course, I am sure that on many occasions, we have seen Crown corporations being either dismantled or sold off by this Government in a way which was not in the public interest at all.
Need I remind Canadians and indeed Members of the House of the means we initially tried to use to dispose of the Canadian Arsenals Company, for instance? Why did we use that particular mechanism of starting up the bidding process three, four or five times in order to try to get rid of it? Why did we offer no protection for the workers? We eventually had to fight on the floor of the House to gain protection for the workers.
It is true that a world-class organization purchased Canadian Arsenals, so I am not blaming the purchaser of that corporation, which in that case was SNC Engineering Company, but I am blaming the Government. It was the Government's job to look after its workers, but it failed to do so. The proof was in the pudding, because eventually the Government had to backtrack, change its mind and correct the mistakes it had made.
There is plenty of proof of the fact that the job of the Government and its agencies is not strictly to get rid of

April 11, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
everything and sell the furniture so that they can cancel the lease as quickly as possible.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I thought I would make a comment and then perhaps ask a question. The Canada Development Investment Corporation deliberately had only four Crown corporations and some shares. I believe the Massey shares were included as well as the Canada Development Corporation shares which were held by the Government, together with these particular four corporations that the Government of the time felt ought to be looked after and made available for sale. What we are really doing is completing the work of the Canada Development Investment Corporation through the final sale of the assets of the CDIC.
The former Liberal Government could have included other Crown corporations that have since been sold, had this been the package, but this particular package included, in that Government's view, the items that really did not merit further government management or organization in a consolidated sense, as the Hon. Member may think. It was certainly explained at that time that these would eventually be sold off.
As the Hon. Member may know, the CDIC has since disposed of all of its assets with the exception of Eldorado. It has been seeking unsuccessfully to sell Eldorado for some very long period of time. This arrangement with Saskatchewan seems, on the face of it, to be a reasonably sensible business arrangement. Whether it is a good deal or not is a question with which we will all have an opportunity to deal at committee when we can get into the exact details of the transaction.
Surely, in order to carry on the policy of the former Government and to complete this transaction, there would seem to be no overwhelming reason for the Government of Canada to operate a uranium-refining company with uranium mining operations that are winding down. Following on the original thought, surely Bill C-121 represents a sensible approach to handling this class of asset.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that I like the tone of the statement which included the phrase: "No overwhelming reason". We know, of course, that Crown corporations should go to the private sector to fulfil a useful purpose which is better served that way. Whether that is satisfied by an overwhelming reason, to use the words of the Hon. Member, is something about which I am not sure. I am not sure that that kind of overwhelming reason is required for a Crown corporation to remain in the public sector.
The Hon. Member will recognize that I said in my comments that we in our Party at least are not suggesting that the transfer of this Crown corporation to the Government of Saskatchewan is in itself wrong. We have a number of questions about it which, of course, as the Hon. Member said, we will want to raise in committee. There I suppose I must part company with some of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and particularly the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) who said, if I can paraphrase him, that
he was not interested in the divestiture of this Crown corporation to the Government of Saskatchewan in any circumstances.
Finally, we should remember the promises made by this Government in the past regarding de Havilland and Canadair. The original promises and what ended up happening were totally inconsistent with one another, to say the least.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to say a few words on Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof. We are at second reading stage of this legislation, and therefore we are talking about the principle of the Bill.
Before I begin making some specific remarks on the principle of the Bill, I would like to reflect back on some past incidents. While government Members were in opposition, they promised the Canadian people on a number of occasions that they would conduct a royal commission into the nuclear industry. I recall the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and a whole host of cabinet Ministers and members of the government Party campaigning on this issue during the last federal election because of the interests Canadians have shown over the years in the existing state of the nuclear industry and the future of the nuclear industry in Canada.
Any Canadian who has given thought to this matter would say that there are still many unanswered questions about the nuclear industry. The future of the nuclear industry, not only in Canada but globally, is important for all of us. We were reminded of its importance by the Three Mile Island and the Chernobyl incidents. However, we have not seen that inquiry.
After three and a half years, there has been no indication whatsoever from the present Government that it plans to fulfil the promise it made to the people of Canada. When that became clear, the New Democratic Party decided to initiate its own inquiry into the nuclear industry. Some months ago, my colleague from Winnipeg-Birds Hill and my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway decided to co-chair an initiative to look into this important matter, and they have been conducting a very intensive and extensive inquiry into the present state of the nuclear industry. They have held hearings in all parts of Canada including communities involved in the nuclear industry and those that are not. They are attempting in a most objective and open-minded way to welcome points of view on which to make a final recommendation prior to the next federal election.
Having said that, I want to go on record as saying that we are not enthusiastic about this particular initiative before us. It flies in the face of the promise for this important inquiry, and until we have some very clear answers about just what the future of the nuclear industry in Canada ought to be, I think it would be premature for us as New Democrats to support this initiative.
April 11, 1988

As a Member of Parliament who is from British Columbia, I remember not long ago when the Social Credit Government of British Columbia came up with what it thought was a brilliant idea. That idea was to form a corporation called BCRIC and to sell off a number of Crown corporations, providing shares for the general public to buy. As a matter of fact, it was such a good idea that the Government gave every resident of British Columbia five shares in BCRIC. This was to encourage all of us to become investors and, in theory, enterprising capitalists. It was to allow us to see how the stock market worked and to be a part of this new initiative by the Social Credit Government.
This little venture into popular free enterprise did not work very well. I remember the then Premier of British Columbia saying that he had confidence that the shares, which were trading at the outset at $5 or $6, would soon be trading at $12 and might go up as high as $20, and that this was a way for the young and old of British Columbia to understand the thrilling sensation of investing in the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Well, thrilling it was. It was a tragedy. I have not checked today but the other day BCRIC was trading at 91 cents, and my hon. friend from Mississauga tells me that it may be 90 cents today.
That means that all those folks who listened to the Premier of the day on this magnificent venture into the free enterprise system lost their shirts, and I suspect some even lost their undershirts, because they took the Premier at his word. In our system I guess that is not an uncommon thing for people to do, but they certainly found out very quickly that it was not good advice to invest in BCRIC shares.
As a Member of Parliament from British Columbia I recall those days with less than enthusiasm, and here we are once again, through this legislation, attempting to reorganize an industry and turn it over to the private sector and perhaps sell shares. That makes one extremely nervous.
I also want to pursue this in terms of the principle of selling off government assets. This is, of course, not any government asset. It is an asset within a very critical, important, and sensitive industry which concerns many Canadians. It is very critical in terms of our future planning in both a positive and negative way.
It is important that parliamentarians recognize that from the very beginning the private and public sectors in Canada have worked co-operatively. The establishment of the first settlements in Canada involved the Government of the day giving monopolies and contracts to various companies to build bridges, wharfs, rail systems, ports, and so on. That resulted in a marriage between the private and public sectors which, most of the time over the years, has worked relatively well. Canadians find it comforting.
I think of the economic activity which has taken place in my community of Kamloops in the last number of years since I
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
became a parliamentarian. Although unemployment has been a major problem which has plagued our area, I recall the development of a new armoury and a new airport, the upgrading of another airport, the establishment of some wharfs, community centres, highways, youth treatment centres, jails, young offenders' institutions, and lottery buildings.
I could continue for a long time making specific references to all sorts of government-initiated ventures which, with very few exceptions, were turned over to the private sector for construction. This has made a great difference in our community in the last number of years. Without these government-sponsored projects from the federal and provincial Governments there would be a significant increase in the already tragically high levels of unemployment. I simply point that out as an example of how government, industry, and business can work in a most productive and positive way.
I think it is fundamental that if one evaluates the sale of Eldorado carefully one will see that it is a bad deal. It is just not a very intelligent business arrangement. Therefore, we in the New Democratic Party oppose the deal in its present form for the simple reason that it is a bad one. It is bad because the deal is structured in such a way that the public sector takes the risks and obligations and the private sector gets the profits, not only from the commercial activities of the company merged from Eldorado and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation but also from the heavy public subsidies which are given the uranium industry in the form of favourable taxation, marketing arrangements, and sweetheart contracts which I will comment on in a moment.
That is the bad deal. The private sector gets all of the goodies and the public sector, to be more specific the taxpayers of Canada, pick up the tab. I would say it is a good deal for the private sector, but for the taxpayers of Canada it leaves a great deal to be desired. That is why I wonder if some of my Conservative friends see this as a good deal for the people of Canada in the short or long term.
It is discouraging that we have had no assurances from the Government that it recognizes the sacrifice of the public sector and the public interest in this deal. It is clear that this deal has been structured so that the Government can say that privatization works, just look at the share price. What the Government does not say is that in order for this stock flotation deal to succeed-and that is what it really is-the public sector will underwrite the risks by assuming the debt of Eldorado Nuclear and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, and the federal Government will assume the further liability of Eldorado's nuclear waste problems at Port Hope at a cost perhaps as high as $75 million. That is only a guess at this time, but that is all we can go on.
This take-back of debt has been described by the financial advisers to the Government, Burns Fry, as necessary for this flotation initiative. Eldorado's debts are substantial. If my memory serves me well, they are in the range of $550 million. The federal Government will receive from the newly-merged

April 11, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
company about $250 million, leaving $300 million which must be made up in the sale of shares in the new company before the Government breaks even on its debt obligation alone. This is to say nothing about the cumulative investment which has been made in Eldorado in the form of government equity.
Therefore, the Government needs a high share price or it will wind up with a brick in its hands, or something like BCRIC which started out at $5 and is presently trading at 91 cents. However, is there any certainty of a high price? The uranium markets are currently in a chronic over-supply situation and the prices are depressed. In the last number of days we have seen an initiative in the Congress of the United States which would make it very difficult to continue Canadian exports into the United States. If the United States markets were closed to foreign producers in response to the distress of its own domestic suppliers' conditions, we would be caught in a most chaotic situation. The trade deal which the Government has negotiated with the United States appears to be worthless in terms of enabling us to do anything about the congressional initiative which the Senate passed enthusiastically a few hours ago.
There is no certainty of a high share price. Since there are no guarantees that the federal Government will get its investment in Eldorado back, let alone cover the debts that Eldorado presently owes, what are the other advantages or disadvantages of this deal?
In light of the many questions which my colleagues have asked throughout the day I think it is fair to ask whether there are job guarantees for the employees. Not surprisingly, in the true fashion of the Government, there are no job guarantees. Rather, the opposite is the case as the Minister spoke of the rationalization of the two companies. You and I both know, Madam Speaker, that "rationalization" is a nice word for "lay-offs". When we say that we are going to rationalize a company, that an industry is being rationalized, or that there is rationalization going on in the textile industry, it means that hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of people will be laid off, that they will be jobless.
In terms of the trade deal, this has become a most popular word. Members indicate that there will be some rationalization going on. It has a positive context. Since we like to be rational, we assume that rationalization must be a very positive process. It is positive in some respects because rationalization usually means modernization and more competitive businesses. However, in human terms, which we tend to overlook in this place, it means a loss of jobs or the termination of a career in a particular industry or company.
In recognition of this euphemism, the former Minister has indicated that there are no guarantees. She essentially said that there would be job losses or lay-offs.
What is the future for the Port Hope refinery, a site which has no room for expansion at the moment? The future is not
particularly bright, since Eldorado already made one attempt to build a uranium refinery in Warman, Saskatchewan, in the late 1970s.
What about the research and development prospects? There are real prospects for change in the processing of uranium enrichment, using laser technology. This will require a substantial commitment to more research and development. Will the new company pursue this research and development or, given the relaxation of enrichment requirements for Canadian uranium exports, will Canada return to being an unprocessed resource exporter?
Most Members who have spoken against this legislation are concerned that Canada will increasingly become an exporter of the raw material as opposed to developing a more finished product. The trade agreement, which drops our requirement for processing exported ore, certainly does not bode well for the future.
The Government has taken action on a number of fronts toward privatization. While the Government wants to turn all kinds of publicly owned corporations over to the private sector, according to inquiries made by various newspapers and financial publications, there seems to be some variance between what the people of Canada want and what the Government intends to do.
For example, the Government has indicated that it would like to sell Air Canada to private interests. In my province, the latest Angus Reid poll indicates that 72 per cent believe that Air Canada is well run. More than half the people in British Columbia believe the Government should not sell Air Canada. We live in a country where the majority view should prevail or be equal. It seems that the people in my Province of British Columbia feel that Air Canada is well run and should not be sold.
In British Columbia, 64 per cent of the people believe that Petro-Canada is well run, and 55 per cent say that the Government should not consider selling it in any way.
Let us consider CBC, which often gets a great deal of response from my prairie colleagues in the House. In the Prairies, 66 per cent of the people believe that CBC is well run and that it should not be sold to the private sector. An even greater majority in other areas of the country are in favour of the CBC, Air Canada and Petro-Canada.
The majority of British Columbians feel that Canadian National is well run and should not be sold to private interests.
The one exception to Crown corporations which most people believe are well run, which will come as no surprise, is Canada Post. That is the Crown corporation that I do not believe any Canadian feels is well run.
The Government is continually manipulating and changing the mandate of this corporation. One of the reasons that I believe the postal corporation is not being run well is that the Government has singled out this Crown corporation that
April 11, 1988

touches the lives of every Canadian as the one which should make a profit. There is no suggestion that the Department of Immigration should make a profit, or that our hospitals, universities, or Armed Forces should make a profit. Yet when the Government decides that this one government service, which touches every family, whether urban or rural, rich or poor, should make a profit, it is not surprising that this Crown corporation is not running particularly well.
I do not support the Government's initiative with this Bill. In closing let me say that it is time that we send this matter to committee for closer examination. Hopefully we will be able to address such questions as why there are no job guarantees for the men and women who work for these companies. There are many questions that must be asked and perhaps the most appropriate place to ask them would be in committee at the end of this debate.


Michael Morris Cassidy: My question concerns the open-ended guarantees being given in this particular case. The Hon. Member will be aware that Eldorado has a dump site in Port Hope. There are problems in terms of the clean-up of that dump site and, according to the Library of Parliament research staff, there has been a suggestion that this could cost as much as $100 million. Only 25 per cent of that would be borne by the Government but if the costs rise above $100 million it would be borne entirely by the federal Government.
Last night on the news there were comments by representatives of Energy Probe relating to the total lack of liability in the nuclear power industry for any type of defects in nuclear power plants which might bring civil suits against the manufacturers.
What is the Hon. Member's opinion about privatizing a company while leaving the risk in public hands? The Government of Canada will get some $200 million in debt instruments from this newly merged company but will have a $75 million liability which could possibly escalate to double or triple that amount.
Does it makes sense effectively to privatize a company but not force the private owners to take the risks that I thought were part of the private sector? Should not the new privatized owners take all of the risks rather than dump some of them back on the federal Government?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. Why are the taxpayers of Canada expected to assume all of the risks while the private sector is the recipient of all the obvious gains? That is a fundamental question which has been asked by a number of Members participating in the debate today.
My colleague has raised an issue which I did not have time to discuss. It concerns the whole matter of liability with respect to the disposal and treatment of wastes. He indicated very accurately that the taxpayers of Canada must accept that responsibility as well as the cost. It is a very unfair and unjust business transaction which is very biased in favour of the
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
private interests. It places very little risk on the private interests and all of the risk and most of the financial liabilities on the taxpayers of Canada. That is essentially why we are opposing this legislation.
There is also the whole matter of safety in this particular industry, to which my hon. friend alluded in his question. As you are probably aware, Madam Speaker, every year at least a thousand workers, men and women, die on the job sites of this country, to say nothing of the tens of thousands who are injured and as a result of their injury often spend an entire lifetime off the job. A thousand people are actually killed on the job sites of our country each year. That is one of the reasons that two major groups involved in this particular transaction that we are discussing today, namely, the energy and chemical workers and the United Steel Workers, oppose this Bill. They feel that the industry is bad enough already and once it is turned over to private interests the pursuit of profit will be carried out with more zeal than ever at the expense of health and safety in the workplace.
That is not only occupational safety but environmental safety, in the broadest sense as well. They are very concerned that there are no safeguards, nor any particular attention given to this critical matter in Bill C-121. Not only do the taxpayers of Canada accept the brunt of the risk and the loss in terms of a safe financing of equity, but the men and women who work in these operations are also being placed at greater risk than ever before in what we already recognize as a highly risky industry.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member's speech. I wonder what single denationalization he would be prepared to favour? The Government is not proposing to denationalize Air Canada, Petro-Canada, CBC or CN. As you know, Madam Speaker, this is one of the issues on which there is a fundamental difference. We are accused by our friends in the New Democratic Party of being hung up on ideology, but when something is not working efficiently, as de Havilland was not working efficiently, we have to do something about it.
My friend should take note of what the Mitterrand Government did after President Mitterrand was first elected. A friend of mine worked for a little bank in France which was nationalized by Mr. Mitterrand. The bank was told it should give its business to a friend of the Government. Investment fled France, the franc fell to about eight francs to the Canadian dollar, unemployment rose drastically and, basically, the Mitterrand Government had to repeal everything it had tried to do out of its socialist ideology.
What we on this side of the House are saying is that where there is a time and place for something to be denationalized, it should be done. We should not be held captive by some 19th century ideology. I submit that my friends in the New Democratic Party believe that everything that moves should be

April 11, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
nationalized, that everything should have cement poured on it in the name of somehow helping the people who work in these companies.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Your view is that everything that moves should be sold and denationalized. That is the problem.


David Kilgour: Well, I remind my friends that there are about 350 federal Crown corporations still around today. I put it to them that if the unfortunate day for people who want jobs in this country ever arrived while they were in office, they would not nationalize one of those companies. They would, as they have said, nationalize banks and who knows what else. I put it to those Eton. Members that we are not the prisoners of a dead ideology, it is my friends opposite who think that the only good company is one that has been nationalized. Perhaps my friend has a comment on that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I think, once again, people get caught up in the rhetoric of this place. What my friend from Edmonton has indicated is simply not accurate. What we have said on a number of occasions is that our plans are for the traditions of the Canadian economy to continue. That is why at the outset of my presentation I thought it was appropriate to indicate that we are a nation that is recognized as a country where the private and public sectors have worked amazingly well co-operatively together in terms of generating a relatively healthy economy.
When I think back to the number of times when Governments, not only the federal Government but the Government of the province of my hon. friend, found a critical industry or business that was not working well, that was in financial difficulty or was not serving the people well, they decided that rather than simply have profit guiding every decision, it was important that people be serviced by certain kinds of industry.
So the Province of Alberta saw the wisdom of buying Pacific Western Airlines and Alberta Telephone. I remember those debates because the people of Alberta were getting hosed by the private telephone system and were not being served well by the various feeder airlines. So the Government of Alberta, which was not an NDP Government but a Government which had some imagination and reflected the views of a New Democratic Party Government, decided to take Pacific Western Airlines into its own hands in order to provide better service for Albertans, which of course it did. It then took over the private telephone system. Because it was a monopoly and, therefore, there was no competition, it was a tragic situation in terms of services, particularly to rural Alberta. The Government then provided the necessary and appropriate telephone service to Albertans regardless of where they lived. That is the kind of spirit we have seen in the past.
I do not know how long it would take to go through hours and hours of examples where provincial Governments and federal Governments have witnessed a situation where the private sector was simply failing to deliver the services they felt their respective citizens deserved and took action. So when
my hon. friend asks if we would consider turning any of the Crown Corporations over to the private sector, I would say that this is something we would enjoy reviewing. We would look at the list and see as times changed that perhaps there should be some that should be brought in and some that should be left out.
What I am saying is that at a time when Canadians from one coast to the other are concerned about the future of the nuclear industry, and extremely troubled by the nuclear industry in its present form, I am particularly reminded of the Chernobyl incident. Canadians want to know the most appropriate way to proceed as a country. That is why government Members opposite promised an inquiry into this important matter, which they failed to do. It took the New Democrats to provide that initiative, thank goodness. The New Democratic Party of Canada held hearings across the country and received input into this appropriate area and it will come forward with recommendations. At that time, the Parliament of Canada, based on those thoughtful recommendations, can see how best to proceed with something like Eldorado Nuclear.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the chance to take part in the debate on this Bill and particularly on this issue in general. I want to start by saying that I am going to try to make a Conservative speech. I am going to elucidate some good, sound Conservative principles that one adheres to if one is a Conservative or if one is a so-called private enterpriser. One of the principles is that an investor is entitled to an opportunity to get a return on his investment. If he gets a return, fine, but if he does not, he takes his chances according to the free market forces. I am repeating what many of my colleagues opposite on the government side have said for yea these many years. That being the case, I submit to the House and to my good friends opposite that the public investor is just as entitled to an opportunity to get a return on an investment as any individual private investor.
We have made that point on many occasions in this House over the years. But this deal penalizes the public investor, the taxpayers of Canada, who put the hundreds of millions of investment dollars into the uranium industry, as well as lots of other industries in this country. In many instances they received a return on investment. I am sure that some of my colleagues may not be aware that, with all the difficulties that the CNR is having, over the last few years it has paid out a couple of hundred million dollars to the Government of Canada by way of dividends. That is appropriate. The public investor received some modest, to put it nicely, return on his investment.
This deal on Conservative grounds, grounds of the most solid Conservative philosophy, is a bad deal. In light of the so-called opportunities for the private sector in uranium mining, refining, processing, et cetera, taxpayer investors are not receiving the type of opportunity to which they are entitled.
April 11, 1988

They are not receiving it because of this legislation. The public investor is being denied that opportunity. Where are the Conservatives who talk about the rights of the investor and of the opportunity to which the investor is entitled?
With respect to the issue of uranium mining, refining and processing I readily admit that in my Party we have had agonizing debates on the subject for years. They have taken place in my province, British Columbia, Ontario and in the national Party. Of course there have been difficulties. However, we came to a conclusion in the Saskatchewan section of the New Democratic Party that in spite of the fact that we formed the government of the day in the province, which was in the mid-1970s, as Party policy there would be no new or additional mines or additions to the present ones. It was decided that as and when a mine that was in existence and operating was phased out because of the depletion of the ore body appropriate actions would be taken to fully compensate the communities and employees involved. That has been the policy of my Party in my province for the last number of years.
I appreciate that once an industry is established, and in this instance with public investment, and when there are trained employees and the community is built up it is not easy to say arbitrarily, "We are against uranium mining and we will stop it as of yesterday". That cannot be done. We think that we have worked out a way to do it.
With respect to some good, Conservative, hard-nosed foundation philosophy, whatever happened to the old private enterprise theory about those who invest taking the risks and dragging themselves up by the bootstraps? That philosophy dictates that one is on one's own and relies on market forces. One takes one's chances. Whatever happened to that philosophy? This deal and others that have been mooted hand the gravy over to the private sector and keep the risks and any potential damages in the hands of the Canadian taxpayer.
Surely that is some type of betrayal of the foundation of free enterprise Conservative principles. I will have my twentieth birthday in June, and I wish I were that young. In the years I have been here every time there were economic difficulties, who were the first ones to come to Ottawa with their hands out asking to be bailed out? When cattle prices went down to nothing, the big ranchers who talked to me about private enterprise and dragging themselves up by their own bootstraps, some of whom worked on land which their parents or grandparents stole from the Indians, were the first ones down here demanding national government assistance. By their own actions privatization Conservatives, the so-called private enterprisers, are freeloaders. The fact of the matter is that without public investment the private corporate sector does not and will not invest. What it wants is all the marbles. It wants a lead-pipe cinch.
If members of the private sector were made to go out to find their own uranium ore bodies, invest in them and take chances, then not a darn one would do it. If it were not for the hundreds of millions of dollars put in by the federal Government and
Senate and House of Commons Act
several provinces I doubt that there would be a uranium mine anywhere in the country right now. Now that the taxpayers have made that investment, built up those industries, communities and employees, to whom will the Government turn them over? It will turn them over to those who want to become private owners.
Where were they when the country needed them? There are some Conservative thinkers who would say that if there were ever a place for the complete public control and ownership of an industry it has to be in the uranium industry. As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty we cannot allow this industry to drift into private hands and be left to the tender mercies of the guy who will do anything to make a buck, even if it meant selling the stuff to the IRA and the PLO.
It is my belief that the Government intends to weaken the powers of the Atomic Energy Control Board, to skirt around, if not ignore, our international obligations, and to fly in the face or what is unquestionably the will of most Canadians. This is not an industry that should be left in the hands of those who are more interested in making a buck than in treating people decently and giving public investors an opportunity to obtain a return and, most important, an extension of peacemaking and peacekeeping in the world.
I take it, Madam Speaker, that you want to call Private Members' Hour. I will be happy to resume my remarks when this Bill is brought before us again.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
William (Bill) Gottselig: that Bill C-257, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (independence of Parliament), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I have introduced this Private Member's Bill as a result of a conversation I had with the Clerks at the Table in the House, and also with some of the legal people in the House of Commons. The intent of this Private Member's Bill is simply to clarify in order that I, as a Member of Parliament, and any other Member who is also a farmer, rancher, or from whatever particular background, would be eligible for any government programs that applied to that particular class.

April 11, 1988
Senate and House of Commons Act
In the past I understand that there has been some confusion as to whether Members of Parliament actually qualified for certain government programs.
Approximately two years ago there was a great drought in southern Saskatchewan, southern Alberta, and Manitoba. Although I was not in the area that was covered by this drought, I was advised that, 1 would not be eligible for this government program.
I consider myself to be a farmer. I can say with some certainty that I will be farming in five or ten years from now. I cannot say that I will be in the House of Commons in five or ten years from now, because like every other Member of Parliament I have to go through that process, get the nomination for my Party, and then stand in a general election.
In order to clarify this for other people who may be contemplating running for Parliament, it should be made very clear that if the Government does in fact put a special program in place that applies to farmers or ranchers, I or some other individual who may be a Member of the House of Commons or a member of the Senate would still qualify for that program.
I have discussed this issue at some length with other Members of Parliament. I have also discussed it at some length with constituents of mine. I have asked them their views on a government program that applied to all farmers, for example, and excluded Members of Parliament or the Senate who also happened to be farmers. Each time I asked that question I was assured by my constituents that they would view that as rather a silly regulation. They do not consider me to be any less a farmer because I am also a Member of Parliament.
At the present time I operate my farm with hired help and with some of the operations done by a custom operator. But I still operate the farm, I am entitled to a Wheat Board permit, and I still carry on the operation exactly as I did before I was elected to represent my constituency. That is simply the reason that I wished to have this Bill introduced. The Bill clearly sets that out.
The key area was in some of the interpretations of the word "contract" entered into. If I were taking part in a government contract or bidding on a government contract it would be much different from simply receiving a program that was put in place to assist all grain farmers or all cattle raisers who were having difficulty because of international markets or weather conditions. The wording was very clear and indicated that the purpose of this Bill was to remove any chance that there would be a conflict of interest for a Member of the House of Commons or a Member of the Senate.
As I mentioned earlier, this apparently has been subject to question in the past with government programs that applied to a class of agricultural producers when people who actually sat in the House of Commons were questioned as to their eligibility to take part in this government assistance program. My intention was to clarify this matter in order that there would be no doubt that any general government program that applied
to grain farmers, for example, would also apply to Members of the House of Commons or members of the Senate.
The present Section 20(1) wording did require some clarification. As I mentioned, it was in the definition and in the interpretation of the word "contract".
The new clause that I have suggested be inserted reads very clearly:
21. This Act does not extend to disqualify any person as a member of the House of Commons by reason of his being
(a)	a shareholder in any incorporated company having a contract or agreement with the Government of Canada, except any company that undertakes a contract for the building of any public work;
(b)	a person on whom the completion of any contract or agreement, expressed or implied, devolves by descent or limitation, or by marriage, or as devisee, legatee, executor or administrator, until twelve months have elapsed after the same has so devolved on him; or
(c)	a contractor for the loan of money or of securities for the payment of money to the Government of Canada under the authority of Parliament, after public competition, or respecting the purchase or payment of the public stock or debentures of Canada, on terms common to all person.
There was a similar clarification regarding the rights of Senators.
The intent of my Bill is very plain. I have discussed this with other Members of the House and with my constituents. There seems to me general agreement that, because the Member of Parliament is elected, he or she should be permitted to take part in any Government program that is put in place that affects that general class. In this case, the most recent program that we had last fall was the Special Canada Grains Program.
Members of this House, as do members of provincial legislatures, and members of rural, town, or city councils often have to absent themselves from a vote pertaining to any particular legislation that may be seen as beneficial to them. The same could be held in the House. If we were voting to make that particular payment as part of a national program, possibly Members could be considered in some conflict of interest if they were supporting the legislation either as a member of the Government or a member of one of the opposition Parties, and they could simply absent themselves from that vote.
I am sure that I and many other Members of this House were members of municipal governments. I was a mayor and a councillor of my town for many years before I came here. If there was any possibility of a conflict we would simply leave the room when this particular item was being discussed, particularly when it came to a vote. This is commonly done. For example, from time to time our town council used to tender for vehicles. One local automobile dealer was also a member of council and when a bid would be submitted to council by the head office of the company he represented, he would not be involved in making a decision on whether or not council would accept the contract. I am sure that the same has been done in other municipal, city, and town councils.
April 11, 1988

The purpose of the legislation is quite clear. I want to assure people who are contemplating running for office that that would not make them ineligible for programs. 1 can particularly speak about western agriculture with some authority. We must take advantage of various available programs, and even then it is very difficult to make ends meet. We are involved in a cost-price squeeze, a vice ever tightening. Until such time as sanity returns to the international market-place and we can once again look to it to provide us with income, it is incumbent upon Governments, particularly the federal Government, to provide some limited support to producers.
The wheat from my farm should be sold for the same price at the local elevator as that of everyone else. There is simply not enough there, so out of necessity we must look for a special government program such as the Special Canadian Grains Program or other programs which are funded jointly by producers through a levy and the federal Government. It is unfortunate that at present we must look to Government for a good portion of the money required to keep our operations viable.
I want to assure everybody who is running for office wherever they happen to be that if a government program were put in place that benefited their particular class of agriculture, they would be entitled to share in it without any problem whatsoever.
This is the reason I introduced this Private Member's Bill. I am looking forward to comments from other Members in the House to see whether or not they agree with me or whether they have other suggestions to put forward at this time.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in second reading debate of Bill C-257 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig).
A little later an amendment may be presented to the House suggesting that we refer the matter to a parliamentary committee and withdraw the actual Bill. I think that would probably be the best way, if such a motion is forthcoming a little later as I understand could be the case.
The suggestion of the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw is a good one in many respects. We do not want people in the agricultural community to be discouraged from running for public office. I certainly would not want that. I am not a farmer, but I represent a large and very fine agricultural riding. I could argue that it is the finest, of course. However, if some day my constituents wanted to present someone who was a farmer, I would not want the person to be unable to enjoy the privilege of running for public office for the mere reason that he is a farmer.
The present situation, as we know, does not preclude anyone in any occupation from seeking public office. However, as the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw quite rightly pointed out,
Senate and House of Commons Act
financial constraints on the agricultural community are such at present, particularly in the grains and oilseeds sectors, that it is necessary to seek government assistance because of international pressures on agricultural commodities, namely, the price war between the EEC and the United States of America. Actually it is a subsidy war in which they insist upon bombarding each other with tax dollars to try to regain what each one feels is his rightful share of the market.
In amending the present Senate and House of Commons Act we do not want to create a situation which would prevent contractors and so on from receiving what is normally known as contracts with the federal Government. I recognize that under the Hon. Member's Bill contracts for public works would still be excluded. Nevertheless, there are other kinds of contracts which could potentially be carried out by Members of Parliament or concerns in which Members of Parliament have a share if we pass the Bill as presented to us now.
The long and the short of it is that I support what the Hon. Member is trying to do. I support his initiative in trying to create a situation which will not unduly discriminate against people who work actively in the agricultural sector from seeking public office. In my opinion we need more people in the agricultural sector to sit in Parliament. We should not do anything or create any circumstance which would make it unduly difficult for them.
Having said that, I hope we receive an amendment a little later which will refer the subject matter to a parliamentary committee for action.
In retrospect perhaps it would have been better to have a motion before the House rather than a specific Bill. However, it does not matter at this point as long as the concern is aired in the House and is referred to a parliamentary committee. Some have suggested that perhaps the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures should deal with the issue. Perhaps the committee charged with looking at the new conflict of interest Bill after it has been passed at second reading could also look at the topic. Many of the issues with which that parliamentary committee will deal concern the conflict of interest of not only cabinet Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition, and so on, but indeed every Member of the House and the other place. In my opinion it would be an appropriate occasion to discuss the issue at that point as well.
I am offering it in terms of a suggestion. I am not married to the principle that we should absolutely discuss it at the same time. However, my reason for raising it is that if we refer it to another parliamentary committee it could have a tendency to go on the back burner, whereas the conflict of interest Bill will probably be discussed in the very near future by a special legislative committee of the House. Therefore, that would enable us to discuss the topic, which the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw brought to our attention, in an expeditious manner to ensure that at the next election, whenever it comes, the potential problem could already be solved.

April 11, 1988
Senate and House of Commons Act

Madam Speaker, having said that, I would end my remarks by expressing general support for the measure introduced by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig), but I hope the Bill will be withdrawn so that the issue raised by the Hon. Member might be debated in a parliamentary commission, and as far as I am concerned preferably the parliamentary commission responsible for looking into conflict of interests.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to this initiative by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig) regarding some concerns that he has brought to our attention which I think are legitimate and appropriate. The essence of his Bill would remove any financial or perceived financial impediment that some people might see to their becoming candidates for elected office, in this case as Members of Parliament or, as the Bill also indicates, members of the Senate. That is really quite a statement because once you are in the Senate you are there for a long time. We are talking about people coming from agriculture who, I suppose, for the rest of their lives are subject to some concerns raised here by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw.
On balance, I believe this is an appropriate initiative and as quickly as we can we ought to put it to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. As the previous speaker indicated, since we will be discussing conflict of interest legislation very soon this could possibly be a matter that could be referred to that legislative committee at the appropriate time.
There are concerns which the Hon. Member mentioned with which I agree. He spoke about his experience at the municipal level. I guess most of us have had similar types of experiences. Whenever a vote came up that was perceived to be an obvious conflict, one simply left the room or failed to vote and doing that seemed to take care of things. In my career as a municipal politician I feel it was a rather ineffectual exercise, being well aware of how much influence a single member could exert on his or her colleagues to achieve a particular outcome with or without that individual's participation in the final vote.
A recent initiative that has caused a great deal of concern is the allocation of northern benefits. We have some pretty peculiar parts of Canada that have been referred to now as northern areas which receive special tax consideration. On one side of the street in some communities you are eligible for northern benefits, but if you live on the other side of the street you are not. I suppose if Members of Parliament had an opportunity to determine whether northern benefit allowances for tax purposes should be associated with a particular area we might be inclined for rather obvious reasons to be supportive of some of these initiatives. As the Hon. Member has indicated in his Bill, particularly in the explanatory notes, he refers to
members of the class, such as farmers. The Member mentioned farmers, grain producers and ranchers.
We have various government programs to support the grain industry because of the international competition that is becoming more and more unfair as a result of increased subsidies from both the United States as well as the European Economic community. But we must think about parts of western Canada which this year will be experiencing severe drought problems unless there is quite a dramatic shift in traditional weather patterns. This would result in an initiative such as the Hon. Member is bringing to our attention and perhaps some Members of Parliament would be influenced in terms of their own ranches.
In principle, I am very supportive of the initiative and I want to thank the Hon. Member for bringing it forward. Let me say that in the appropriate committee when we come to examine the behaviour of Members of Parliament as to when they should or should not vote we ought to give that a great deal of consideration.
In conclusion, I do think that rather than proceed in the usual fashion when it comes to proceeding with Private Members' Bills that would be unnecessarily cumbersome, a more expeditious approach probably would be to refer at least the content of this Bill to the appropriate committee, which presumably would be the committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to tell the House that I am a farmer and I have owned a farm so I have a particular interest in the subject which the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig) has presented. I listened with interest to his speech and to the speeches of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis).
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate of Bill C-257. As all Members are aware, the conduct of parliamentarians in relation to conflict of interest is an important public concern today. The Government has acted in this area following Chief Justice Parker's report and has introduced Bill C-l 14, the Senate and House of Commons Conflict of Interest Act as it is known.
Bill C-257 which we are debating this afternoon also relates to laws governing the conduct of Senators and Members of Parliament in relation to conflict of interest and to the Member for Moose Jaw's concern for that very important point when it comes to general subsidization to Members of Parliament, most specially with regard to the Special Grains Act.
Here we are dealing with existing provisions contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act which prohibit Senators and Members of Parliament from benefiting from any contract, agreement or commission of the Government of Canada which involves a payment of public money. Bill C-257
April 11, 1988

sponsored by the Member from Moose Jaw would change the prohibition against receiving public money contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act and make it apply only to contracts or agreements of sale or service. In my mind, such a change would immediately raise the issue of what the definition of a contract of sale or service would be. If the present exclusion of Senators and MPs is limited only to government contracts or sale or service, loopholes could possibly arise.
I understand the Member's objective that a parliamentarian should be able to receive government funding if he or she is a Member of a broad class of individuals, for example, farmers, eligible for financial assistance under a general government program. I think that this matter can be dealt with, however, without making the proposed changes to the Senate and House of Commons Act as proposed. Perhaps the most important point to make is that the present legislation does not disqualify Senators and Members of Parliament from receiving financial assistance from the Government for which a large number of Canadians can qualify. The key word in the Act is contract. Most general assistance programs sponsored by the Government of Canada do not, strictly speaking, involve a contract.
It is one thing for a Senator or a Member of Parliament to seek a contract with the Government in competition with other individuals or businesses which would lose out if the Senator or Member of Parliament were to get the contract. In this case, there could be a suspicion of conflict of interest. This is what the Senate and House of Commons Act is intended to prevent. If, however, a contract is not involved and the financial assistance, rather than being awarded on a competitive basis, is available to a class of individuals or businesses, there would be no possibility of conflict of interest.
I would submit that the Senate and House of Commons Act even now does not apply to such programs. Having said this, it is important to ensure that Section 20(1) of the present Act is properly administered so that the statutory clause prohibiting Members of Parliament from participating in or benefiting from any government contract, agreement or commission is not inserted in any general program of financial assistance.
I know that the Bill proposed by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw is well intended that there is a clear understanding in connection with Members and with general assistance programs. I would also suggest, and I take heed of the suggestions made, that this motion go to a standing committee for study. Therefore, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-257, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (independence of Parliament), be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to say a word on this Bill. Now that a motion has been moved, I think the Hon. Member
Senate and House of Commons Act
for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig) would be able to speak again. I would be interested to know if he would be prepared to accept the motion put by his colleague. If he is satisfied with it, he will not get any argument from me or my colleagues. If he is not prepared to accept it, we are quite prepared to help him turn it down, although I think he is stuck. Even if he just gets the subject matter of his Bill before committee, then at least he has gotten that far.
I think that the Hon. Member is worrying too much. There are many others of his colleagues who should have been worried about conflict of interest. In this instance, I do not believe that the Hon. Member had a worry.
With government agricultural programs to which a farmer contributes, there is no problem, whether it is crop insurance, the Western Grain Stabilization Act or other programs. If a farmer contributes, he pays a premium to be covered.
In the case of the Special Grains Program, the Hon. Member as a farmer would of course have a direct interest in the matter, and, though I am no lawyer, I think that there is something in law about the rule of general application. If a program like the Special Grains Program is universal, then every farmer who holds a Wheat Board permit is eligible. It would not matter if the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw were a farmer, a Member of Parliament, an MLA, an alderman or a rural municipal councillor, or none of the above. He would be included under the umbrella of the general application of that particular law. That is why I think the Hon. Member was worrying too much.
If we were to follow the argument to its logical conclusion, then all of us would be in conflict of interest. For example, Members from all sides fight for improved old age pensions for which we are eligible. At the same time, MPs draw a pension as MPs if they have been here for six years or longer. One could conclude that there is a conflict there.
Corporate executives often come to this place. If a Member were to be on leave of absence from a corporation and his corporation, by taking advantage of a government program which meant millions and millions of dollars for the corporation, were to give him a better deal on his stock options, his dividends or his pension, he would be in a conflict of interest. That is why I think my hon. friend is worrying too much about this matter.
In any case, if this will make the Hon. Member or any other Hon. Members who come here from the farming or fishing communities feel more comfortable and more straightforward, that is fine. I have no problem with that. If that is all it will take to make them feel better, I am quite willing to help.
I wish to say something else as well. When I came here, I burned all my bridges behind me. I learned from other people who had been in this place years and years before me that if an MP is to do a full, good job representing his federal constituency, he does not have time for anything else. Some of my caucus

April 11, 1988
Senate and House of Commons Act
colleagues gave up their law practices, ministries or businesses completely to be Members of Parliament on a full-time basis.
A dear friend of mine served as a Member of Parliament for the old Kindersley constituency in the 1950s. After he had been here for about two or three years, he showed me the books for his farm. Ele was subsidizing the farm out of his MP's pay. That was in about 1955 when the pay was about $8,000 per year with about $1,500 per year expense allowance. Ele was subsidizing his farm out of MP's pay. I suspect, or at least I would not be surprised if the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw were doing the same damned thing right now. In the perception of the public, I believe that no one with a fair mind would think for one moment that the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw or anyone like him is in a conflict of interest.
I want to emphasize for all of us that if we decide to run for Parliament and if our constituents decide that we are the ones they want to be here on their behalf, we do not have time for anything else if we are to do a good job at it. I do not want to butt into the Hon. Member's private affairs, but I know that if I had a farm, I would sell it if I could find someone to buy it at a reasonable price, or I would have it incorporated. I would have no part whatsoever in it. The wife, the kids or a hired man would run it and I would have no part in it whatsoever. It would be at more than arm's length because the load is too heavy.
With the problems farmers are having nowadays along with the duties of a Member of Parliament who represents the thousands and thousands of square miles that the Hon. Member represents as well as 60,000 or 70,000 people, Members do not have time to worry about their farms. I just offer that as some free, unsolicited advice to my hon. friend from Moose Jaw, but I think it applies to all of us. We do not have time to run home for a couple or for three days a week to work on our real estate businesses, our insurance businesses or our law practices. If we are to do a half-decent job down here, we should not mix the two together. It does not work. I have seen too many who did not survive in this place for very long.
One of the reasons for the high turnaround here is that Members kept mixing one business with the other when the main reason they were here was to be Members of Parliament. If that is not their main business, they should quit. I know that that sounds harsh and hard, but I think that all of us here have a job, an honourable and worth-while profession. I think we all work very hard at governing ourselves accordingly.
Having given free advice to my hon. friend and having given my little lecture for the benefit of all of us, I want to say that I hope that the Government will at least agree to have this matter brought into committee. I hope it will also agree that any new conflict of interest guidelines will specifically include the rule of general application or universality for payments from the Government under any kind of program of this nature. If the Hon. Member's farm were eligible for $1,000 or $2,000 from the Special Grains Program and he had spent it
all on a wild time in Mexico, I would be a little leery. However, I know darn well that if he was eligible and did get any money, he sunk it all back into the farm and must put some more in. That is why he need not worry about conflict of interest in an instance such as this.


William (Bill) Gottselig: Madam Speaker, it was generally accepted that the principle which I was trying to establish was supported by all Parties in the House. Each speaker in turn has referred to my intent. As a result of the intervention made by my colleague, the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), I wanted to add that I understood that in the past there was an instance in which a farmer's right to a program was questioned by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of the House of Commons.
I wanted to clarify that in order that anyone contemplating running for the job of a Member of Parliament would know full well that they would be eligible for any government programs which may be made available. As the Member for Regina West has mentioned as well, I am fully aware that we are, of course, fully entitled to partake in any program for which we pay a premium to belong.
The motion introduced by my colleague, the Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James), is, of course, certainly acceptable to me. I intend to pursue this with the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure in order to ensure that it does proceed from there, that it is not put on the back burner and left there until we all forget about it, because I do believe that this should be clarified. Legal advice that I received from House of Commons staff was that this standing committee was the proper one to examine this. I certainly have no difficulty with that.
I would like to thank the Hon. Members who took part in this debate this afternoon. This is another example of how we can all agree on legislation. We all understand the intent of my Private Members' Bill and it was supported by all Members of all Parties who spoke this afternoon. I would just like to thank them for their support.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. James) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
April 11, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Accordingly, the Order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Madam Speaker, I take the floor this afternoon to refer to the need for the Government to deal with the housing crisis in Metro Toronto in a unique way. Prices have soared to heights that no one would have believed possible even five years ago. Rents have gone into orbit. There is no relief in sight.
My reason for focusing attention on this issue today is to ask the Government to face the reality difficult for many Canadians to see, that is, that the problem is not the same uniformly throughout the country. Metro Toronto and other massive urban communities like it are not the same as towns, villages, and smaller cities and they should not be treated the same. When government policy on housing is determined, it is not good enough to have a policy that seems good across Canada. Some areas have special needs and need special policies. Metro Toronto is one of these.
It is possible for apartment vacancy rates to vary so much across the country that the rate can be zero in the City of Scarborough, the city in which I live and which I represent, while apartments are plentiful in communities elsewhere in the country. In 1985, for example, the national vacancy rate was 1.4. The Metro Toronto vacancy rate was only 0.4, three and one-half times less the national average. It is even more serious, more critical, more impossible, in Metro Toronto now.
In 1987 the price of a standard two-storey house in the Halifax-Dartmouth area went up on an average of about 4 per cent. In Vancouver the rise in the same year was about 8 per cent. These are very serious rises in view of the general cost of living going up about 4 per cent, but in the Toronto area the
Adjournment Debate
increases varied district by district from a low of 18 per cent to a high of 77 per cent in 1987.
Just recognize what that means to a person seeking a home, not just because he or she prefers to live there for personal reasons, but because that may be the place where there is an opportunity for a job, a chance to practice a profession, a chance to rise in an organization. There is no doubt that work is there. We have unemployment rates approaching zero. However, the pressure on people to find housing that they can afford makes the invitation of full employment less attractive than it should be.
I will not be surprised if the spokesperson for the Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation replies by telling us how much has been spent on social housing in Toronto, how many housing units have been started in Metro Toronto either under government funding or by private enterprise. With all respect to the spokesperson, Madam Speaker, that reply will be like claiming that we have found a cure for cancer because we have increased the supply of aspirin.
The solution does not lie in meeting some of the need that would be normal in normal times. Our need is critical in a crisis time, made so not because Metro Toronto people are greedier than anywhere else, not because they are grasping in a way that you will not find anywhere else, but obviously because the population there is growing at a rate which outstrips almost any other area in the country.
I submit that that is to the good, not only of the people of Metro Toronto but to the people of Canada generally because the prosperity and upturn of business in that area creates purchasing of products and commodities which come from elsewhere in the country. We are, by our very growth in Metro Toronto, serving Canada. That same growth is making it almost impossible for many people in Toronto to find accommodation.
I am asking that for once Metropolitan Toronto and other massive urban areas like it begin to get the kind of recognition that their people deserve. I am impressed how business in the metropolitan area of Montreal has taken an upturn in recent years. I rejoice in the renewed prosperity there. That is putting a pressure on housing in Montreal and it is striking to contrast the prices for accommodation in Montreal today and just a few years ago.
I am not asking for a favour to be given to one area, rather, recognition to be given to one type of area which is growing at breakneck speed. Because the demand for accommodation is pressing on the available supply, we are facing prices for houses and rents for apartments that a few years ago would have defied imagination.
I ask that we recognize this situation. If we have a special problem, let us deal with it in special terms. Why treat those

April 11, 1988
Adjournment Debate
areas as though they were like anywhere else when they are not? The Government should issue as soon as possible a policy on housing in major metropolitan areas. If we make the effort and come forth with a creative and imaginative solution, we will find a response from people from one coast to another.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the federal government's initiatives in providing adequate and affordable housing for Canadians, particularly as it affects the people of Toronto.
The government is aware of the situation in Toronto and is monitoring the market very carefully. Of course the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) is greatly interested in this question and keeps the Government aware of developments in that sector. We are all indebted to him.
Madam Speaker, the federal government is doing a great deal to facilitate the activities of the private market and is promoting access to and security of homeownership in a number of ways: through public mortgage insurance, the new mortgage-backed securities program, policies to support moderate and stable interest rates, and, more generally, through good economic management.
Since September 1984, the Ontario and Toronto economy has been booming. It may be the strongest economic area in North America. Madam Speaker, in 1987 there were 33,613 housing starts in the Toronto area, compared with 21,430 in 1986: a 57 per cent increase and 12,000 additional jobs.
The market is operating at capacity and federal government intervention would create an inflationary environment that can do more harm than good. It certainly would not help those in greatest need.
As the Hon. Member is aware all government funds are now being directed to those in greatest need. This applies to Toronto and throughout the rest of the country.
Because social housing is an area of shared federal/provin-cial responsibility, it has meant more funds than ever before are now being directed to those in greatest need. Madam Speaker, I vividly remember the representations which the Hon. Member for Scarborough made before our caucus and which prompted the Government to make this decision. Again, we are grateful to him.
In the Toronto area in 1987, the federal and provincial governments provided assistance to more than 2,200 units under the social housing and co-operative index-linked mortgage programs. This is more than 38 per cent of the total for Ontario. Over the past five years over 12,000 social housing units have been provided. This is in addition to the existing 100,000 households in the metro Toronto area already receiving federal assistance.
Madam Speaker, providing affordable housing is not exclusively a government concern. The Toronto area homebuilders have recently brought forward interesting design proposals. The not-for-profit housing sector continues to be actively involved. Municipalities have an increasingly important role to play in ensuring the creation of affordable housing, as does the provincial Government.
The Hon. Member is quite right when stating that the situation in Toronto is tragic. I would hope that the provincial Government of Mr. Peterson-to a large extent it is responsible for finding the solutions required-will soon be in a position to unveil a policy to encourage contractors to build affordable housing units for Toronto residents.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES-USE OF FRENCH IN COURTS-REQUEST THAT DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER CONTACT SASKATCHEWAN PREMIER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: On March 28, Madam Speaker, I directed a question to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) to find out what his Government intended to do to encourage, urge and if necessary pressure certain provinces to recognize Canada's linguistic duality which they endorsed in the 1987 constitutional deal known as the Meech Lake Accord. I am referring to the situation which exists in particular in Saskatchewan where an historic decision rendered by the Supreme Court on February the 25th of this year completely changed the status of the linguistic rights of the French minority in that province and probably in Alberta as well. The whole affair began five years ago in 1983 when Father Mercure, a Saskatchewan resident was arrested for speeding by a police officer. Upon being issued a citation in English, Father Mercure decided to complain and demanded a speeding ticket in French. Moreover, he asked for a French copy of the Saskatchewan Motor Vehicle Legislation as well as a trial in French. After being turned down by various jurisdictions, his case was finally heard by the Supreme Court-

More specifically, the appellant wanted to know whether Section 110 of the Northwest Territories Act continued to apply to Saskatchewan by virtue of the Saskatchewan Act, and whether the rights derived from this section require the Saskatchewan legislature to publish its laws in English and French. Furthermore, the appellant wanted to know if he has the right to use the French language in proceedings before the Saskatchewan courts as derived from Section 110.
The Supreme Court said yes to all those questions. This judgment invalidates all provincial laws adopted since 1905 in Saskatchewan because they were unilingual English and established the right to speak French before the courts and the legislatures.

From a strictly legal point of view, Madam Speaker, the situation is clear. Either the province translates all the statutes
April II, 1988

it has adopted since 1905 because they are invalid in their English only version, or it adopts bilingual legislation, which is ironic, but it is nevertheless the solution which the Supreme Court suggested, making it possible for the province to bypass Section 110 as it is authorized to do under Section 14 and 16(1) of the Saskatchewan Act.
Hardly a week ago, more specifically on Monday April the 4th, 1988, the Saskatchewan Government introduced Bill 2 to repeal Section 110 in Saskatchewan. This action is legal, there is no doubt about that, in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court to the effect that the province could choose this option. But is it fair? We will see. Personally, I feel it will cause serious problems for the Francophone minority in Saskatchewan as well as other minorities in this country, whether Quebec Anglophones or Outside Quebec Francophones. Is it fair? That is the question.


An Hon. Member:: It is unfair!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is the whole issue, and we should not overlook the fact that the Saskatchewan Legislature adopted a resolution stemming from the Meech Lake Accord. The House will remember that three provinces, namely Saskatchewan, Alberta and Quebec agreed to the Meech Lake Accord. Here, in Ottawa, the House of Commons itself voted recently on this. So, there is nevertheless a certain spirit in the Meech Lake Accord that should be respected and in introducing Bill 2 to repeal Section 110 Saskatchewan reduces the basic rights. This is clearly a step backward and no step forward in that matter. This is clearly a setback for fundamental rights, the rights of access to the legislature and the courts in that province, in French and in English.
The irony here, Madam Speaker, is the wonderful rethoric of the province saying that the rights will be exercised now and that it recognizes that this Bill might not be the solution to this problem but it is a step in the right direction. As for me, I said it earlier and I repeat it, to curtail those rights looks to me like an affront to those rights, those established rights French speaking people enjoyed in Saskatchewan. All the Francophones, not only those living there but all the Francophones in the country had, in Saskatchewan, rights they could exercise sometimes if they had to come before the courts or before the legislature.
Premier Devine could have shown leadership. He missed a great opportunity to be generous. As for me, I said it before and I say it again: in making that decision, Saskatchewan is far from being open, generous and concerned with minorities. It is a step back and a regressive measure which limits the rights of Francophones in that province and, as far as I am concerned, it is not a step forward.
As for Prime Minister Mulroney, he missed an opportunity to show national leadership. He didn't move until both governments were at loggerheads. He didn't do anything between February 25 and April 8. On April 8, following three letters I sent him on April 5, 6 and 7, he finally wrote Mr. Adjournment Debate
Devine, the Saskatchewan Premier, to ask him to do more and more quickly because, as is often the case with the Prime Minister, he applies a double standard. He said that some people see it as a petty measure restricting the rights of Francophones. We do not accept that provision because, in the spirit of Meech Lake, we must protect minorities.
But other people feel that it is a step forward, like the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lowell Murray) who said: It is not a big step, but it is a step in the right direction. I told Mr. Murray, that he was wrong because, once again, we must show faith in that province. And who could show faith, Madam Speaker? If I had the time, I could list the difficulties we had in getting Saskatchewan to honour Section 23 of the Constitution dealing with education. It has been five years since that legislation was passed, since the Constitution was amended and since Saskatchewan committed itself to protecting the fundamental education rights of its larger minority, the Saskatchewan Francophones, and nothing, absolutely nothing was done during all that time for that minority, Madam Speaker. I repeat nothing, no French schools, no administration of independent French schools, no Francophone school board, nothing! Absolutely nothing under Section 23! How do you expect me or other people to trust a Premier who said: wait another 10 or 15 years and this province will be bilingual as our Prime Minister reported today.
Mrs. Speaker, you do not take fundamental rights away from a group of people in a province and say that those rights will be restored in 15 years. That is not how justice works in Canada and that is not what my country is all about, Mrs. Speaker.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, when I hear comments of that nature from the Opposition side . . . Perhaps his party, when it was in power, could have done its share too.
On March 28, 1988, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) asked a series of questions related to the following three subjects: implementation of minority-language education rights under Section 23 of the Charter, implementation of the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the language of trials and the use of the official languages in the Province of Saskatchewan as a result of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada on Section 110 of the former Northwest Territories Act.
Madam Speaker, although it is up to the provinces to respect their own constitutional obligations in the field of education, the Government of Canada has intervened in almost all cases affecting minority-language education rights in order to promote a broad and equitable interpretation of Section 23 of the Charter. In terms of policy, the Government of Canada has made a solemn commitment in Bill C-72 to encourage the country's francophone and anglophone minorities. To this end, it has confirmed the role that the Secretary of State of Canada has long played in this field. Among other responsibilities, the

April 11, 1988
Adjournment Debate
Secretary of State through some measures encourages and assists provincial Governments in the development of our French-speaking and English-speaking minorities by enabling them to have their children educated in their own language. In this regard, the federal-provincial agreements on education in both official languages are an important part of the cooperation.
As far as court language, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the provisions of Part XIV. 1 of the Criminal Code which give the accused the right to have a trial before a judge or a judge and a jury speaking his or her official language, will be implemented in all jurisdictions by 1990. This is guaranteed by Clause 89 of Bill C-72. In the meantime, Clause 98 of the same Bill provides that in all the provinces where Part XIV. 1 is not yet in force, the accused has a right to the interpretation of proceedings both at the preliminary hearing and at the trial, and the witnesses can testify in the official language of their choice. Needless to say the Minister of Justice is in consultation with the provinces...


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Eleven years!


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member from the Opposition says: Eleven years. The Conservative Party as been in power for only four years. More has been done in the last four years than in the last eleven years. The Opposition member is the one who brought the issue.
Hence, needless to underline the fact that the Minister of Justice continues his consultations with the provinces in order that Part XIV. 1 of the Code be applied as soon as possible. Such efforts have already brought in 1987 three provinces, including Saskatchewan, to proclaim these clauses.
Madam Speaker, as far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned, the Hon. Member should know that the Prime Minister has written the provincial Premier to confirm the statement made earlier by the federal Minister of Justice to the effect that the Canadian government is ready to offer the same help it previously gave in similar circumstances in view of a full application of the Supreme Court decision. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has asked the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State to immediately resume discussions with Saskatchewan officials. As well, the Prime Minister has asked the Secretary of State to personally negotiate a general agreement on official languages with the province of Saskatchewan. The Hon. Member will thus recognize that the Canadian Government does not spare its efforts in order to try and solve this national issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p. m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.07 p. m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, April 12, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers