1988-03-30

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, who among us can honestly claim not to be fascinated by the lives of the rich and famous? Who among us is not anxious to share, however vicariously, in the excitement of high living? Now, thanks to the news of the money spent by Mr. Sirois, Chairman of Telefilm, and the many creative ways he raised funds, Canadians can dream of wildly expensive restaurants, flying first class around the world, holding gala parties, rubbing shoulders with movie stars, and spending a relaxing few days in Cannes. Oh, to be the Chairman of Telefilm!
However, what of the poor Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald)? Is it fair that she must travel in lesser style, with a modest drink from a plastic cup while up ahead in first class her Chairman flies about in absolute luxury? What are her thoughts as she hears the popping of champagne corks in first class and knows that the Chairman of Telefilm is entertaining in his usual generous way? Is she envious? Does she plan revenge? Or, will she call him to task?
Tune in again for another thrilling episode in this exciting drama of a cabinet Minister and her wayward Chairman.


ABORTION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Charter declares that Canada is founded "upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law". Yet, emanating from a decision by the Supreme Court, the killing of unborn children has been legalized, completely contrary to scripture.
This is not merely a question of pro-life versus pro-choice, or even the rights of unborn children versus the rights of pregnant mothers. Rather, it is whether or not anyone in Canada has the right to terminate the life of an unborn child for any reason other than fundamental justice.
Are Members of this Parliament courageous enough to base a new law on biblical teachings? If that is contrary to the Charter of Rights, then change the Charter of Rights.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the closure of the CN rail shops in Moncton and the imminent closure of the Newfoundland Railway are but two of the most dramatic examples of the lack of commitment of Canadian National and the Government to Atlantic Canada. Twelve hundred jobs are to be lost in Moncton and 600 in Newfoundland. The Government appears content to let CN shut down operations at Moncton and yet pay over $10 million a year for up to 300 people to do nothing.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) says this makes economic sense. However, we know that CN was not even aware that it would have to pay out this money when it made the decision. This is not economic sense-it is gross mismanagement at CN and gross mismanagement by the Government of the national interest. Even government Members of Parliament from the Atlantic region have expressed their distaste and disgust at how their own Government is mishandling the issue of CN.
The Minister of Transport tells us that CN knows what it is doing with respect to closures. However, CN's actions show that it is not fully aware of its responsibility. It is time for the Government to prevent CN from downgrading service to the point that the only course of action is to auction off the Atlantic region to the private sector.
We call on the Government to force CN to spend the $250 million it will pay out to idle workers on the creation of jobs, not on their destruction.

March 30, 1988


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) introduced Bill C-125. This Bill transfers responsibility for and ownership of the Northern Canada Power Commission to the Government of the Northwest Territories.
Since under the Canadian constitutional system the provision and regulation of electrical energy come under provincial jurisdiction, this Bill will not only help to provide better electricity service for northerners but is also a major constitutional step forward.
Those of us who have worked for a decade and a half to achieve this transfer extend our appreciation to all those who have now made it possible.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my Party's complete disgust at the way the Government has treated the people of Moncton, especially the workers at the Canadian National Rail shops in that community. On two occasions I have seen first hand, walking down the line, the human tragedy caused by the slow death of these shops-the feeling of insecurity, the disruption to families.
Yesterday I met with representatives of the rail shop workers and gave them my complete support for a proposal to consolidate the shops in order to save the 350 jobs that still remain, and turn the remaining part of the facility into an industrial park.
I call upon the Government of Canada and the Canadian National Railway to release the internal study on which the decision to close the Moncton rail shops is purportedly based. I remind the Government that not too long ago the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mazankowski), when he was Minister of Transport, gave his assurance that no massive layoffs would occur at these shops. He also stated that, as long as he was a Minister, the Moncton shops would never close. So much for that promise, Mr. Speaker.
I urge the Government to keep at least one promise to Atlantic Canada. Once again, I urge the Government to save those jobs at the Moncton shops.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, last summer Parliament was recalled early to deal with a breakdown in Canada's refugee determination system. We passed Bill C-84 to supplement Bill C-55. Both Bills have had considerable discussion within this democratically elected Chamber. They would end the confusion in our refugee laws and bring some order to immigration policy.
However, neither Bill is the law of Canada and all Canadians should know why. The reason is the Canadian Senate, a group of individuals elected by no one. They have decided, against the wishes of the people of Canada, to hold up and refuse to pass Bills C-84 and C-55.
This is nothing short of a disgrace to everyone who believes in democratic principles. I hope that all of Mr. Trudeau's appointees in the Red Chamber get the message that their right to govern Canada ended in September, 1984.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, "I must say it-our forces in central Europe mean next to nothing in military terms". Those are not my words, but they might have been. Last year I took a lot of flak for suggesting that keeping a small band of Canadian troops in southwest Germany was a waste of money. In fact, I was called a neutralist, isolationist, soft-on-communism radical by a lot of Members and quite a few editorial writers in this country.
Now someone else has had the courage to challenge so-called conventional thinking. This time that someone is a man who spent his entire life defending this country. The expert who says we should be doing more to defend Canada and less in central Europe is the man appointed to command Canada's Armed Forces from 1983 to 1986, former Chief of Defence Staff, General Gerard Theriault.
Let all those who accused me last year level the same charges against General Theriault, or let them honestly reexamine their own assumptions without partisan considerations.
I want to thank General Theriault, not for agreeing with me, but for helping to raise the quality of debate on defence policy in this Chamber and in Canada.
March 30, 1988


CULTURE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, while each of the Canadian Liberal senators earns at least $67,600 a year, on average an author in this country has to make do with $10,000 a year. Still, with the outright support of their caucus the Liberal senators are denying authors, programmers, compositors and other creators the right to live decently and be protected for their creative output. Such an antidemocratic attitude on the part of the Liberal Senate must be denounced by authors, sung by singers, and publicized by programmers.
Mr. Speaker, how much longer will the Liberal Senate disregard intellectual property?


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister responsible for Canada Post released a discussion paper concerning an independent group's review of corporate rates and services. On page 15, they have this to say about the group: "Through its role and objectives the organization will have to abide by Government policies."
Mr. Speaker, Government policies as they relate to Canada Post are well known: first, deliver mail through superboxes and, second, shut down rural post offices. So what is the point of setting up such an organization if it cannot backtrack and rescind the Canada Post decision to deliver mail through superboxes and permanently lock up all rural post offices?
I endorse the suggestion that an independent group be appointed to review postal rates and services, but it must have real powers and be a lot more than a simple expedient to please the Minister.
* *
*
The Review Committee also says: "We consider that the image of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has been tarnished by conjectures which according to our inquiries are
false."
Mr. Speaker, there will be no more unfounded allegations! Now that all Canadians are aware of the truth and that we have been to the bottom of the matter, it is obvious that doom sayers who wanted to undermine the credibility of the agency of which we can be proud will have to eat crow.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Solicitor General for having brought the matter to light and for his leadership.


ABORTION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada has launched a publicity campaign aimed at reducing the number of abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies. In a full page ad in The Globe and Mail on the weekend, the Federation reaffirmed that the way to reduce abortions is to provide better education and clinical services, especially for teenagers who are learning about their sexuality through experience rather than through sex education programs.
Planned Parenthood has always provided excellent information on family planning and on safe contraceptive methods. It has developed an expertise in matters of sex education and reproductive health counselling. Its aim is to encourage family planning so that children will be wanted and loved, and parents will be able to provide the care that children need.
If the federal Government is really serious about reducing the number of abortions, it would support sound family planning. The Conservative Government must restore funding to the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada to ensure that it will be able to continue its excellent work and especially sustain the most recent education campaign that it has launched.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, in making public the report of the Review Committee on the activities of the Security Intelligence Service, the Solicitor General is sending a reassuring message to the labour movement. Indeed, the report indicates and I quote: It is quite clear that since July 1984, the Canadian labour movement has not been infiltrated by informers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I am sickened and disgusted with the decision made by the Immigration Appeal Board in the case of Mr. Zacarias Cruz, a deserter from a Mexican Army death squad. This individual

March 30, 1988
Oral Questions
has admitted he was following orders when he personally executed 60 innocent civilians. Yet the Immigration Appeal Board chose to disregard his crimes against humanity. Has this panel any conscience, morality or sense of justice?
Canada has no room for murderers. This decision is a slap in the face to all genuine refugees and law-abiding Canadians. I remind the panel that the argument used by Mr. Cruz for committing his crimes against humanity is the same as those used by individuals who sent the Jews to their deaths. The Minister has made the right decision to eliminate the Immigration Appeal Panel because they suffer from a total lack of judgment.


SPECIAL CANADIAN GRAINS PROGRAM
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Government instituted a Special Canadian Grains Program which it has now renewed for a second year. Unfortunately, although some farmers were paid in time, a number of corn producers in my Province of Ontario, and elsewhere, have yet to be paid. In fact some people have been waiting for $17,000 cheques since the end of January. They were told by the Department of Agriculture that they would not receive their cheques before the end of April because "the computer is not ready".
I urge the Minister of Agriculture to tell those people in his Department to get the computer ready and get those cheques out for the 28,000 corn producers in Ontario, the 6,000 corn producers in Quebec, and all the other corn producers in Canada who are waiting for their money.
They need their money. They need it now. It is the fault of the Government that agriculture is in this kind of trouble. It is up to the Government to bail them out and to do it properly.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The tragic situation of the Turks in Montreal is getting steadily worse. First they are told they can't stay in Canada, then the Minister says they can stay, and then they are told they cannot. First the Minister says he reached an agreement
with the Government of Quebec and then he turns around and says there was no such agreement.
Later, he said he had the situation under control, but this morning, we heard he did not even get in touch with the Turks in Quebec.
Has the Minister reached an agreement with the Province of Quebec, yes or no?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Leader of the Opposition doesn't have his facts straight. It isn't the first time either.
Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada to refrain from enforcing the law. That is quite clear.
I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to find a single quote where I did not say during the last two weeks that people who are not refugees should be deported. However, the Quebec Government has the so-called Cullen-Couture Agreement signed by the Liberal Goverment in 1978, which gives Quebec the right to select immigrants abroad.
To my knowledge, the Turks he referred to are not abroad but in Montreal.
I am waiting for news from the Quebec Minister of Immigration, and Mrs. Robic is supposed to answer my letter today. I am waiting for her answer, and if the Government of Quebec does not ask to have these people-after issuing certificates abroad, we shall proceed as we must proceed in all cases of false refugee claims, that is, we will deport them.


John Napier Turner: It is obvious that we have complete anarchy in this situation, under the responsibility of the Minister.


OPPOSITION TO BILL C-55 AND BILL C-84
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister keeps blaming the Liberal Opposition and the Senate, as recited by some of his government Members under Standing Order 21, for our opposition to Bill C-55 and Bill C-84. He blames us for his problem. That is not so.
Will the Minister confirm that the position taken by the Opposition, and the position taken by the Senate, is a position endorsed by the Canadian Bar Association, most of the major church groups in Canada, the Law Reform Commission, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, and by every expert on refugee matters in Canada, including the Minister's own special adviser on refugees, Rabbi Gunther Plaut?
Will he finally admit that Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 have nothing to do with the administrative refugee backlog that he
March 30, 1988

has allowed to build up? Will he start taking responsibility for his own inaction?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the experts in this country and 80 per cent of the population want immigration laws that work. The Liberal Government has left this country in total confusion.
We have introduced legislation, and Senator Hebert himself said that the Leader of the Opposition was in favour of the Senate's obstructing bills passed by the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, it is shocking that we should have this kind of situation in our country, and I repeat that as long as the Senators continue to obstruct legislation passed in this very House, thousands of people will be taken advantage of and come to this country claiming refugee status when they have no grounds to do so.


PROVINCE OF QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether Canadians will be totally impressed with that performance. The Minister should stop playing ping-pong with human lives. These Turkish people are human beings, and should be treated as human beings. That is the situation that I put to the Minister.
I say with the respect that 1 owe the Minister that he should not let his own pride interfere with his sense of fairness and his sense of compassion. The Province of Quebec has requested an administrative review. The Minister has turned that down. Why? What are the grounds?
The Minister also has the power under the Immigration Act to proceed on humanitarian grounds. He has turned that down. Why? Will he give us the grounds for that as well?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I turned it down because there are thousands of Canadians who are waiting to have their relatives come to this country. They would like to follow the usual course.
Canadians do not like that people come as refugee claimants when they are not. They jump the queue in front of people who have been waiting to come here for years and years. The Hon. Member would like these people to queue jump.
[ Translation]


TURKISH NATIONALS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Montrealers thought last week that the nightmare of the Turkish families was over. We all believed that, in a burst of
Oral Questions
generosity, the Minister of Employment and Immigration had accepted an arrangement suggested by Mrs. Robic to avoid the deportation of the Turkish families and to accept 37 of them as immigrants.
I simply want to ask the Minister what has changed since last week and what the Minister intends to do to keep the promise made to these Turkish families.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said that he thought that such was the case. He should have looked closely at what I have said since last Monday. I never made any promise to anyone. I accepted the request of Mrs. Robic to suspend the deportation orders, and I did say suspend, because I must point out to the Hon. Member that the Minister has no right to cancel deportation orders. The Minister only has the power to suspend them until Quebec tells us its intentions.
At no time, and I challenge anyone to find any proof to the contrary, did I say that the deportation orders would not be respected. However, at the request of Quebec, we did agree to postpone their application.
After Quebec informs us of its decision, and the deadline is this evening, we shall proceed, as we must, to apply the deportation orders.


MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, we can now see for ourselves that the apparent generosity of the Minister of Employment and Immigration was rather short-lasting. It lasted only long enough to buy peace in Montreal, and to ensure that the convention of the Conservative Party would take place without any problem.
What I want to ask the Minister is why he raised the hopes of the Turkish families needlessly. Why is he now giving Mrs. Robic full responsibility for finding a solution and why is he hiding behind the skirts of the Quebec Immigration Minister?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party showed so little respect for the provinces when it was in power that when another federal Government tries to apply signed agreements, these are the only types of comments the Liberals can make.
I had promised to suspend, and you should learn what the word "suspend" means, the deportation orders at the resquest of Quebec until such time as Quebec would inform us of its decision. This decision will be known today.
I repeat that, while the Hon. Member says that I am not being generous, I believe that a basic component of the law in Canadian society is the principle of justice. Everyone must be treated equally. That is exactly what we are going to do.

March 30, 1988
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. One year ago when President Reagan visited Canada, experts on both sides of the border agreed that, in terms of dealing with the acid rain problem, what was needed was a commitment from both countries to specific targets for reduction of levels of emission.
Instead of agreeing to that, President Reagan simply and incredibly committed himself to more research. After that, the Prime Minister of Canada, equally incredibly, described the President's policy as "very significant movement".
Since Mr. Reagan will no longer be President in November and will soon be passing from the scene, will the Prime Minister now admit that his recent speech in New York had nothing to do with trying to reduce the levels of acid rain production, but had everything to do with short run political gain for the Conservatives at home?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it must have been a pretty good speech to draw that type of attention from my hon. friend.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: On this very important issue that we have been attempting to deal with since we were the Government, my hon. friend, the Leader of the NDP, will acknowledge that, in fact, under preceding Governments nothing had been accomplished and nothing was done here in Canada. It is a transboundary problem.
Federal and provincial Governments have agreed on a national target of reducing acid rain emissions by 50 per cent from the 1980 levels by the year 1994. This is a significant step forward.
The federal Government has signed implementing agreements with all of the concerned provinces providing for the necessary control actions. We had the results of the Special Envoy programs where, for the first time, there was-and it might not seem revolutionary to my hon. friend-a formal acknowledgement of the transboundary nature of the problem and the transboundary implications for a solution.
We have not resolved the matter in a manner that Canada deems acceptable. There is obstruction in the Congress, there is obstruction in the private sector, and, in our judgment, there is a lack of appreciation of the gravity of this in some areas of the administration.
We have put forward a treaty that we believe is in Canada's interest, and very much in the American interest, for the protection of our mutual heritage on the environmental side. We have moved this matter forward, not completely, but we
have made steady and important progress. We shall not relent until such time as we have it cleared up.
[ Translation]


OPPORTUNITY FOR INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT ON ACID RAIN EMISSIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Prime Minister of Canada said the exact opposite a year ago. It was his Minister, not the Prime Minister, who criticized President Reagan last year. We are hearing some high-sounding phrases now, but no action was taken last year. That is the problem with Canada's present Prime Minister.
Since the Prime Minister is well aware that acid rain is a very serious problem for our forests, our lakes and our maple forests, why did the Government refuse to support European governments recently on an international agreement to establish acceptable emission levels for the purpose of reducing acid rain? Why the contradiction?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP knows perfectly well there is no contradiction here. He was here in Parliament. He saw how the Liberals did strictly nothing about acid rain for twenty years. He saw . . .


An Hon. Member:: The Liberals did nothing!


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, the Liberals did nothing. He is right. He saw how the Minister of Environment (Mr. MacMillan) brought the seven eastern provinces of this country together for the first time, to agree on a major constitutional document and funding worth hundreds of millions of dollars in order to deal with the Canadian dimension of acid rain. He saw the vigorous action taken by the Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister in dealing with the U.S. Administration. There is obstruction in the Congress and opposition from the private sector. That has yet to be resolved, but we have made substantial progress on the question of acid rain, and 1 hope we will soon be able to reach a final settlement.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have said publicly in the past, and 1 repeat it now, that the Government has made significant progress within Canada as compared with the previous Government on the problems of acid rain. There is no question about that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: My question was pertinent to the Prime Minister's own speech when he supported the President of the United States last year, and he is making criticism this year for what he said was acceptable last year. That approach is unacceptable to us.
March 30, 1988


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question is for the Prime Minister. He has indicated that once again he will raise the problems of pollution in the environment with the United States during his forthcoming summit with the President of the United States.
We have a major problem with pollution in the St. Lawrence waterway and Lake Ontario, 90 per cent of which comes from the United States.
Since we already have a Clean Water Agreement with the United States, will the Prime Minister assure us that the problems of toxic waste in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence waterway will not only be put on the agenda but that we will be demanding some concrete action from the United States in this field?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, among the three odd questions asked by the Leader of the NDP the third is the oddest, because it does not take into account the fact that Canada and the United States just completed negotiations toward a very greatly strengthened Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which agreement we signed-I on behalf of the Government of Canada and Lee Thomas on behalf of the United States-in Toledo just a few months ago.
By all accounts, including the word of Great Lakes United, probably the foremost environmental group on this subject, it is a very marked improvement over past agreements negotiated by previous Governments.
In the same spirit, I am negotiating on behalf of the Government of Canada, with the full co-operation of my cabinet colleagues and the backing of the Prime Minister, with my opposite number in Quebec on an accord on the St. Lawrence because it is an integral part of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the Minister's officials, before a hearing officer in the seeking of the deportation of Muhammad Issa Mohammad, asked for yet another delay, and this after 10 months from the time the Government made a decision to proceed.
Officials said that they had not managed to obtain a copy of the Greek pardon. Well, I obtained a copy of the Greek pardon, together with a certified translation, this morning from the Greek Embassy, and they said that government officials have not even asked for a copy yet.
Oral Questions
Would the Minister explain the unconscionable delays in dealing with this important case?
[ Translation]


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Government and the Department of Employment and Immigration are of course determined to proceed as quickly as possible with this case. However, when the witnesses were introduced yesterday, the adjudicator demanded that other witnesses be heard instead of the witnesses that were supposed to be heard originally, so that the Department was not prepared. The only reason the case was not heard and had to be postponed again was that the witnesses present were not those who were asked to testify at the hearing yesterday.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. The Government failed to turn back Mr. Mohammad in Spain. It failed to stop him at the Toronto airport. It bungled an attempt to spirit him out of Canada last month. It has demonstrated that it is not even capable of proceeding with a deportation proceeding.
How can the Canadian people have any confidence that the Government can handle the immigration responsibility?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, again, I think the problem is that the Govermment has to function in a system that is not of its own making and that is far from perfect. Furthermore, when we want to improve the system, we get systematic obstruction from the Liberal Party, which has been going on for eight months. Again, it is shocking, considering the pitiful state of the immigration system we inherited, that Opposition Members and their Leader refuse to co-operate and that there are senators who keep saying it will take months before the legislation is passed.


QUERY WHETHER MINISTER HAS CONSULTED CANADIAN BAR AND THE SENATE
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for Employment and Immigration. The Minister himself recognizes that Canada needs effective legislation to regulate the inflow of refugees to Canada. Such is not the case with Bill C-55. On the contrary, Bill C-55 has paralysed our system and has created such delays that no other Act could be made operational.
Is the Minister willing to consult the Canadian bar and the Senate in order to amend Bill C-55 in such a way that it be made to comply with the Supreme Court decision of three years ago stating that hearings be held for each person claiming refugee status?

March 30, 1988
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the Hon. Member for Spadina refer to Bill C-55 which he has himself obstructed in the House for weeks with the help of the Liberals and which he is of course unable, imagine-even the leader of the Liberal Party cannot manage that. It is surely not in the power of a member of the NDP to convince Liberal Senators to do the work which they are supposed to be doing and which they have done for 120 years in this country, which is to abide by the will of the House of Commons.


REQUEST FOR TO-DAY DELAY ON DEPORTATIONS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister to consider the need for consulting to resolve a practical problem, and I am asking him if he will consider a package as follows: (1) a 60-day delay on deportation to allow time for consultation, (2) consultation with the Canadian Bar Association and the Senate to make Bill C-55 workable under our existing Constitution and Supreme Court, and (3), creation of a new administrative review that fairly identifies the people who are effectively established in Canada, taking into account help from their relatives and their work record?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we have proposed and we have voted in the House on Bill C-55. The Bill has been before the Senate for six months. I will not accept any amendment as long as the Senators want to return the Bill to the House and until we see exactly what they want.
I am not sure that we need six months to make any recommendation. Once again, Bill C-55 is the one we need to deal with the backlog and particularly with those who abuse the system. Again, I do not understand why the Opposition does not support the Government in giving a Bill to the country and a system which permit us to deal with immigration.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The Maasai people of East Africa have the following expression: "When two bull elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers". I think that that expression applies now to the struggle of language teachers and their unions with the Treasury Board, which is causing serious problems for students and teachers in training schools across the country.
Could the Minister indicate why a solution to their contract discussions has not yet been found?
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury
Board): Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Treasury Board was prepared to enter into an agreement with the union, consistent with the recommendations of the conciliation report, and stands ready and willing to do that to this very day, and that has been communicated to the union.
The union has indicated that it wants to reopen negotiations. I have sent Mr. Bean a letter which indicated that our officials are prepared to explore any constructive proposals that the union may wish to put forth, and I invite it to contact officials to make the appropriate arrangements so that we can get on with that process.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we have learned today the shocking news that, although a member of the Cabinet for two full years, the Minister of Public Works did not set up a blind trust as required by the conflict of interest guidelines. This news came not as a result of an investigation by the Government of Canada or by the Minister responsible but by the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada.
Was the Minister responsible for the conflict of interest guidelines aware of this breach of the guidelines. If so, what action did he take? If he was not, why was it that the people of Canada had to count on the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada to find out about this infraction?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Hon. Member is referring to a speculative story that appeared in today's press. The report the Hon. Member is referring to has not been released. I have been advised by the ADRG that the Minister has complied completely with the conflict of interest guidelines, and it is interesting to note that even the news report suggests that, while an investigation has been completed, there has been no public announcement. The Hon. Member is raising this issue on a purely speculative story, and I think that as a responsible Member of Parliament he should consider that.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the assumption is that the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada has done an investigation into this matter. It is about to release its report indicating that the conflict of interest guidelines were breached by the Member. The Minister is responsible to ensure that those guidelines are lived up to by
March 30, 1988

cabinet Ministers. Is the Minister responsible saying that there was in fact no breach at any time by the Minister of Public Works?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly not comment on the assumptions the Hon. Member may derive from a newspaper article that was written purely on speculation. I must say that I have consulted with the ADRG and he has indicated that there has been no contravention of the guidelines.


COMPLIANCE WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the failure of the Minister of Public Works to establish a bona fide blind trust. The Prime Minister has assured the House on numerous occasions that the conflict of interest guidelines have been complied with. It now appears obvious, as a result of the investigation by the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada, that a bona fide trust has not been established.
Is the Prime Minister today satisfied that the conflict of interest guidelines have been respected in every way by the Minister of Public Works? Can he explain the conclusions of the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has such obvious information, I challenge him to bring it forth. He has really been basing his question and his argument on sheer speculation.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the so-called blind trustee who had 20/20 vision and who was a friend of the Minister was fined $5,000 by the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada because of his failure to comply with government guidelines. That is a fact.
Again I put my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that he has assured the House on numerous occasions that the Minister was in full compliance, does the Prime Minister have the courage to rise to confirm that the Minister was in full compliance? Is it any wonder that Canadians no longer trust-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member speaks of courage. If he had the courage of his convictions, he would rise and lay the charge, and I challenge him to do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


SOVIET AIRLINE'S REQUEST FOR NEW PASSENGER RIGHTS IN CANADA
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Soviet Ambassador to Canada was informed in a letter dated February 14 that Canada refused to allow Soviet airlines to conduct passenger business in Toronto and that a similar request for Gander airport should go through diplomatic channels. That came from the Minister of Transport who promised in Newfoundland that he would grant such a request if it were made.
I ask the Minister of Transport, why is he singing one song in Newfoundland and another song here to the Russians? Is his new theme song "Help Me Fake It Through The Night"?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have been asked this question by the Hon. Member. He is asking a question, of course, on behalf of the Russian Embassy and Aeroflot. He is full of air and certainly "flots".
My correspondence with ambassadors is not extensive, but I wrote to the Ambassador of Russia on February 17 and told him that "the Government of Canada would be pleased to consider favourably a request made by your government for bilateral air negotiations to discuss possible new rights at Gander for Aeroflot. With respect to Toronto, however, you should be aware that we have been unable to identify any rights for Canadian carriers that would compensate for the value of Toronto access for Aeroflot. Therefore, we feel unable to consider access to Toronto at this time. If you wish to pursue further the issue of additional rights for Aeroflot at Gander, I would suggest making your interest known in writing through diplomatic channels". That is the normal course of procedure, not through a Member of this House.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, if the Soviets were requesting landing rights for St. John's airport, this Minister of Transport would be writing To Russia With Love. "Da, da, yes, yes, break open the vodka".


LANDING RIGHTS IN NEWFOUNDLAND
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that the Soviets have also said that unless there is a new instrument landing system, Category 2, as was put in St. John's airport, put in Gander, they will remove themselves totally from there next year? Is he hoping that that is exactly what they will do so that they will then move into St. John's, like he bullied Air Canada and the Israeli 747s to do on the weekend? This Minister should be sent to Siberia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 30, 1988
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly the best short act since the Three Stooges retired.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Which one are you, John?


John Carnell Crosbie: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition reminds me of Leon Errol.
Gander airport, which is a magnificent airport, has a Category 1 landing system. In Gander weather conditions they are successful in landing 96.2 per cent of the time. That is a much higher reliability factor than that of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate.
A Category 2 instrument landing system serving Runway 13 at Gander would increase the airport usability by how much? It would increase it by .96 per cent so that it would increase to 97.19 per cent. The Hon. Member should relax. The Category 2 system is not needed in Gander. If it were, I would have had it there already.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Yesterday we learned that up until very recently there had been a serious abuse of power on the part of the CSIS in view of the fact that they kept all the RCMP illegal files on the labour movement and exercised absolutely no control over the agent provocateur Marc Boivin.
Once those allegations were made public, the Minister then reacted, and only then.
How can the Minister justify the fact that neither his Inspector General nor the Security Intelligence Review Committee ever spoke about it to the CNTU or to Gerald Larose, the victims of illegal acts by the CSIS and Marc Boivin?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on page 13 of the Security Intelligence Review Committee report it says: "There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Boivin was at any time directed or encouraged by CSIS either to commit the illegal acts for which he was convicted or to act in any other way as an agent provocateur within the CSN." He has never been an agent provocateur.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Minister does not explain why the Review Committee and his Inspector General did not even speak about it to the CNTU. Why not?


REPORTED HIRING OF LABOUR MOVEMENT INTELLIGENCE COORDINATOR
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. In May of 1985 CSIS hired an individual in Montreal with the title of Regional Co-ordinator of Intelligence on Subversive Activities in the Labour Movement. Are there similar posts in other regions of Canada and what precisely is the role of this Regional Co-ordinator of Intelligence Activities in the Labour Movement? What kind of attack is this on the democratic labour movement in Canada?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the report was quite clear. If the Hon. Member had spent a little time reading it he would have seen that on page 10 the Security Intelligence Review Committee, an independent, non-partisan committee in that it is drawn from all political Parties, said since July, 1984, when CSIS was formed, the Canadian labour movement has not been targeted by CSIS human sources. I think all Canadian unions should be reassured by those findings.


AIR CANADA
Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I believe Air Canada will be making a decision in the near future regarding the type of aircraft it will be adding to its fleet. Will the Minister assure this House and the people of Winnipeg that the very cost efficient and profitable maintenance centre in Winnipeg will remain fully operational?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Don't hold your breath.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be in a position to confirm that the Winnipeg maintenance base of Air Canada is cost effective and profitable and is going to continue in operation. No matter what aircraft is chosen as the right aircraft for the future operations of Air Canada, it will continue to have a fleet of aircraft maintained at Winnipeg. In addition, it will continue to perform maintenance contracts for other carriers and continue to seek out and bid on those opportunities.
There are 450 employees at the maintenance base at present and Air Canada is very well pleased with its operation. No matter what aircraft type is chosen, the people who work in


March 30, 1988

Winnipeg can be very much assured that the work will continue there, and the maintenance base is going to continue.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Under the employment security provisions of their collective agreement, some 350 employees of CN in Moncton, New Brunswick, will continue to collect their salaries for approximately the next 27 years even though their place of employment is being removed as CN shuts down its shops in Moncton in September. These workers do not want to stay at home and collect a pay cheque and do nothing. They want to work.
In light of the fact that CN is going to pay out some $10 million annually for almost three decades to 350 employees who have no work to do, is it not time for the Minister to sit down with CN management and ensure that an adequate amount of work is available in those shops to keep these 350 employees involved in productive work, the kind in which they want to be engaged?


Mr. Benjamin:: Where were you yesterday, Tobin?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a repetition of a question asked, as the hon. gentleman expostulates, yesterday or the day before by another Party in this House whose name I would not mention.
First, I would like to congratulate the hon. gentleman who just had a successful election. The Rat Pack has nibbled its way to victory over the Old Guard in the Liberal caucus. Prud'homme has been pulverized, and Allmand assassinated. Congratulations.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose it is a bit late to say to the Hon. Minister that he is out of order. Perhaps he can continue.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. gentleman's question, it points up the generous provisions that CN has made with respect to employment security. There were 1,022 employees in June, 1986, at the Moncton facility. They have all been looked after. I can give you the exact figures.


Some Hon. Members:: Spare us.


John Carnell Crosbie: Slightly more than 200 workers will have taken early retirement. Over 460 will have been relocated to other jobs in Moncton, the Maritimes, or elsewhere in Canada. Some 200 are eligible for the employment security and income maintenance plan to which the hon. gentleman referred. Some 20 apprentices will have completed training to move to jobs outside CN. There are about 130 people who have yet to go on lay-off status.
Oral Questions
In addition, CN continues to employ over 2,500 people in Moncton with an annual payroll of $90 million.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, you will of course allow me to say that I accept the sincere congratulations of the Hon. Minister because I know he understands these things. He ran for the Liberal leadership in Newfoundland; did not make it. He ran for the Conservative leadership in Ottawa; did not make it. I say to Mr. Broadbent: Watch your back!


Mr. Speaker:: I say to the Hon. Member; Ask your question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET RAILWAY EMPLOYEES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary directed to the Minister is clear. None of what he has said today changes the fact that starting this year CN is going to pay $10 million in salaries to employees who are entitled to those salaries but who will not, as of the end of September, have a place to work. That is an unacceptable and ridiculous situation in Canada.
Is the Minister prepared to meet with representatives of the CN workers who have been in Ottawa for a week, who have met with other Ministers but not the Minister of Transport, and sit down and come to a sensible and common sense solution to this ridiculous situation in Moncton, New Brunswick?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, isn't life strange? On January 28 CN was called before the Standing Committee on Transport to answer questions on this very subject. The hon. gentleman was made transport critic for the Official Opposition on January 15. He did not bother to attend that committee meeting. Now he is in the House asking questions about this subject which could have been asked at that time. If an in camera session had been held CN was prepared-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


John Carnell Crosbie: Am I doing wrong, Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes!


Mr. Speaker:: Just a little bit out of order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In 1986 Canada Packers announced it would be

March 30, 1988
Oral Questions
closing its plant in Winnipeg in two phases. The first phase took place in April, 1987, and we all know the second phase took place just last week.
We know there have been exceptions in the first phase regarding employees' severance pay and unemployment insurance benefits. In the second phase employees have not been exempted. Is the Minister aware of this difference, and what can be done about it?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed aware of this difference. I was informed about the problem at Canada Packers in Winnipeg and I requested my Department take a very close look, and if there is anything we can do, we will do it.


Mr. Speaker:: Short supplementary.


DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT OF SALARIED EMPLOYEES AND WAGE EARNERS
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, there is not only a difference between the employees who were laid off in 1987 and the ones laid off in 1988, but there is also discrimination between salaried employees and wage earners. The salaried employees who were laid off last week have been granted an exemption and the 350 wage-earning employees have not been given that exemption. What is the Minister going to do about that kind of discrimination?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same. My colleague must consider that we have private agreements within the company. As I have just said, it is something at which we will look.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister is aware that recent marine incidents have again highlighted the need for helicopter search and rescue services for western Nova Scotia.
On behalf of the thousands of fishermen and their families whom I represent, I ask the Minister to advise on the status of the many requests which I have made for this service.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the concerns which have been expressed by my hon. colleague, his constituents, and others from the southwestern Nova Scotia region.
In the two most recent incidents to which the Hon. Member refers, basing helicopters in that region would not have been helpful because of weather conditions in one case, and because of a heart attack victim in the second. It might in fact have done more damage to move the heart attack victim by helicopter than to attempt to bring him in by boat. In any case, he could not have been brought in on time.
The Hon. Member has been very diligent in putting forward cases on behalf of his constituents. The issue of search and rescue is constantly under revision. As we look at it in the future we will certainly take all of his representations into consideration.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. On June 5, 1987, the Minister of National Defence indicated to Parliament that he had in his possession information to justify the acquisition of 10 to 12 nuclear powered submarines.
We now learn that, on the contrary, the Minister had in his possession at that time a report commissioned by his own Department and written by his own analysts which was highly critical of the White Paper's exaggeration of military threats in the Arctic.
How does the Minister expect the Canadian public to trust his judgment to go nuclear when he hid that report from Parliament and from the Standing Committee on National Defence?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that my hon. friend should say that, because the very same report featured questions from the critic of the New Democratic Party before the Standing Committee on National Defence. If my hon. colleague had bothered to check the record he would have found that my hon. friend had a copy of the report and referred to it. Nothing was hidden.
Indeed, if my hon. colleague would take the trouble to read the report, a copy of which I have here and will be pleased to send over to him, he will find strong support for the Government's position.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board who is
March 30, 1988

undoubtedly aware of the special program to increase employment in the Public Service of members of the visible minority communities.
His predecessor promised a year ago that the 44 positions not filled in 1986-87 would, in his words "not be cancelled". Could the Minister explain why not one of those 44 positions has been utilized during the current fiscal year which ends tomorrow?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there has been a numerical target set for hiring visible minority groups which was adopted in August, 1987. This is a very important signal by the Government of Canada in terms of reaching out to visible minorities and bringing them into the Public Service.
Meetings with this particular group have indicated that they are very pleased with the actions which the Government has taken. I can assure the Hon. Member that we are getting their full co-operation.
* V *


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, since the House is not going to sit after today until April 11,1 want to ask the Government House Leader to give us a statement of the business he intends to put before the House for the week of April 11.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, today is an Opposition Day. On Monday, April 11, we will be completing Bill C-121, which will be followed by Bills C-117, C-l 10, and C-30, the National Parks Act.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise Hon. Members that there will be refreshments in Room 16 commencing at four o'clock this afternoon. I would, of course, be pleased to meet with any Members who can spend a few moments together before we adjourn for the Easter break.
Committee Reports



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney general of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, copies of the annual report of the Department of Justice for the year 1986-87.


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies, in both official languages, of the 1987 annual report of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.


PETITIONS
Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-3940, 332-4037 and 332-4066 to 332-4069 inclusive.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventeenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs relating to Bill C-l 18, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, which is reported without amendment.



COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE-PRESENTATION OF THIRTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 103, I have the

March 30, 1988
Introduction of Bills
honour to present, in both official languages, the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Communication and Culture on the Order in Council appointments of Ms. Louise Dionne as a member of the Canada Council and Mr. Rodrique Tremblay as a member of the Board of Trustees of the National Museums of Canada.
The committee found that the nominees have the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the posts to which they were appointed.



PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON BILL C-89

Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the Report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime), which is reported with amendments.
[Editor's note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[English}



AUDITOR GENERAL ACT


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-288, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, as evidenced by the seconders, all three Parties have agreed on several occasions to the amendments to the Auditor General Act which are contained in this Bill. It is a simple change which would allow the Auditor General to report intermittently rather than only once a year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour, pursuant to Standing Order 106, to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who are very concerned that the federal Government lacks a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade agreement with the United States.
They believe the trade agreement that has been negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of our political and economic sovereignty since it removes the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership in Canada and eliminates the effectiveness of the Government to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest of Canadian citizens.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to dissolve now to allow the people of Canada an opportunity to either accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I too rise to present a petition that is signed in accordance with Standing Order 106, by a number of my constituents who are also extremely concerned about the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. They call upon the Government to dissolve the House and go to the people immediately on this issue.


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present to the House today a petition on behalf of residents of Parkdale-High Park who wish to express their frustration at the Senate's continued delay in providing passage to Bill C-54 and Bill C-84, the refugee determination legislation.
The petition endorses the legislation passed by the House of Commons and describes my constituents' anger at the Senate's deliberate frustration of the will of the people.


Andrew Witer: I have the privilege to present a petition to the House on behalf of Toronto residents who wish to state their opposition to the closure of the Canadian Embassy in Equador and the hardship it has imposed on individuals seeking to apply for immigration to Canada or visitors visas.
The petitioners urge Parliament and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to reverse the decision to close the embassy.


[Stage Direction]
March 30, 1988
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to present a petition from a number of residents of the constituency of Spadina, who have pointed out that Canadian immigration law has the goal of facilitating the reunion in Canada of Canadian citizens and permanent residents with their close relatives from abroad.
They point out that Canadians from Vietnam find it takes months or years to bring their relatives from Vietnam to Canada as immigrants, and the Vietnamese Government, they say, has delayed or stopped immigration for many relatives of Canadians.
Therefore, the undersigned call upon the House of Commons to ensure that the Canadian Government negotiates actively with Vietnam to secure an agreement providing for closer co-operation on immigration, including quicker action on Canadian sponsorships.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: 1 have a petition that is signed by a number of residents of Spadina who point out that on October 30, the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) promised that unmarried sons and daughters of all ages will be considered as members of the family class of immigrants, and that married children of brothers and sisters in the assisted relative class would get 15 points instead of 10 points when assessed for immigration to Canada.
They have also pointed out that there is an unfair distinction that the Government promised to resolve between Canadian citizens and permanent residents in their right to bring their parents at the age of 55.
Therefore, since none of these promises has been fulfilled, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the House of Commons to ensure that the Government fulfills its promises now.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I have a petition from a number of residents of Spadina who point out that; whereas Canada has established good standards of refugee status determination, but our procedures have broken down; whereas a standing committee of Parliament proposed a new procedure and this has the support of the Canadian Council of Churches, the Bar Association, Jewish Congress and many other groups; whereas the present practice of the Government is turning away refugee claimants from ports of entry before their claims have had proper examination; therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board, independent of the immigration commission, universal access to such
Petitions
hearing for every claimant in Canada, and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to present this claim.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of the City of Toronto who point out that the fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, which has no mandate of support from the people of Canada but would reduce our ability to plan our economic, social and cultural programs that we need, and would integrate Canada further with the North American defence industrial base.
Therefore, these people ask that the House ensure that a national debate take place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and that this debate result in a national general election before any agreement is finalized.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of my constituency who indicate that for many years farmers and fishermen have enjoyed the right to block average their incomes.
Since there has been an indication by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to eliminate block averaging, they call upon the House to take the necessary steps to retain block averaging for farmers and fishermen, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, which report was presented to the House.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam
Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by hundreds of residents of the community of Atikokan and the surrounding area. These petitioners are concerned about the fact that the township of Atikokan and surrounding areas were left off the comprehensive eligibility list for the northern residents tax deduction.
They argue that they are being affected simply because of their location next to Thunder Bay. They believe that they are part of that area of the country which is isolated, with higher costs for food, fuel, housing and transportation.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to declare the township of Atikokan and surrounding area to be eligible for the northern residents deduction.


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege today to present four petitions on behalf of constituents of my riding. There are no less than 464 signatures on these four petitions which have been duly certified in conformity with Standing Order 106.
Our petitioners today call upon Parliament to provide a redress for the inequitable situation which has arisen by the unequal application of the Northern Residents Tax Allowance.

March 30, 1988
Order Paper Questions
They call for all communities in what are known as Tier 3 ridings to be designated as remote communities and therefore eligible for this Northern Residents Tax Allowance. By doing so, they hope to see an inequity between northern communities eliminated.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians who are blaming the Government for signing a deal with the Americans, the so-called Mulroney-Reagan Trade Agreement. They humbly state that the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada and received nothing in return, that Canadian industries are still not protected from U.S. trade laws, that the United States obtained everything it wanted in all key sectors, especially agriculture, energy, auto trade, financial services and investment, that thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened, and that the Conservative Government has not provided for any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the Mulroney-Reagan Trade Agreement.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, I should like to table three petitions signed respectively by 37, 25 and 26 residents of Montreal or the Montreal area who oppose the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchardj's decision to deport from Montreal some 2,000 Turkish nationals. These people were hoping for a happy conclusion to this sorry situation where the Minister had failed to take into account his own mistakes or his delay in the fall of 1986 in taking steps to stop the false rumours circulating at the time, for these Turkish nationals had come to Canada in good faith, unaware of the fact that by their action they were violating the Canadian Immigration Act.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to intervene with the Minister of Employment and Immigration in the hope that once more he might reconsider his decision.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today to present eight petitions signed by hundreds of constituents of my riding of Calgary South and, indeed, all of Calgary, who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to cancel Bill C-72 so that the unilingual speaking people have a chance for a position in the Government.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, It is certainly an honour and privilege to present a petition signed by 50 residents of the community of Calgary North. Inasmuch as it is becoming increasingly common to learn of abortion being used as birth control, and thousands of potential lives are unjustly terminated, and whereas abortion should not be tolerated by society except in the most dire circumstances, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to act upon the problems associated with abortion by introducing and supporting legislation which protects the life of the human fetus in all but the most dire circumstances.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, question No. 244 will be answered today.


Mr. Parry: 1.	Does the Government plan to establish a department of forestry and, if so, on what date?
2.	Is the Government committed to an ongoing role in the funding of forest management?
3.	Is the Government committed to renewing federal/provincial forestry agreements?
4.	Will the Canada/Ontario forestry agreement expire on March 31, 1989, and does the Government intend to renew the agreement and, if so, as of this date, has the Government initiated any action towards this renewal?


Richard Grisé: I am
informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and the Office of the Minister of State (Forestry and Mines) as follows:
1.	The Government responded to this question on October 23, 1986, in its response to the First Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry:
By establishing the portfolio of Minister of State (Forestry) in September, 1984, the Government put in place a much-needed focus for this key economic sector. This initiative, in part, has strengthened this Government's efforts in forest renewal and forest research. It has also helped to ensure that the responsibilities of a number of other Ministers relating to the forest sector in such areas as international trade, industrial support, employment, environment, and native peoples have become more relevant and effective in enabling the forest sector to contribute to the present and future prosperity of Canadians.
2.	The Government of Canada is very much committed to an ongoing role in the funding of forest management. In the Speech from the Throne on October 1, 1986, the Government stated that it will continue to work closely with the provinces,
March 30, 1988

industry and private woodlot owners to ensure that Canada's rich forest heritage continues as a vital source of wealth and jobs for future generations.
In addition to this, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, which includes the federal Minister of State (Forestry and Mines), has endorsed the new National Forest Sector Strategy for Canada. This strategy was developed by all interested parties in the Forest sector, including the federal Government. The strategy specifically recommends that all elements of the forest sector, which certainly includes the Government of Canada, expand their commitment to forest management.
3.	The National Forest Sector Strategy, endorsed by the Minister of State (Forestry and Mines), recommends a commitment to federal/provincial agreements. This commitment, therefore, not only expresses satisfaction with the results of the current agreements but also calls on all parties in the sector, not just government, to support a new round of agreements.
It should be noted that the federal Government, in its commitment to developing more effective means of regional economic development, is currently reviewing the Economic and Regional Development Agreements (ERDAs) which were the framework for funding the first round of forestry agreements across the country. This review will enable the Government to ensure that the ERDAs are more efficient and effective in addressing the diverse needs for regional development across Canada.
4.	The Canada-Ontario Forest Resource Development Agreements ends on March 31, 1989. However, two additional years are included in the agreement in order to complete major projects initiated in the final years of the agreement.
A formal request has been received from the Minister of Natural Resources of the Province of Ontario to begin discussions aimed at developing either an extension to the current agreement or a new five-year agreement. Federal officials have begun premilinary discussions regarding possibilities for a new federal-provincial forestry initiative. It would, however, be premature to discuss a new agreement, which will depend on the Government's review of its regional development policies, the province's priorities as well as our own analysis of the needs of the sector in Ontario.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville) moved:: That the Government consider the advisability of introducing legislation to establish a Canadian Hydrogen Authority which would report directly to the Minister of State for Science and Technology and whose mandate would empower it to:
(a)	initiate, coordinate and oversee the research and development implied by a commitment from the government to undertake a Hydrogen Mission;
(b)	consult with representatives of industry, government, labour, academia and other relevant groups in order to set an agenda determining the priorities and goals of the Mission with respect to research and the establishment of Canadian leadership in the development and production of hydrogen technology; and
(c)	create a timetable according to which major projects crucial to the Mission's success are to be undertaken and completed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I hope that the scheduling of an attractive diversion by the Speaker is not a sign of the regard in which this motion is held. Nevertheless, it is with enthusiasm I rise today to address the motion concerning the creation of a Canadian Hydrogen Authority. Ultimately, of course, the decision to establish such an authority would be part of a much bigger commitment by the Canadian Government to undertake a National Hydrogen Mission.

In recent years we have heard a lot about industrial strategies. A national mission would define a strategy and provide an approach, a vision, a philosophy. The report on Hydrogen a national mission for Canada, is an excellent illustration of this kind of mission, an example of the way we ought to come to grips with the over-all problem of economic development.
First I should like to comment briefly on this idea of a national mission before dealing more specifically with the role of hydrogen in this strategy.
Madam Speaker, we have all heard the rather strange cliche that Canadians are supposed to be levers of wood and drawers of water. There is a certain fatalist truth to that, but it is true as well that we belong to the international fraternity when it comes to some of the newest technologies such as telecommunications, aerospace, computer science, and electronics. Clearly we are making progress and we do have what it takes to be a lot more than what the cliche would make us appear to be.

March 30, 1988
Supply
Nonetheless it is a fact that a sizeable number of our economic sectors are directly related to the extraction and export of natural resources, to the extent that we are prisoners of the vagaries of international demand and the sharp fluctuations of the price of raw materials.
This has been painfully obvious over the past five years. On the one hand, the economy of Ontario and that of Quebec-to a degree-with their leading manufacturing sectors, have been expanding at an accelerated pace despite the world recession.
On the other hand, the Atlantic provinces, the Prairies and the West Coast, dependent as they are on raw material exports, have been at a disadvantage due to the price of raw materials in international markets.
All this to say, of course, that those economies must become less dependent on raw material exports. But the question remains: Plow?

The advice one usually gets at this point is that diversification must build on existing strengths, which translates into the view that a manufacturing sector should be developed which is based upon reasonably strong resource industries. Thus far the advice is sound. However, a key question needs answering.
When we speak of the creation of a manufacturing sector, what kind of beast do we have in mind? Is it the kind of manufacturing which creates jobs based on secondary manufacturing through the processing of fish, wood or other resources? Perhaps, in part. But these will not replace the many jobs lost to such things as cheaper labour costs in Southeast Asian countries like South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, with which we must compete.
Is it then capital intensive as is the case of computerized automobile assembly plants or oil refineries? If so, it probably requires that governments attract investors, mainly foreign, by providing generous tax concessions to offset the costs of locating large projects in this or that region of the country.
This strategy, rather than solving problems, really plays into the hands of our competitors. For if the over-all goal of diversification is greater local control of the economy and protection against the whims of the market, the strategy fails. It simply shifts the dependence from one external player to another. It is the owners, not the community, who control the factory's future and to that extent the local economy.
Moreover, far from injecting capital into the national economy by removing profits from the country, it may well drain it. The good thing about such projects is that once construction is finished, away they go. The whole package- products, markets and jobs-is there and functioning in the shortest possible time. For a politician who looks no farther than the next election, this is of course an attractive feature.
In large measure this is the Government's strategy. It is the promise and the danger in the free trade pact. In fact, importing packages holus-bolus creates rather than solves problems in the national economy. It may be a temporary shot in the arm for such and such a town, but in the long run permanent solutions cannot be based on quick fixes. They must evolve from the ground up, developing the strengths and special advantages of the local economy. They must merge into the broader regional and national economies to form a single, cohesive and integrated system which is given direction in some way.
Therefore, if we are serious about diversification, we must ask what is on the horizon. If we want to develop, it must be toward the future, not toward the past. It does not take much looking to see that the economies of the future will be dominated by highly sophisticated, knowledge intensive industries. Developed countries are weaning themselves of their dependence on natural resources and the manufacture of labour intensive products and replacing them with products and services which are knowledge intensive. In order to remain a developed country then, Canadians will have to make this transition.
This is a real challenge. As the recent report of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology has stated, we do not presently lead in any area of international science or technology. In spite of the engineering feats involved in the creation of, say the Canadarm, our expertise tends to be limited to the mastery of a narrow range of scientific and technological areas. In short, however good a job we are doing at working at someone else's claim, Canadians are not staking out their own territory in the scientific and technological frontiers.
Indeed, it has become a dominant strategy for Canadians to look for niches in existing markets which they can fill. In making the transition to a knowledge based economy then, we can if we wish continue the tried and true strategy of finding small holes in someone else's initiatives which we can specialize in filling. It is a proven strategy. Of course, the disadvantage is that it places us permanently in the shadow of bigger players.
The alternative is for us to strike out on our own and choose an area which can capitalize on our existing strengths instead of targeting small niches in already crowded markets. By adopting a broad strategy to develop and manage an emerging industry we can stake out our own fertile territory and cultivate it for the markets it will eventually produce. If a new area of economic development really is emerging, opportunities will abound. We need only to recognize them and have the initiative to exploit them.
March 30, 1988

In this respect our place in history would not be unlike our early settlers and entrepreneurs who created from the wilderness a nation united by railways and roads and whose economic prosperity was powered by vast resources of timber, coal, fish, minerals and so on.
Let us be candid. The creation of a new, knowledge intensive, sunrise industry is a major undertaking. It requires massive investment in research and development to build the technologies and expertise on which the new industry is based. But research and development take time. As a result there is usually a significant time gap between investment and dividend. Private investors, however, like to see quick returns on their money. They are, at best, reluctant to make long-term investments in research and development even when the sum is, relatively speaking, small.
When we start talking about billion dollar outlays to found a new industry, we simply cannot count on them to pick up the ball and run. In spite of what some economists may say, we have learned through bitter experience that one thing market forces cannot be relied upon to guarantee is innovation depending upon large-scale scientific research and development. We certainly cannot move from the premise that an opportunity, even a golden opportunity, exists in a market system to the conclusion that therefore it will be exploited. Perhaps an example will make this point.
Consider Japan's commitment to develop a fifth generation computer. This is a multibillion dollar investment which over the 10 or so years it will take to develop will unquestionably repay few dividends. It is extremely doubtful therefore that any single company or consortium of companies would have undertaken the project on its own. But in order to consolidate the country's position as a world leader in the industry the Japanese Government mobilized members of business, academia and Government and united them around the common goal of making Japan the first country to develop a fifth generation computer. This type of collective effort by members from all sectors of the community and led by Government can be called a national mission.
Canada, too, needs a national mission. Some think that our participation in the U.S. space station is such a mission for Canada. It is not. The reason why it is not is clear. A national mission is distinctly the possession of that nation which undertakes it. When the mission is extended beyond the nation it ceases to appeal to the inner sense of pride, duty and, most important, of self which sustains it.
The space station is an American initiative. Even though Canadians participate in it, we neither control nor direct it. Although Canadians can take pride in their contribution to the American space program, it is still the other guy's show.
Hence a national mission is a broadly based, government led strategy which aims at mobilizing diverse sectors of society and uniting them around a common goal. This sense of participating in a collective undertaking is crucial. This is what binds a project together and gives it a special momentum, a
Supply
sense of potential national accomplishment. As such, it is the highest form of nation building.
I think I have said enough for the moment about the concept of a national mission to give other Hon. Members a pretty good idea of what I am talking about. I therefore want to move on to propose what that national mission for Canada might be. Before doing so it might be helpful to recap what I have said.
There is a transformation now under way in developed nations in the direction of knowledge based economies. Knowledge intensive industries result from innovative application of new scientific and technological knowledge. Staking out and developing one of these areas would allow Canadians to create and to establish a new industry. This is however a large scale long term costly venture requiring substantial investment in research and development. Because of this, private investors are unlikely to undertake such a project alone. Yet there is a golden opportunity for Canadians to move out of the shadows of their industrial big brothers and become a major player in the new economic order.
To do so we need the co-operation and participation of business, academia, Government, labour and so on. This can only be achieved through strong leadership provided by the federal Government under the auspices of a national mission.
I now turn to the question of hydrogen as that national mission. If Canadians want to undertake a national mission to develop a new national industry, quite simply stated that new industry should reside in the development of hydrogen technology, since hydrogen will be the energy currency of the future.
As we are all aware, the world's main energy source is fossil fuels, or as some of my friends prefer to call it, old dead dinosaurs. We also know that there are only so many dinosaurs-


David Berger: Not in this House.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It has been suggested that certain Liberals believe that some of the dinosaurs have survived in the backbenches of the Conservative Party.
One thing we know, it will not be very long before we have to go to museums to find dinosaurs. In short, we are running out of fossil fuels.
But there is an even more urgent and frightening concern about fossil fuels, and that is pollution. First, the burning of fossil fuels gives us the smoggy, noxious environments of large urban centres; second, they produce acid rain. We have discovered that we are not only killing ourselves by breathing sulphur dioxide, we are also killing our lakes, rivers, forests, and everything in them.
As though this were not bad enough, we are visited by another, third, plague, the greenhouse effect, the carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere. If it continues at the

March 30, 1988
Supply
present rate, it will drastically alter the climatic conditions and cycles of the entire planet by the middle of the next century, if not before. It means massive flooding or droughts and drastic changes to crop conditions around the world. The result would be economic chaos.
The conclusion is that depleting stocks and environmental destruction will force us to seek alternative fuels. This is where hydrogen comes in. To see why hydrogen is so important, a distinction must be made between sources of energy and energy currencies. The former includes things like coal, crude oil, hydroelectric power, uranium, sunlight and wind. The latter refers to the forms which energy takes. Thus, electrical energy being derived from sources such as wind or coal is an energy currency, not a source. Future energy needs will have to be satisfied by currencies which are non-pollutants and derived from renewable sources.
Hydrogen is an energy currency, not a source. Like electricity, it can be derived from a vast variety of renewable resources such as hydro, wind and solar. Moreover, while electricity stills looms large in the energy picture, hydrogen will inevitably play an increasingly important and complementary role.
There are three reasons for this. First, there are major tasks, such as serving as a chemical or material feedstock, which electricity cannot perform. Second, while hydrogen can be stored and transported in large quantities, electricity cannot. Lastly, there is no other known chemical currency which can be manufactured in large quantities from renewable resources.
This last point is especially important. It means that hydrogen is the inevitable choice as a feedstock in the future production of chemical commodities. This virtually guarantees the need for highly sophisticated technology to serve a multibillion dollar market. If Canadians are the first to develop that technology, they will have virtually unfettered domination of that market. Indeed, in Canada alone, hydrogen is already a one billion dollar a year industry, fully one half of which is accounted for in the manufacture of chemical products. This means that the technology is already under development.
I spoke earlier about the delay between investment and return when developing new industries. In fact, one of the great virtues of developing and marketing hydrogen technology is that the transition to the hydrogen age will be made in stages. This means that we can expect significant early returns on some investments and, equally important, permits us to develop our markets a stage at a time as these new technologies and products are phased-in.
Hydrogen technology is already widely employed in the production of just those fossil fuels which will eventually be replaced. In Alberta, it is now used in the upgrading of heavy oil from the tar sands; 30 per cent of our domestic use of hydrogen is in the petroleum and petrochemical industries. In other words, a commitment to develop hydrogen technology is not like stepping out into virgin territory. We can actually work toward the development of the new industry in and
through the old one. This is consistent with the idea of building on existing strengths.
We are now on the verge of signing a deal which would purchase, at a cost of $8 to $12 billion, imported technology to build nuclear powered submarines. Would it not make more sense to invest that money in the development of a hydrogen fuel cell? A submarine powered by such a fuel cell would have under-ice capability at least equal to that of a nuclear powered submarine. It would have the added advantage of not giving off any heat exhaust by which it might be detected by the enemy. This could be an opportunity for Canadians to develop a home-grown technology which would render the current nuclear technology obsolete. Moreover, such a fuel cell could also be used to power automobiles, locomotives, aircrafts, rockets, and other types of marine vessels.
The potential applications of a hydrogen fuel cell to vehicles is nothing short of spectacular. Canada, which already has an established automobile manufacturing industry, could develop a prototype, a non-polluting vehicle. The marketing of a hydrogen powered vehicle would be a ground breaking effort in the battle against pollution, and consumers could not be held hostage to the threat of diminishing fuel supplies and rising fuel costs.
As for our natural advantages, Canada's vast hydro resources in provinces like Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, and Ontario provide ideal locations in which to situate a plant to manufacture hydrogen by electrolytic conversion from renewable sources. It is worth noting here that Quebec has had a long standing interest in the potential of hydrogen as providing a market for its hydroelectric resources.
[Translation\
Premier Bourassa in fact mentioned in his book entitled L'energie, du Nord (Power from the North) the possibility of developing the hydrogen market. Just recently, the Government announced a $7.5 billion investment to develop James Bay and launched a study into the possibility of developing appropriate technology to transport large quantities of hydrogen by sea.

We have outlined the possibility for an industrial strategy for Canada based upon hydrogen technology. It is still early in the game. We are asking of this country to accept the challenge that will make us not a sharer in the missions of other nations, but to establish a mission of our own based on strengths that we already have.
The existing petrochemical industry already is based in large measure on the use of hydrogen generated from methane. Some day it can be produced through the hydroelectric power that so characterizes many parts of our country. It is a fuel of the future, one that is renewable in its source, and nonpolluting. At a time when we need new energy sources and new energy currencies, at a time when we need to attack the problem of pollution, we have made a proposal here now
March 30, 1988

before you, Madam Speaker, that can put Canada, for the first time in its history, in first place, to the benefit of the entire country and every citizen in it.


Mr. Gurbin:: I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for his roundness of understanding, and for his support of the notion produced for the Government by the advisory group on hydrogen. Several years ago the Government appointed a group of prominent and capable Canadians under the leadership of Professor David Scott from the University of Toronto. The Hon. Member has certainly grasped the essence of the report and many of its important recommendations. I have several small questions to ask the Member.
I imagine that the Hon. Member understands that this study was commissioned by the Government in order to allow the Government to define its role and help to determine its actions vis-a-vis hydrogen. I would imagine that the Hon. Member knows that the Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Mr. Oberle), and his predecessor, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) and his predecessor and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) have all supported the production of this report and made it possible. The recommendations have come back to the Government and have been distributed by it for consideration by a variety of Members of the Canadian community who are interested.
There is an essential recommendation in the report, not to get into technical matters, but I would like to ask the Hon. Member to which of the projects he is most attracted. Last night I came to Ottawa on the train, and it would have been pretty nice to have been on a hydrogen train that was dumping water along the way. That is certainly something that has a lot of interest, and it would look good on Canadian National Railways. I wish to ask the Hon. Member to which of the specific projects he is most attracted?.
Second, does the Hon. Member feel that the research aspect, the innovation aspect, the environmental aspect, or the industrial aspect is most important from a Canadian perspective?
Finally, what would be the position of the Hon. Member's Party on the establishment of a Canadian hydrogen authority at the federal level, and which is the essential ingredient and recommendation of the report? This authority would, at the national level, give the federal Government an opportunity, in a variety of ways, to help influence, in a constructive way, Canada's leadership and the "daring to be first" in a number of areas which are hydrogen related and hydrogen technology related?
Clearly the disposition of the Government would be defined in seeing the private sector develop these important technologies while assisting universities and the scientific community directly and indirectly through a number of different opportunities.
Supply
Could the Hon. Member respond to my specific questions?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the kind comments of the Hon. Member. He has asked a great number of questions and has made a number of remarks to which I would be pleased to attempt to respond.
1 am certainly cognizant of the fact that the study was commissioned by the Government. I am also cognizant of the fact that the former Minister of State for Science and Technology cancelled the $10 million alternative energy program within the NRC. This was an act which was not consistent with the ideas even then existing about the potential of hydrogen technology as an area that could constitute the Canadian mission.
In referring to the notion of a mission, I should like to reemphasize the importance of it being a Canadian mission. As the Hon. Member knows, the author of the report indicated that it was fundamental to the mission that Canada own the technology that was developed. Obviously that has certain significances in respect of the free trade agreement and the conditions of ownership and control with regard to technology. We would hope that the industry would be in a position to sell technology to the rest of the world.
The Hon. Member asked which specific application of hydrogen technology I would most support. Of course he knows that as matters now are we have developed considerably in the area of hydrogen technology in connection with the hydrogenation of heavy petroleum from methane.
The chief source of hydrogen in the country is methane, which is a relatively expensive source in terms of the kinds of usages that might be projected. Ultimately, as fossil fuels run out, hydroelectrically produced hydrogen would be in a position in terms of cost and general economies of scale to replace those fuels for a number of ordinary fuel uses.
However, apart from developing the technology of hydrogen transport, storage, and so on, in alluding to the potential for hydrogen driven marine vessels-and specifically submarines were cited-it is an area that should be explored as soon as possible. Heavy locomotive vehicles, whether they be trains, submarines, rockets, or airplanes, are areas of the future in which we could establish our place in respect of alternative applications of hydrogen in new forms of motive power through the application of the fuel cell and other applications with which I am sure the Hon. Member is familiar.
If I were looking to the future and immediate prospects for big jumps in our advantage, those are the areas where I would seek Canadian advantage.
With regard to the roles of government and industry and the relative balance of contribution involved, of course we understand that hydrogen technology in terms of the application of hydrogen as the fuel at some future date is so far down the pipe that it would be difficult, in my view, to expect industry to make a heavy investment in it.

March 30, 1988
Supply
Having said that, I think it is up to the authority, in consultation with the players in the field, to establish the relative contributions of government and industry and the priorities chosen to pursue the development of this mission in Canada.


Mr. Tupper:: Madam Speaker, I am delighted this afternoon to spend a few minutes in the House addressing the motion before us. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) for priorizing a very crucial R and D issue for us. He highlighted the fact that he would like to see Canada move into a knowledge based society. He indicated that we should develop a national mission and, in his view, that the national mission should relate to hydrogen fuel cell research.
I was somewhat surprised by his answer to the previous Hon. Member that he would identify submarine locomotion as his first priority for developing a hydrogen fuel cell engine. I did not realize that the New Democratic Party wanted to develop a submarine fleet for Canada. It really was an interesting aspect of his presentation, and I am confident that Canadians would be interested in learning about it.
My question to the Hon. Member relates to the motion which he put before us today wherein it indicates that we would create a Canadian hydrogen authority. It would probably be a very useful initiative to get this important area off the ground. My real question to him is this. Over the next three years, how much funding would he assign to the authority in order to get this initiative on the road, regardless of what part of the national mission he would like to see go forward?
I thought he might have been more expansive in his previous answer about the segments that would go forward. However, 1 would really like him to take a moment to share with the House how much money his Party would assign to hydrogen fuel cell research at this point in time?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the initial kind words of my hon. colleague, a scientist and parliamentarian whom I respect very much. I am surprised that he chose to divert the discussion to quite crafty political considerations which were entirely wrong.
I did not say that the fuel cell should be the only priority. Nor did I suggest that submarines should be the priority for the application of fuel cells. Let me tell the Hon. Member that it is a fact of New Democratic defence policy, which we suggested, that we indeed buy conventional, not nuclear, submarines.
It seems to me that the Government's notion of buying nuclear submarines could have this best appraisal placed upon it

that it seeks submarines with the capacity of staying submerged for long periods of time, and hydrogen powered submarines would have that quality. The Hon. Member is wrong on two counts.
In respect of funding, if the Government restored the $10 million that it has already cut from alternative energy research, it would be a good start in getting the authority started on its job.
Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and
Technology)): Madam Speaker, I am rather pleased to join in the debate this afternoon. I am thankful that the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) placed this interesting, challenging, and important topic on the agenda of the House of Commons. I am also thankful for his putting it in such a responsible, conciliatory, and non-combative fashion. Perhaps at the end of my speech I will tell him that I have no problem agreeing with almost all the principles in his motion, and I know that should please him. I know that it would please Dr. Scott, the author of this important report who is in the gallery, a former colleague, Gordon Gilchrist, and others who spent a lot of time contemplating the exciting prospect of making Canada a world leader in hydrogen technology and of having in place a national mission for the development of hydrogen in its many dimensions.
Having said that, I would be remiss if I did not engage in setting the stage and showing a larger picture of the country's national policy and national strategy within which such a hydrogen mission could be placed.
I just returned from a week-long trip, and as it happened, it coincided with a number of meetings that I had. First, I met with the Council of Science and Technology Ministers of the provinces and territories in Edmonton last Friday. Then I travelled to Vancouver on Monday. We had one of the first of five regional follow-up conferences to the national conference in Toronto in which the Hon. Member participated in part. That conference created such enthusiasm and excitement through the country. Then on Tuesday, I chaired, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), a meeting of his personal advisory council, the National Advisory Council on Science and Technology. Then I had to fly back overnight to be here because I wanted to participate in this debate. I say this as a compliment to the Hon. Member, because it is very timely to discuss this.
As the Hon. Member knows, we are discussing the priorities of the Government. We have spent a lot of time and effort at the Standing Committee, and the Hon. Member participated in some of that. For the first time, the committee spoke of issues like this, giving Canadians an opportunity to bring the message to Government through the standing committee, in fact, the standing committee looked at the hydrogen report and gave it excellent marks.
I have said these things because the National Advisory Council the Prime Minister appointed dealt with the subject as well, as have all the other like bodies. It is not anything new. In fact, as the Hon. Member knows, there have been previous such studies. One of them was done within the context of the
March 30, 1988

alternative energy task force on substitutes dating back to the 70s when we were suffering from the energy crisis and were looking for future energy sources. All of these things have come together and we have created quite a bit of interest throughout the country.
As I said, we have also spent a lot of time doing precisely what the Elon. Member has suggested is urgent for the country, and that is to develop a national thrust, a focus, a policy and a strategy that will take us from where we are into the new information age. The Hon. Member has said that hydrogen will be the energy currency, and I say that information and knowledge will be the currency that drives the new age. He has no disagreement with that.
I just happen to disagree with the Hon. Member on one point. He said in his speech that he does not believe that the private sector could, on its own, provide the necessary impetus to do the type of innovation that would be necessary. 1 say to him that only the private sector can do that. If the public sector could do it, we would not have any worries. We have attempted to do it for so many years but it has not worked.
Unless there is co-operation between the universities, the private sector and government labs, and unless we have the resources and the correct climate created through the leadership of the federal Government, I recognize that readily, nothing will happen. We will not get that required cooperation if we continue to tell the private sector to wait for us to do it, and then we will call on it whenever we are ready to pass on some of the benefits. The private sector will have to take the lead, and we intend in fact to involve the private sector very much in every stage of our future plans and programs.
The Hon. Member recognized this readily. I liked his speech because it reflected a number of the phrases I have used myself, and the Prime Minister has used in speeches, including the phrases "national trust", "national strategy", "moving into the information age" and "finding ways to diversify our economy". These phrases are indeed in line with the advice we have been receiving, the advice we have tested against the group of eminent Canadians who came together in Toronto for three days to work with the Prime Minister.
We confirmed a consensus. We looked at the principles we had identified as being the basis of a national thrust. We unveiled the policy as we see it unfolding for the role Canada will play in this new knowledge and information age. We have a national consensus and it is being celebrated throughout the country. We are rather pleased about that, because without that kind of a mobilization of all the geniuses in Canada, and without the commitment of all the stakeholders including the private sector, the provinces, universities and the federal Government, we will not be able to respond to the challenges and opportunities that exist.
What are some of our priorities? The forces we are attempting to manage and control are changing in such a revolutionary fashion. There are new market forces in the world. It
Supply
became quite clear to us, as it always has been, that any policy would have to be consistent with what one might consider to be distinctively Canadian cultural values and attitudes. Any policy would have to be consistent with what Canadians consider their role to be.
Each nation has different priorities and different attitudes. The United States, for instance, sees itself as the custodian of liberty and freedom throughout the world. That is why the national Government in the United States spends 75 per cent of its research money on defence. Thank God the Americans do that, because they have helped the rest of the free world to bring about stability and peace for a period unprecedented in history.
Canadians have priorities that are somewhat different. We love our environment. We take our custodial practices over the wealth of our natural resources very seriously. Those are the priorities of Canadians.
We set out to show leadership in developing a national policy and a national strategy consistent with Canadian values. We have introduced a number of principles that underlie the national strategy. My hon. friend from Windsor-Walkerville knows of these principles. They are those included in the national policy which was signed by 10 provinces and the territories with the federal Government, the innovative action strategy.
In that strategy, one of the principles is industrial innovation and technological diffusion. The other is the effective management of federal resources, a principle that is not insignificant. This year, $4.5 billion was spent on research for development in science-related activities intramurally. The third principle is the development of the necessary highly qualified people. This requires university training. The fourth principle is public education and public awareness of the concept of a science culture, something which is critically important. Finally, of course, there is the principle of the development of our strategic technologies.
The Hon. Member has mentioned hydrogen as being a possible strategic technology. Frankly, I am as enthusiastic as he is about that particular prospect. We have done all kinds of things. We have not just consulted and planned. Canada could not wait, nor were we prepared to wait, until all the studies were complete and every Canadian had been consulted to ensure that what we are doing will be consistent with these attitudes and will in the end mobilize and inspire Canadians to join in this national mission. We did take some actions, particularly in the strategic technologies. There is the microelectronics technology to which we committed $90 million. There is the biotechnology thrust that is now gaining much momentum. There is the work that is going on in advanced materials.
How does that all tie in with what we are discussing here today? First, in light of what I said, we want to look at the proposals in Dr. Scott's report, in the report of the standing committee and in the report of the alternate fuel committee.

March 30, 1988
14294_____________________________
Supply
How would that tie in to this kind of national thrust? First, I said Canadians love the environment. We take our custodial responsibility very seriously. We have always paid a lot of attention to energy security. We live in a northern climate and every home which provides the kind of comfort and security you want has to have, in our country at least, a proper heating system. Energy has always been critically important and it has always been in the back of Canadians' minds. That is why we developed, for example, the tar sands technology far in advance of everyone else.
The Hon. Member says we have never done anything. With respect, we have the best nuclear technology in the world. The CANDU reactor is still the most efficient and safest nuclear generating system in the world. There is no doubt about that in anyone's mind.
We are the third nation in space. Why? Because of a Canadian national mission involving fascination with the idea of bridging distances and bringing our people together from coast to coast. That is why we are world leaders in transportation and communications technology. That is why we were the first nation in the world to have our own communications satellite in space.
Canadians have had all kinds of national missions in the past and I do not accept for one minute that we have never done anything or will never in the future be able to do anything. Quite the contrary. As I travel the world and meet with my counterparts in Europe and Asia I am a big wheel. It is just that Canadians at home do not understand that and have yet to celebrate the fact that we are quite good at what we do when we set our minds to turning adversity into opportunity.
Why hydrogen? Because we think seriously about energy security, we would like to find a replacement for conventional fuels which are polluting the environment. It is not just our own environment, it is the world environment. We hear alarmist reports all the time about what might happen to the ozone layer if we insist on using conventional fuels. We would like to replace the harmful chemicals we use in agriculture and forestry with perhaps biofertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Hydrogen can play an important role in lessening our dependence upon traditional fuels.
Of course, we are uniquely positioned to take a lead in the world in the production, storage and development uses of hydrogen, but it is hardly a new idea. I am told that the Germans are launching this year a hydrogen submarine. It is not hydrogen propelled but it is used to control the environment inside the submarine. Several car manufacturers in Europe are testing hydrogen engines.
With respect to propulsion technology, we have perhaps missed a connection, but there is an exciting aspect to all this in developing strategic partnerships and alliances with other industrial countries in using our technology. We are the
biggest user of hydrogen. There is a $1 billion market right here. We are using it for the upgrading of the tar sands and heavy oil production. It is of course the fuel that space rockets and other vehicles will be propelled by. That is nothing new. It is happening now.
We could develop some strategic alliances and partnerships to carve out that part of the hydrogen mission unique to us. First, we have lots of natural gas. We have an abundance of hydroelectricity which other countries do not have. We could literally take electricity, turn it into hydrogen, and export it to regenerate electricity. You could export electricity not just to California or New York but all over the world.
Everyone likes to be a little bit of a futurist and I can see us 30 or 50 years from now driving down to the grocery store to pick up a fuel cell and plug it into the side of our car. It is all right there and Canada could play an important role.
What is the hold-up? Let me tell the Hon. Member there is no hold-up. Let me tell my colleague that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) and I have invited to Ottawa within the next few weeks a number of people representing various sectors of the economy, including some academics, who could help us design the next step. We have consulted and will continue to consult with industry. We have a national hydrogen council which has been working for many years, and public utilities, energy companies and so on, who have given us valuable advice.
I want to thank the Hon. Member for putting his motion on the table. As he knows, a former colleague of ours, Mr. Gilchrist, worked closely with Dr. Scott. He is one of the authors of the report. My hon. friend from Bruce-Grey is one of the early instigators of mobilizing the keenest people in the country to help us put this report together. There is no holdup.
However, hydrogen is not the only thing we need to keep us on the crest of the wave sweeping mankind towards the next century in this new age. There are other priorities.
As the Hon. Member knows, we have not been reluctant to make tough decisions. We have stabilized university funding. With private sector support we have increased it over five years by over $1 billion. Just a month ago in Toronto the Prime Minister announced $1.3 billion in additional funding for science and technology over the next five years. I have already told the Hon. Member about the micro-electronic strategy costing $90 million. We put $28 million into the industrial assistance program last year. Some $30 million went to the unsolicited proposals program. In all, in the current fiscal year, we will be increasing spending in real terms by over 5 per cent or $2.6 billion. That is not an insignificant response to the challenges the Hon. Member has identified and with which I agree.
I thank him for his support because this issue will be raised again. Of course, one of the principles of the national strategy is public awareness and culture building. People are listening
March 30, 1988

to this debate today and that will tend to help. It must be encouraging to Canadians to know that when we talk about the future of our country and a truly national mission, we can put partisanship aside and talk about a national thrust in a cohesive fashion. I think this could be one such thrust. As soon as our dialogue with the decision-makers who have to make it happen is complete, I hope to have some very good news for the Hon. Member and all Canadians. I hope that hydrogen can truly become one of our great national missions.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, let me express my appreciation for the kind remarks of the Hon. Minister with respect to the motion and my speech associated with it. I welcome the indication that the Government does intend to follow up on the recommendation contained in the motion, which recommendation, of course, has been made by others who have studied the subject.
I am rather puzzled in that while I regard the issue as a nonpartisan one, I sense that the Minister strained himself trying to find some partisan exceptions to things I did not say. He indicated that in one way or other I said that industry could not do the job. I was very careful to say at least three times that the job cannot be done by industry alone, it cannot be done by government alone, and it cannot be done by academics alone. It requires a co-operative effort among all the players.
I sense that the Minister has failed to grasp the role of government in respect to this matter, which is to grab the mantle of leadership and contribute to the economy of the country as only a national mission on a grand scale can. The Minister accuses me of failing to recognize that Canada has had national missions in the past.
I am not so sure that the semantics can be dealt with adequately. One wonders whether the Candu acted as the kind of national mission about which we are talking here. Nor, in my view, does the unquestioned leadership of Canada in communications satellites constitute the kind of mission about which we are talking here. None of these things operate in areas of such widespread significance.
The thing which concerns me most is that the Hon. Minister said that we will search for some basis on which, with partners, we can carve out our own niche. I want Canada to have "the niche". I want Canada to be "the leader". I want Germany and the United States to join with us, in the same fashion in which we are joining with the Americans on the space platform, as partners on the mission, a Canadian mission. We can lead in all areas. I understand that Germany has achieved some measure of leadership in hydrogen technology, but this is not a race in which we must stay second place. We can be number one.
The Hon. Minister said that there have been some significant advances made by the Government with respect to policy advancement in the area of research and technology. 1 grant that there have indeed been a lot of words, indeed the right
Supply
words, and the right thrust. However, the fact remains that we are spending a smaller fraction of our GNP than we were before. In real money government is spending less. I am sure that there are many out there who would like to know what is really going to happen with that $1.3 billion.
There is no question that there are some partisan issues. However, I hope we can agree, as I thought I heard the Minister suggest, that the Government could, that this hydrogen mission will be pursued and the hydrogen authority will indeed be established. If that is indeed the case, we will join hands, I am sure, with our colleagues in the Liberal Party to move into the future to make Canada number one.


Mr. Oberle:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should speak more often without notes. I do not know who prepared his speech, but it was more confusing than his free-wheeling oratory. It is good to have him aboard.
I shall indeed attempt, on behalf of the Government of Canada, to take this lead throughout the world and make Canada first, because the Germans and the Japanese do not have the electricity or the natural gas which is required to produce hydrogen on a large scale. It is for us to develop that, along with the handling, storage, and transportation technology-
It is all terribly exciting. However, if this is truly going to revolutionize the world, it will be handy to have in strategic alliances those in the world who will use the products and the technology we are generating, because not even the most powerful of nations can afford, all by themselves, to assume all of the risks and all of the costs which are associated with this kind of development.
Referring back to our nuclear strategy, that commitment cost us in the neighbourhood of $6 billion in research. Some of those courageous decisions were made by a Conservative Government. Everyone in the world thought that that was what the world needed in the 21st century. They could not, of course, anticipate all of the other things which would be associated with it which have caused such obstacles and barriers in people's minds and attitudes which now make it so difficult to sell our Candu reactor.
The Hon. Member is now trying to create a new mission in energy and fuel cells. 1 appreciate his enthusiasm and will keep it mobilized. When the time comes that I need his support and that of his Party he will be standing with me.


Mr. Belsher:: Madam Speaker, early in the Minister's remarks he referred to the regional science forum which was conducted in Vancouver on the weekend as part of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) National Advisory Council of which the Minister is a very important part. Could the Minister tell us who the participants were and what subject matter was covered in the forum this past weekend?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I would be very pleased to do that. As the Hon. Member knows, we organized a national

March 30, 1988
Supply
conference on technology innovation in Toronto to which the Prime Minister invited 200 of the key decision makers in the country to discuss Canada's future in the new information age. The response to that conference was so enormous and enthusiastic that we decided to have follow-up conferences in every region of the country. Indeed, the first such conference was held in Vancouver. There will be others in Regina, Hamilton, Montreal, and Saint John, New Brunswick, within the next few weeks.
We brought together perhaps the most eminent and influential decision makers, leaders from the academia, industrial leaders, and partners in municipal governments and industrial commissioners, to discuss some of the recommendations which had come out of the national conference in Toronto. We discussed with them the national policy, the national strategy, and the consensus around the principal elements which make up these policies and strategies. Indeed, as I anticipated, not only did we get a confirmation of the fact that we are going in the right direction, but a commitment from everyone there to become involved and make their own commitment toward the new national wave which is sweeping us toward the next century.
It was a very exhilarating experience, as we anticipated it would be. I just about did not need an aircraft to return, because British Columbia, that great region which is the gateway to the Pacific, has such inherent strength in terms of our energy resource wealth and so on to contribute to the national thrust that I feel very good about having carried out this exercise there.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, before I begin with the remarks I had prepared, I want to comment on something the Minister said during his speech. He said that the Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) said that the private sector cannot do it. The Minister replied that only the private sector can do it. He then referred to the necessity for leadership on the part of the Government.
There is not only a need for leadership on the part of the Government, there is a need for funding for this kind of research that will develop the use of hydrogen in Canada.
It is common knowledge that in basic research in many countries in the world Governments are funding major research programs in long-term applied research. I recall an interview that Fraser Mustard, President of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, gave at the time that Canada announced its participation in the space station. He said that it was a myth to think that this research in the United States was funded by the private sector. All of the funding for this longterm applied research and high risk research, which will only pay dividends 10 or 15 years down the road, comes from Government.
I want to remind the Minister that this kind of program will not be launched without adequate financial resources committed by the Government to spur private sector initiative.
I want to thank the Member for Windsor-Walkerville for having introduced this subject for debate today. Let me say that I agree with him that there are sound economic and environmental reasons for pursuing the development of hydrogen as an energy source.
First let us deal with the environmental considerations. We all know that the most expensive way to deal with pollution is to clean up the environment once it has been polluted. It may be impossible to do so in some cases, such as with carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere. It is also expensive to remove pollutants at the time they are produced. An example of this is the installation of scrubbers or other technology in some of our coal-burning plants.
It is least expensive and obviously most sound from the point of view of the environment to use a process which does not produce pollution. We avoid the problem by burning clean fuel. The significance of hydrogen is that it is the only fuel which produces nothing but water vapour when burning. There are sound environmental reasons for pursuing the development of hydrogen as an energy source.
There are also economic considerations. As I understand the report of the Advisory Group on Hydrogen Opportunities, in suggesting a national mission in the area of hydrogen for Canada they are saying that we would not only be protecting the environment, we will be building our energy future by embarking on such a national mission. In spite of the current oil glut, fossil fuels will run out at some point in our future. There are varying estimates on when that may occur, but certainly there could be shortages caused by man-made disasters or wars in the very near future. We could experience the kind of shortages that were caused as a result of the Arab oil embargo in 1973, and again in 1979.
Apart from the shortages caused by wars or embargos, there is the reality that fossil fuels will run out. The country which will be ready to operate without them or extend the supply of fossil fuels will have a tremendous competitive energy advantage.
The other advantage that was pointed out by the Advisory Group on Hydrogen Opportunities is that hydrogen as a future energy fuel will need a technology. There will need to be a whole technological infrastructure to make its use practical. Quite clearly, the first country to develop that technology will be able to sell it to the world.
These are what I understand to be some of the considerations that are being put forward by the Advisory Group on Hydrogen Opportunities. While I agree with the Member for Windsor-Walkerville that we should seriously consider adopting the development of hydrogen as a national mission, there are obviously difficulties and sacrifices that will have to be made in the adoption of any such national mission. These
March 30, 1988

difficulties in respect to Canada are compounded by some of the very shortsighted budget cuts that were made by the Conservative Government after taking office in 1984.
There was an energy division at the National Research Council which was engaged in research primarily in the area of renewable energy. This division was totally disbanded.
Figures which I believe relate to hydrogen indicate that in 1984 a program was founded at some $9.6 million. The work was mainly being done at the NRC, but some research was done at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of National Defence. In fiscal year 1984-85, this program was cut to $6.6 million.
The current situation, as I understand it, is that there is only funding of approximately $1 million, with research primarily being carried out at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. In an appearance before the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology last week, the President of the National Research Council, Dr. Larkin Kerwin, told us how difficult it would be to gear up for another program in the area of hydrogen research. I would like to quote a few words from his submission:
If we were to start up the Division again, it would take a very long time and a very great amount of money. I know that there is a government commission going around the country at the moment examining the problem of alternate energy sources, but if it were to start up again at NRC, it would take us a long time to reassemble this team.
So there we have the Conservative approach to research and development. They come into office, close down the energy division, then they set up, under the auspices of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, a commission to explore the potential for developing alternative energy sources. This is, of course, after they have cut all the research in the area of alternative energies. Then they start thinking about pursuing a national mission in the area of the development of hydrogen. If that is not an example of reverse logic or short-sighted thinking, I would personally have difficulty finding a better one.
I would like to say a word to the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville about the particular motion we are debating today. He is suggesting that a Canadian hydrogen authority be established. I think it may be implicit in his motion, but I would like to say to him that it is my belief, and perhaps understood in the report of the Advisory Group on Hydrogen Opportunities, that this authority will not actually do the research but will ensure that research is done. It will, of course, need to have appropriate funding to prime research in the private sector.
I also want to say to the Member that I understand him to be proposing this as a national mission for Canada, but I do not think he is suggesting that this is perhaps the only area in which we need to consider a major project. I personally believe that in order to increase our spending on research and development, and in order to ensure that our industry is
Supply
competitive in world markets in the next century, we are going to have to embark upon perhaps a number of major research projects. One could very well be in the area of hydrogen.
I think a space station has tremendous benefits for Canadian industry, if we can get a handle on the costs, and if the Government will be up front with us and let us know exactly what is happening in that particular area. Dr. Kerwin of the National Research Council mentioned a number of other areas where the National Research Council is considering what could be called major projects, such as in the area of health care technology, which would try to obtain reductions in costs in health care for Canadians. Again, I would ask the Member if this is really not his motivation in putting this motion forward. I think he is suggesting that certainly this is an area worthy of consideration as a major project, but I do not think he is saying it is the only area.
In conclusion, I want to agree with one of the comments the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville made when he was engaged in an exchange with the Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle). The Minister was talking about the need to get international partners involved in this type of major undertaking. No one can quarrel with the idea of getting partners in an undertaking of this nature. However, what 1 think the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville was saying is that there has to be a number of areas where Canadians can take leadership, where Canadians can show the world how to do it and where other countries, for once, will have to come to us to buy technology we have developed rather than vice versa.
What the Minister may have in mind by "collaboration", is the type of thing that has happened with the RadarSat project. We had a proposal to develop a radar satellite, which in many respects corresponds much more to Canadian needs and to the capacities of our industry than the space station project. We have cut off some of the features of the radar satellite so that under the present proposal being considered by the Government its capabilities would be much less than what was initially proposed. We then went to the Americans, the British and perhaps other countries and said: "We would like you to do major parts of this particular project", in order to reduce Canadian funding. Now, basically, we cannot proceed with the project unless we get the British, in particular, to proceed with their part of it. The situation we have now is that the decision to proceed with an important Canadian priority is not being made here in Ottawa but is being made by Mrs. Thatcher in London.
If that is the kind of international collaborative effort the Minister is proposing, I would say that Canadians want no part of that kind of major project. Canadians want a project into which we can put our wits and our abilities and where Canadians can, for once, develop some kind of technology, as in the area of our space communications, where we have developed a technology and capability which are recognized and renowned throughout the world.

March 30, 1988
Supply


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Laurier (M. Berger) and wish him a happy birthday.

In respect of some of the questions the Hon. Member has posed during the course of his speech, he wonders whether I had suggested that a national mission should mean that we do not continue to encourage the development of science and technology in other areas.
I do not want to have what I have suggested misunderstood. I think we have to look back on good examples of national missions of the past to get a measure of where, in the context of our over-all research and development thrust, this should be placed.
For example, let us consider the declaration of a national mission by President Kennedy to make the United States first in space. This meant the mobilization of abundant resources and the co-operation across a broad spectrum of American industry, academia and government laboratories in order to accomplish this mission, which was the dominant mission in the United States. This did not come at a cost to the rest of the research and development thrust in the United States. Indeed, at the same time there was a tremendous increase in resources being made available in the United States to all aspects of science, as well as to more research funding and to better quality teaching of science in universities and high schools.
A national mission is quite different from an area of emphasis. There is any number of areas on which we can have some emphasis. There are certainly possibilities for smaller, more narrowly defined missions. But none can take the measure of the type of national mission that is conceived of in this proposition. It challenges the imagination with respect to what it is capable of doing. It will generate new science, new industry and new engineering.
Let me point out that in developing export forms of hydrogen technology we can even look to photosynthesis, which is the biological process of primacy from which under natural conditions hydrogen really is the first product. We can talk about translating biology into engineering, to use sunlight directly to generate hydrogen. There is fantastic scope to this type of mission.
To compare this with the contribution of Canada to the space platform is to compare apples to oranges. There is no possible way that our involvement there can have the industrial and technological pay-off, diffusion of new technologies and the saleable products that this type of mission would generate.
I agree with the Hon. Member, we must continue in the broad scope of all the deficiencies that exist in Canada with respect to our standing internationally in science and research and development and we cannot let those other areas go. This
is the type of mission that is not completely predictable in what it will require. We must have an abundant storehouse of knowledge, skills and education in the sciences and engineering right across the board to make this mission work.
Industry needs to do its job in developing its technology. This is an area in which the involvement of Government in providing leadership is necessary. It is also necessary that Government make a contribution to the expenditures that will not yield an immediate pay-off to industry and which therefore will not draw the type of investment during the early years in many areas that will be necessary in the long term to develop.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I participate in the debate today on the opposition motion introduced by my colleague and the critic for the New Democratic Party for science and technology. The motion is that, in essence, the Government undertake a hydrogen mission. I would like to discuss some of the concepts in the motion that we have in front of us today.
When I was critic for my Party for the science and technology portfolio after the 1984 election I was concerned at that time, and I still am, that Canada play a leading role in developing alternate technologies. At that time we were in the midst of the energy crisis. We were told that fossil fuels were fast running out. We saw the price of gasoline at the pumps jump almost on a daily basis. There was a tremendous economic shock not only to the pocket-books of the average Canadian but also to the many industries that used gasoline as their source of energy.
There was a great deal of concern at that time in terms of developing alternate energies. The Government of the day introduced home insulation type programs, programs which were meant to reduce the consumption of energy. Many of those programs were successful in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, on energy.
It became necessary to look for other sources. We all recognize that fossil fuel is a non-renewable source of energy. Eventually, we will run out of this fuel. Thus the search goes on.
Parliament recognized that when in 1980-81 it struck a special committee of Members of Parliament on alternative energy and oil substitution. The committee produced quite an intriguing report. It was a very thorough study of Canada's energy needs at that particular time. It attempted to project the demand for energy as well as the supply for energy into the future. It attempted as well to look at some alternatives. The major conclusion that the committee drew was that Canada should move to develop a hydrogen based energy system.
I look now at another report entitled National Mission for Canada. As I look through the report I find that many of the matters that were stated in 1981 are repeated in the report of June, 1987. Again, it presented the conclusion that we must move to a hydrogen based economy, and that there is a role for
March 30, 1988

Government to play in moving the country toward that objective.
As other speakers have pointed out in today's debate, there are various reasons why we should move in that direction. The first is the fact that fossil fuels are non-renewable and therefore a finite source of energy. We have to look for other sources.
Hydrogen is a beautiful alternative. Its source is from an infinite form of energy, either from hydrogen dams, that is, energy generated by the movement of water, or from another interesting and exciting area involving solar energy.
I have been intrigued in this field for a long time. I went to California in 1980 to look at a project that was being developed in which solar cells were combined to produce electricity and then through an electrolysis system hydrogen was produced. The hope was that we would have energy from sunlight and from water, two of the most common items on our planet. Through this process all regions of the world could become self-sufficient with this form of energy, hydrogen.
Since that time there has been another important aspect that has been introduced in this debate. I believe it was around 1982-83 that the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States issued its report, followed soon thereafter by reports from other eminent scientific bodies that warned us that there was a clock ticking out the time. With the consumption of carbon fuels the earth and its atmosphere was being filled with carbon particles that would create a greenhouse effect which would have a devastating impact on the climate of the world.
When that report first came out I rose in my place and asked the then Minister of Energy if he was aware of this report and if he was prepared to give the same grants and subsidies to alternative energies that were clean, like hydrogen, that he was at that time giving to the nuclear industry and to the oil industry. At that time the Minister of Energy pooh-poohed my concern and stated that it had absolutely nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels and the types of grants and subsidies given to the oil industry, and that he did not see the relevance of my question whatsoever.
It is true, and in fairness I must say that the then Minister of the Environment was concerned with the problems posed by the greenhouse effect. That Minister did give me some more honest answers. He indicated that the Government was aware of the greenhouse effect on Canada, that it was actively studying it, there was an awareness of it, and that something down the road would have to be done.
Since the report came out on the greenhouse effect, we see reports being made public by a committee of the Government that illustrates the greenhouse effect on Canada. Many of the low-lying coastal regions would be flooded. The area from which I come in southern Saskatchewan would become desert.
Supply
Certainly, other areas of Canada would benefit. The more northern regions would become more hospitable in terms of agriculture and a place in which to live, and there would be a shift of population to the more northern areas of Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.
There is no doubt that a crisis is looming. We can begin to see some of the first effects of the greenhouse effect. We can see small increases in the mean temperature on the globe. Every scientist has predicted that if the trend continues there could be a warming of three, four or five degrees. This would have catastrophic effects on Canada.
In 1981 the committee made the following observation in terms of the greenhouse effect. The report stated that to most Canadians the difference of two, three, four, or five degrees is not very much. We live in a country where we can see temperatures change 10 or 20 degrees Celsius within a matter of hours or days, so what is so great about having the mean global temperature increase by a few degrees Celsius?
The report stated:
Thus it has been suggested that the melting of the polar ice caps could be triggered by a mean global temperature rise of only one to three degrees Celsius. In fact, from the peak of the last glacial period 20,000 to 16,000 years ago to the peak of the warm interglacial period we are presently living in, the mean temperature of the ocean rose only 2 degrees Celsius and the mean global temperature rose only 5 degrees Celsius.
We can see the effects of an increase in the global temperature of only a few degrees. The difference between the ice age and our present period is only the difference of a mean global temperature of some 5 degrees Celsius. How delicate is the planet and its atmosphere!
We have received warnings from scientists that the clock is ticking away, and it requires global action.
Fossil fuels are running out and at the same time a catastrophe is beginning to occur. Hydrogen is the solution to both of those problems. Hydrogen is the cleanest fuel that anyone could hope for. Its only by-product is water vapour. Common sense, and what the best scientific minds are telling us is that that is the direction in which we have to go, and there is not all that much time.
There might be 20 to 50 years in terms of the amount of fossil fuels we have, depending upon how good we are with our technology. If we can produce more efficient cars and more efficient home insulation we can stretch out the amount of fossil fuel that we have. But eventually we must recognize that it will run out. Why not begin to develop something that one's intelligence and common sense tells us we must begin to do.
I was encouraged to hear the Minister's remarks in his response to the motion introduced by the New Democratic Party. I think that the Minister understands that this is the direction in which we have to go. He agrees that Canada has a role to play. Both the House of Commons report and the report that came out in June, 1987 state that we are in a uniquely fine position to develop and to take the lead in developing

March 30, 1988
Supply
hydrogen technology. Yet there was nothing in the statements and comments of the Minister that would suggest to me that the Government is ready to take the lead. This is what is required. We need a Government that is ready to take the lead.
I am not suggesting that the new hydrogen technology be entirely developed by governments. My colleague did not suggest that. But it does require leadership. It does require an organization or some entity to pull together members from the academic community, members from industry, and various provincial utilities to start creating a working group, to start developing an agenda, to start putting some money into place, to start initiating definite research projects, and to begin to break down what has to be done to get us into the hydrogen society and start mapping out what the steps should be.
I am not suggesting some grand over-all plan because there has to be flexibility. As technology changes and new discoveries are made there must be flexibility in order to change the agenda. But there must be some entity to begin to pull it all together.
There was nothing in the statement of the Minister that would indicate to me that the Government is ready to take that step and start calling upon Canadians from labour, universities, and from the business community and challenge Canadians to a national mission. I would suggest that Canadians are ready to undertake such a mission. Canadians are concerned about their future, not only the future of the country but the future of the world. Canadians are concerned about acid rain, the greenhouse effect, and about what type of world our children will be living in.
I think Canadians would welcome a Government which would issue a challenge. I think they would welcome a Government which would come forward and say: "We believe that there is a way to save our environment, our forests, and our lakes, and that Canada has a major part to play". Canadians will respond to such a challenge. However, we need a Government with some vision, imagination, and will-power to take the lead.
I should like to refer to another aspect of the comments of my colleague. He expressed concern about whether a mission could indeed be undertaken in view of the agreement which the Government has signed with the Government of the United States.
Certainly my understanding of the agreement is that it severely restricts what Canadian society can do. It also restricts our ability for public and private co-operation in joint ventures. There is no doubt, if we are to develop into a hydrogen economy, that we will need some leadership by Government. There is no doubt that we will have to spend tax dollars, give some special tax considerations, and perhaps provide subsidies. The public role is essential to undertaking a project which might be a 10-year or a 20-year one. We need public participation.
I question whether the trade agreement between Canada and the United States, which the Government wants us to ratify at a later date, will allow for that type of co-operation. My reading of the agreement indicates that it locks us forever into a society and economy where the private sector will have to do it all. It seems to me that government participation is something that is restricted in the agreement because it would be considered unfair competition.
I wish the Minister would have addressed himself to the following question: Is it now impossible, with the free trade agreement, to undertake a national mission which also has some economic benefits? I suppose we could always take on a national mission, as did the Americans when they landed on the moon or created a space station, with minimal economic benefits. However, a project like the development of technologies that bring us into a hydrogen age is different. There are definite trade and economic implications. I fear that the agreement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States have signed severely restricts our ability to undertake such a joint mission.
In that vein let us look at the nations of the world which I feel are some of the most successful economic examples. In Japan and Germany co-operative systems are in place. There is co-operation among business, labour, and government. The trade agreement will put us into the type of economic development that I would call the Rambo economics which we find in the United States today where the public sector has been so totally and drastically reduced that it is very difficult to develop a co-operative approach among various elements in society whether they be labour, business, or government.
In conclusion, the motion calls for a new vision or the vision of a new age and a new technology sensitive to the environment. It calls for a technology which can be decentralized and used in localities and which destroys the monopolistic power of a few large utilities or corporations over the lives of millions of people.
As well it calls for a new concept of implementation, a concept of co-operation or working together to define a national goal or mission in which various elements in society come together and in a national way attempt to achieve the goal.
I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to address the motion introduced this afternoon by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy). It is a good motion. I am pleased as well by the various contributions made this afternoon by Hon. Members of the other political Parties. Hopefully some day we will see such a co-operative approach being adopted by whatever Government is in power at the time. For the sake of the future of the country and the future of the globe, I hope the day will come soon.


Mr. Edwards:: Madam Speaker, I listened with considerable care to the remarks of the Hon. Member. I in no way dispute his sincerity, because I know him to be that sort of individual
March 30, 1988

and Member. However, I thought that we were hearing a paean to the new Jerusalem rather than a discourse on hydrogen.
I wonder whether the Hon. Member could answer two questions. The first one relates to the region from which he hails-western Canada. Would he be in agreement with the idea that any kind of national hydrogen mission or project should be truly national in scope and should have, at least in its first decades, two components-one based on hydrocarbons, with the immense surpluses of natural gas which exist in western Canada, and the second based on the obvious electrolysis involvement with a base in Manitoba through to Newfoundland and abundant hydroelectricity providing the opportunity to create hydrogen from our fresh water sources? Could the Hon. Member give us the guidance of his vast knowledge and experience in that regard?
Also, with reference to the Hon. Member's comment about there being minimal economic benefit from the Canadian space program, has he studied the testimony given before the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology in June of last year when Mr. Champagne gave his very strong statements on that subject?
If I may, I should like to quote briefly what Mr. Champagne said:
Canada's commitment to participate in the United States' space station program creates a unique opportunity for development and application of new technologies appropriate to Canada.
He went on to say:
The link between space and terrestrial activity is established through hydrogen, a ubiquitous element in the space environment for propulsion and life support, and in the industrial infrastructure for chemical process and energy applications.
Finally Mr. Champagne said:
There is at present a window of opportunity for Canada to exploit its natural advantages in order to establish a broader key role in space and the corresponding technological leadership in hydrogen technology and its application.
He went on to cite a number of examples of how it could be done.
Given the fact that upwards of 600 tonnes daily of hydrogen go to waste in the atmosphere in western Canada, which would be more than enough to fuel a major hydrogen research program today, and given the fact that the experts in our nation on space and hydrogen have shown the clear linkage between those opportunities, could the Hon. Member give us the benefit of his wisdom in commenting on those statements?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the comments and questions raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards). First, he is concerned about the regional differences and the regional implications for the development of hydrogen. Of course, east of Manitoba, hydrogen would be using the electricity from the hydro
Supply
projects of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and further east. In the West, of course, as the Hon. Member pointed out, there is a fair amount of natural gas. That could be used to create hydrogen through ammonia.
In fact, in the early 1980s when we were still in power in the Province of Saskatchewan, I approached my colleagues in the Government to support research which would use the ammonia many farmers already have on their farms and to do research into the conversion of that so that farmers in Saskatchewan could start driving their tractors on hydrogen. I believe that the technological innovations that would occur in western Canada in the first phase of developing a hydrogen economy could conceivably be different than those in eastern Canada, as one step in the process.
We from western Canada must as well face the fact that not only are fossil fuels running out but there is an environmental problem with fossil fuels. At this time, hydrogen helps western Canada, and particularly Saskatchewan, where there is heavy oil by allowing the utilization of heavy oil.
Eventually, we in western Canada must recognize that fossil fuels are running out, that an environmental time clock is ticking away. We in western Canada would want to see some of the development and technologies necessary to develop hydrogen located in western Canada as well. We would want part of that development pie. That is why I think it is important that we get on the bandwagon.
My colleague has pointed out that Alberta already has a lead in the development and utilization of hydrogen because of the oil industry which can produce the technologies. It is a natural lead, so let us build on that lead that we have in western Canada.
The Hon. Member's second point dealt with the space station. What I was trying to get at was the difference between investing the billion odd dollars involved in a space station and investing in a project like the development of hydrogen. Common sense tells us that there is quite a difference in the pay-back period and the application time. That is not to say that a space station would not have economic benefits and impacts, but I suggest that if it becomes a choice, and in this day and age it very often becomes a choice because of scarce resources, I would definitely choose investing in something like hydrogen over spending $1 billion on making a contribution to a space station over which we have no control. We would be junior partners in someone else's project. As well, doing something that could begin to be a solution to the problem of the greenhouse effect, doing something that would guarantee us sources of energy when the fossil fuels run out, is much more important than investing in a space station.


Paul Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his eloquent portrayal of the problems Canada and the world face with the greenhouse effect and with the rapid transition that we will experience.

March 30, 1988
Supply
I am sure the Hon. Member realizes that the world has been much warmer, geologically speaking. The University of Saskatchewan recently dug up some leaves, not fossil leaves, from Ellesmere Island which showed a climate very similar to the climate now in northern Oregon. Forty-five million years ago, there was that sort of climate at latitude 78 degrees which right now is a very desolate tundra, devoid of much flora and fauna.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member how he sees nuclear energy tying into the bigger picture. I ask that because the Hon. Member has dealt with the making of hydrogen, but if we make hydrogen from fossil fuels, we still have the problem of putting more carbon dioxide into the air, the problem of the greenhouse effect.
The standing committee is currently looking at Canada's nuclear role and will take a look at the experience in Sweden where they are in the process of phasing it out and at the experience in France where they are building it as rapidly as they can. I would be curious to know what the Hon. Member's feelings are on this subject.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Calgary for the very legitimate question he has posed. Personally, I have always been very uncomfortable about the nuclear industry. On the one hand, when it is operating properly, it creates clean electricity, if we could only know what to do with the waste. On the other hand, we are also taking such a tremendous risk for such a tremendously long period of time with such a large part of the globe.
The accidents that occurred in Three Mile Island and in the Soviet Union will contaminate large areas of the globe for hundreds if not thousands of years to come. It is a gamble. How many more disasters can the earth afford? How many more Three Mile Islands and Chernobyl can we experience? We cannot continue taking those risks.
We must develop sources of electricity other than nuclear sources. As well, the cost effectiveness of the nuclear industry is something we must now look at seriously. Certainly there are many utilities in the United States that wish they had never come across the word "nuclear" because of the economic costs.
My hope is that we can get abundant energy from sunlight through solar cells, from hydro-electric power plants, from tides, from the temperature difference between different layers of the oceans. These are all possible infinite sources of energy.
I hope we can develop those, tie them in with hydrogen and indeed find something that is clean, safe and cost-effective.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions and comments period has expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis).


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: First, Madam
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) for the very positive motion he has moved today. I take this opportunity to wish the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) a happy birthday, I also want the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville to know that several of our colleagues, including the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), work very hard on that crucial issue of hydrogen technology.
As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology, the Honourable Frank Oberle, I am proud to speak to you today about the government's accomplishments to date, the commitments we have made and our plans for the future in this vital field. The federal Government has made a firm commitment to give priority to science and technology and, over the past three years, it has been able to demonstrate its leadership in this field in a number of ways: by launching a major space program, increasing funding to the three granting councils, financing the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, and forming the Advisory Committee on Hydrogen Opportunities, on which I would now like to say a few words.
The Advisory Committee on Hydrogen Opportunities was established by our government as an instrument to thoroughly analyze a technology with strong worldwide potential and to determine how Canada could develop new expertise. The Committee members are eminent specialists in the private and public sectors. One of the Committee's recommendations has been that Canada set itself the objective of being the first to cross the "hydrogen threshold", that is, to develop and call our own the best available technologies utilizing hydrogen for the production of liquid fuels and other chemical products.
As has been its practice for all major S&T initiatives, the Government is currently holding extensive consultations with those industries concerned with the development of hydrogen-related technologies.
You will no doubt recall that the federal microelectronics strategy, representing some 90 million, was drawn up in the same mannner, in direct co-operation with Canadian industry. Once the consultation process is over, the Government will make a sound decision on development initiatives for this sector. Clearly, though, we cannot put all our eggs in one basket. The National Conference on Technology and Innovation held in Toronto last January gave us an opportunity to assess our progress to date and identify future challenges.
I would now like to discuss the changes brought about by our government to ensure that science and technology assume their rightful role in strengthening the national economy. The agreement for the first national S&T policy was signed by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers on March 12, 1987. With this agreement, the various governments undertook to promote entrepreneurship and to recognize the importance of
March 30, 1988

R&D for Canada's economic, social, cultural and regional development.
The Government recently prepared a decision-making framework with which it can co-ordinate and direct the $4 billion spent each year on S&T. It was also in March 1987 that the Government launched the new national strategy designed to ensure that Canadian S&T efforts are effectively guided and targetted.
This strategy can be implemented only in a climate of cooperation between the governments and the public and private sectors. Innovaction covers specific programs totalling $100 million. On August 19, 1987, $11 million more were allocated for 1987-88 to the Matching Fund Policy, a program that has been so popular that all the funds have been committed. It is a $700 million co-operation program between the private and public sectors to which the Government has contributed so far $378 million.
To go back to Innovaction: On August 25, 1987, $30 million of new funds went to the Unsolicited Proposals Program and an amount of $7 million was also added for microelectronic research. And on August 27, 1987: $28 millions of new funds over four years for the Industrial Research Assistance Program; and on September 4, 1987: $12.3 over four years for the Technology Inflow Program. There is also the famous $3.5 million Canadian Manufacturing Advanced Technology Exchange program.
Under the Canada-Quebec Agreement, the 6.9 million dollars in S&T grants awarded by Ottawa and Quebec to small and medium-sized businesses have generated more than 28 million dollars in business investment. It was also under this 100-million-dollar agreement that the National Optical Institute was established in Sainte-Foy.
The membership of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, chaired by Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), includes noted scientists, teachers, and industry and labour representatives who provide the Government with pertinent analyses and enlightened opinions about federal S&T policies. The National Advisory Board, the Standing Com-mitee on Research, Science and Technology and the Council of Science and Technology Ministers all represent organizational measures designed to support and promote S&T initiatives, make us more competitive internationally, and sustain economic growth in Canada.
It is obvious today that tomorrow's jobs and our future prosperity depend on our scientific and technological capital. The technological challenge that faces Canadians today does not come only from inside our borders. We live in a "global village," as Marshall McLuhan said, and all countries will henceforth be interdependent in more ways than one. Science and technology have become the driving force of the new international economic order, and Canada has also entered the race for technological survival.
Supply
When we speak of scientific potential, Canada's reputation is already established, and Canadian high technology is already known outside our borders. With free trade, Canada will become a full partner with its neighbour to the south, and not only from the economic standpoint, but also, and above all, from the standpoint of innovation.
The foundations have been laid for the scientific and technological revival that the government promised at the beginning of its mandate.
At the National Conference in Toronto, the Prime Minister announced an additional $1.3 billion for S&T, including $240 million for the establishment of networks of centres of excellence, and 80 million for scholarships in science and engineering.
This week, after the Regional Conference in Vancouver, the Hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology explained just how these scholarships would be awarded.
The networks of centres of excellence will be operational by the end of 1988. They will involve researchers and scientists based in small and large universities throughout the country who will conduct world-class research in areas important to Canada's long-term competitiveness.
The networks of centres of excellence will also help to strengthen links and intensify exchanges between university researchers, industry and government, which is imperative if we want to meet the technological challenge on all fronts.
The networks of centres of excellence will use the latest telecommunication systems, a field in which Canada has a worldwide reputation.
As for university research funded by the three granting councils, a budget of $3.4 billion is being allocated to these bodies over five years.
On the basis of the consensus reached at the national conference and the recommendations made by the participants, we have instituted a series of five regional conferences, the first of which took place in Vancouver at the beginning of the week. The other regional conferences will be held in Regina, Hamilton, Montreal and Saint-John, New Brunswick.
These conferences are pursuing the impetus of the national conference to enable more Canadians from all parts of the country to contribute to the new national S&T perspective and add a regional dimension.
We expect the science and engineering scholarships to offer further encouragement to students to pursue careers in the natural sciences and engineering.
As the Minister of State for Science and Technology announced in Vancouver this week, at least half of the 2,500

March 30, 1988
Supply
scholarships will go to women in order to produce a higher number of women scientists and engineers.
We will thus ensure that our industries will in the future never lack the highly qualified personnel to keep Canada in the forefront of international competition.
Another government initiative is likely to have a marked impact on Canada's future prosperity, because it is aimed at every citizen of the country.
At the Toronto conference, the Minister of State for Science and Technology announced the launching of a $ 10-million national campaign to alert the public to the importance of S&T to our country's future.
The national public awareness campaign is an important component of Innovaction. This is a long-term campaign involving governments, industry, educators, scientists and nonscientists, creators and users.
It is of vital importance to develop the scientific side of our culture by stimulating the intellectual genius of our citizens and nurturing their curiosity.
As part of this awareness campaign, an enhanced program, which we have redubbed Science Culture Canada, will provide increased assistance to non-governmental organizations initiating various projects and activities aimed at furthering public understanding of the role and impact of S&T.
A new component of Science Culture Canada is aimed directly at young Canadians, our citizens of tomorrow.
We all realize how important it is to inculcate in our young people, and particularly in our young women, a vision for their own future and a desire to contribute to the progress of their country.
At the same time, Canadians will become aware of the growing interaction between science and technology and the country's economic growth. They will no longer see innovation as a threat to their job security, but rather as a challenge designed to improve the quality of life.
Lastly, I will speak to you about the creation of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, DIST, a new organization that clearly reflects the Government's determination to give precedence to the integration of high technology in order to stimulate the competitive ability of our industry.
DIST will develop a national industrial policy which will stress advanced technologies, as much to assist in reorganizing traditional industries as to encourage activity in strategic new sectors.
Only a concerted effort on the part of the industrial and scientific communities can ensure the integration of technological knowledge in Canadian industry, and one of the main objectives of DIST will be to mobilize potential for action and production and to catalyze efforts.
Our common goal is to improve Canada's ability to compete on an international scale, not only by offering the best we have, but also by diversifying our goods and services.
We assure you that we are fully aware of the fact that the development of new technologies depends, above all, on basic research and on those who devote themselves to it.
During the past two years, the Government explicitly committed itself to improving basic research in Canada through the action of three Granting Councils, and DIST will adopt the same approach.
In conclusion, henceforward, science and technology will no longer be confined to a mere support role for society, because they have become the driving force of our social and economic growth.
In 1986-87, the Government invested $4.2 billion in science and technology, of which $2.6 billion were pumped into research and development. This makes the government the most important source of funding for all the R&D done in Canada.
The initial effects of the national conference already allow us to anticipate that the university, scientific and industrial communities will be equally willing to accept the challenge the Prime Minister gave them when he said: "The government is being challenged to do more, and we willingly accept this challenge! In return, I am asking what you intend to do to establish the new industrial, technological and educational structures that Canada needs to become a leader on the markets of the world."
Thank you for your attention, Madam Speaker.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the Hon. Member's speech. I also read the comments she made last June when she asked Mr. Richard Champagne, and I quote: "If we were called upon to supply hydrogen to the American Space Program, where would our facilities be located and how would the hydrogen be brought to the American astrosupport centres?" Mr. Champagne answered, and I quote: "In the short term we clearly have very important reserves of hydrogen in the west. We have just taken stock in Alberta and we have determined that over 600 tonnes a day are being burnt or left to escape."
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis):

Given the abundance of hydrogen in the West and understanding that the long-term future of hydrogen development and strategy would be based in hydro-electricity or nuclear energy, is it possible, in the Hon. Member's view, that the initial research and development might be done in the West and may then gradually spread, given the economics of the technology, through to central and eastern Canada? I would appreciate the Hon. Member's comments on that.
March 30, 1988


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. As Parliamentary Secretary, I can inform the Hon. Member that I have no objection to research being done in Western Canada, and more specifically in Alberta, since the Hon. Member is from that Province. I know for a fact that research is also being done in the province of Quebec.
However, in his recommendations Mr. Champagne mentioned the provinces that had the potential for becoming major hydrogen suppliers. He mentioned British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland. He added that Ontario could also become a hydrogen-producing province.
Madam Speaker, I think the development and production of hydrogen technology is a discipline of the future, and I believe that both research and production might increase Canada's prosperity, in the near future and perhaps also in the long term.


Mr. MacLellan:: Madam Speaker, we have been listening to government Members speak on the question of hydrogen and its importance. I do not think I have heard any greater hypocrisy than that. I say this seriously because of the situation that has existed in the last three and a half years.
When the Government came to power in 1984, there was a plan to spend between $8 million and $9 million a year on hydrogen and electrical chemical research. The spending plan for hydrogen and electrical chemical research this year is $1 million, through the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Government completely disbanded the research and development projects on hydrogen that were undertaken by the National Research Council. If the Government is so concerned about hydrogen research, why did it take that action? Why have we lost a whole generation of science and research in this country?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Speaker, I am surprised to hear my Opposition colleague say we are hypocrites. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that under the Canada-Quebec Agreement, we contributed towards the facilities at the electrochemical centre in Shawinigan, which is also active in this area.
Madam Speaker, I think, I hope and I am prepared to assume that the Hon. Member spoke hastily, and I trust he will take back what he said.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, my comments were not directed at the Member who just spoke, but were certainly directed at the
Supply
Government. I certainly do not intend to retract the comments 1 made because they were directed at the Government. I think that was quite clear.
The fact remains that the Government has destroyed a whole generation of research on hydrogen as a result of its budget- cutting, beginning in November, 1984. Clearly, the Government has destroyed the hydrogen research that was undertaken.
On March 3, 1988, when opening a liquid hydrogen plant in Quebec, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) said:
Hydrogen has the potential over the next 20 years to play a role in upgrading fossil fuels, such as Western Canada's heavy oil. During this time, if we can develop commercially feasible technologies, hydrogen could augment the existing wide range of energy sources available to Canada.
The Government's own news release states:
Mr. Masse said the Government of Canada plans to develop a long term action plan for hydrogen use following a report from the Federal Advisory Group on Hydrogen Opportunities released on August 26, 1987. The report identified several potential uses for hydrogen and recommended a national hydrogen mission.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is supposed to know about energy in this country and the tremendous potential of hydrogen.
Let us compare what the Minister and the Hon. Member who just spoke said about the Government's record with what Mr. Larkin Kerwin, head of the NRC, said to the standing committee. After being questioned by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), Mr. Kerwin stated:
Concerning the hydrogen program, NRC's Energy Division has been closed down, as you know, and all of our alternate energy projects, except those very few that are connected with other divisions, have been closed down.
If we were to start up the Division again, it would take a very long time and a very great amount of money. I know that there is a government commission going around the country at the moment examining the problem of alternate energy sources but if it were to start up again at NRC, it would take us a long time to reassemble this team.
That is incredible when we consider this tremendous energy potential. Hydrogen makes up 75 per cent of the mass of the earth. It can enrich the tar sands in Alberta to enable us to obtain gasoline. Hydrogen can be made with water and methane, as well as through electrolysis.
It is projected that by the middle of the twenty-first century one-third of all our energy will be from electricity, one-third from hydrocarbons, and one-third from hydrogen. Yet what is the Government's record? It has been completely negative, destroying whatever research was going on in this country. It is incredible to hear the Government state what it will do with hydrogen when it has destroyed the programs that already existed.
It is significant to note that Canada can be at the forefront of hydrogen technology, if we have the will to do so. There are five requirements to develop an expertise in hydrogen. First, we need natural gas, which is currently the best source of

March 30, 1988
Supply
hydrogen. Second, we have abundant reserves of hydrogen-deficient hydrocarbons, such as heavy oil, which need upgrading and can be added to hydrogen to become a very valuable resource.
Third, we need a domestic electrolysis industry, with the ability to generate electricity from non fossil fuels.
The fifth requirement is the will to develop state-of-the-art hydrogen technology. I am sure that is possible once Canadians realize the importance of this element and the potential it has for replacing our diminishing non renewable resources.
Furthermore, the only byproduct of burning hydrogen is water vapour. Therefore, there is no environmental problem.
We only need the technology and the will of Government to develop this very powerful source of energy. It is unacceptable for the Government to continue to treat this simply as a topic of science and technology about which people want to hear. The Government must spend money.
This is not a new project. The Government has cut funding from $9 million in 1984 to $1 million this year, yet expects to develop a technology.
The Committee on Alternative Energy, chaired by Tom Lefebvre, suggested that the Government should spend $1 billion on hydrogen research over a five-year period. If the Government wants to take this seriously, it should begin doing something positive rather than stripping away the programs we already have.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that in accordance with Standing Order 82(12), proceedings on the motion have expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 4, this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 11, 1988, at 11 a.m., in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 11, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers