1988-04-12

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy held on Wednesday, March 16, 1988, concerning revisions of the salaries of employees of the House of Commons effective April 1, 1988.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling, in both official languages, the 1987 Annual Report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.


AIR CANADA
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling in the House today, in both official languages, two copies of the 1987 Annual Report of Air Canada.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, considering that it is customary to distribute copies of Ministers' statements in advance and we have yet to receive a copy of this document, and considering that this is parliamentary practice and that we appreciate civility in this House, the Minister should have given us reasonable notice. It is now 11.17 a.m., and we have not yet received a copy of the statement. I therefore suggest that the Minister, in the interests of this House and of intelligent and democratic debate, postpone his statement until we have the copies and have had time to look at them, and I suggest that we revert to Statements by Ministers later today.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to simply register a concern that if the Minister is going to be making a minor statement or perhaps an almost inconsequential statement on some matter, one might understand that he might be a bit remiss in providing us with a copy in advance of such a statement. However, in this regard, I would like to suggest that the Chair consider one of two alternatives, that is, that adequate time be given to the Opposition to review the statement in order to allow us to reflect and provide an intelligent and thoughtful response, or, as a last resort, at least an opportunity be given so that there will be a chance later in the day for the opposition Parties to respond to the Minister's statement.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond, if I may, to my colleagues' comments.
Our Government has tried wherever possible to make full use of ministerial statements so that important government announcements are made in the House of Commons where they should be made and wherever possible we have done that. Also, in keeping with the courtesies of the House, we have made every effort to make copies of the statement available to the Opposition House Leaders and critics in order that they may respond to the statement made. We understand that need.
I would suggest, in view of the nature of the statement, which I am sure will become clear to the House, that the appropriate method in this case would be to have the Minister

April 12, 1988
Point of order
make his statement and to reserve, which in fact will give my colleagues more time than usual, the time which would be given normally to the opposition Parties to reply. We can reserve that time and I can meet with my colleagues to decide on an appropriate time. They may wish to do it shortly after Question Period, but I can work that out with the Opposition House Leaders.
We have copies of the statement. We would be prepared to distribute those as quickly as possible so that those Members can follow along as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski) makes his statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier made a statement about a traditional custom in this House which consists in receiving a copy of a Minister's statement in advance. This custom is very important in terms of cooperation among the Members and Parties in this House.
But we also have a comment by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) . . .
He has made it quite clear that in his own Party's view, and under all the circumstances, the Opposition should have had a copy of the statement. However, the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) has risen and expressed some regret that that was not possible at this time. He has proposed that the Hon. Minister make his statement now and that time be reserved later in the day for an adequate response by spokespersons for the Official Opposition and for the New Democratic Party.
As far as the Chair is concerned, if that is the disposition of the House, then the Chair would be very pleased to co-operate. Perhaps the Chair can have some response from Hon. Members.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, we thank you for your comments. I thank the Minister of State for his comments as well.
I operate under the assumption that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) would have preferred that I have in my hand and that my colleague from the New Democratic Party have in his hand a copy of the statement which the Minister is about to deliver. I operate under the assumption that the Deputy Prime Minister would have preferred that that notice, which I received as the Speaker was speaking and which states that there will be a statement, had arrived an hour or an hour and a half ago. I operate under positive assumptions about the Government's intentions.
I say to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Minister of State that there is a resolution to this problem. It is a problem and it concerns an important tradition in this place. The Deputy Prime Minister wanted us to have copies of the statement but for some reason outside the House that did not
work. He will talk to the appropriate staff people. I spoke a moment ago to the Deputy Prime Minister who told me that he was hoping that the statement would be here momentarily. Let me suggest that it would be in the interests of the House, in the interests of the Government and in the interests of the traditions of this place that the Deputy Prime Minister make his statement at 12 o'clock. Hopefully the statement that the Deputy Prime Minister assured me would be forthcoming momentarily will be in our hands within five minutes. That would give us the usual time to have a look at it. We could then have the Minister's statement, not delayed too long, and the response of the spokespersons all at the same time in the House.
With all-Party consent that is more than a reasonable suggestion I would submit to you and to all my colleagues in the House, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the suggestion made by the Hon. Member from Newfoundland. As spokesperson for the New Democratic Party on this subject, I understand that the statement the Minister is proposing to make is very important. It is a statement which would change the status of a major Crown corporation.
It seems to us obvious, and I think all Hon. Members would agree, that spokespersons for the opposition Parties ought to have an opportunity to give consideration so that they can comment in a constructive way in response to an important change being proposed by the Government. 1 see no reason why we could not have this matter delayed until 12 o'clock at which time we could deal with the matter in the usual way.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, up until a few moments ago we were dealing with this matter in the hypothetical with respect to its subject matter. I submit that, in view of the fact that the subject matter is now on the floor of the House, the appropriate thing to do is have the Deputy Prime Minister proceed with his statement. We will reserve and make arrangements at whatever time is convenient to the Opposition for time to respond. We will co-operate so that they can respond comprehensively to the Deputy Prime Minister's statement.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the subject matter is now on the floor of the House and within the public purview, that it would be appropriate for the Deputy Prime Minister to proceed at this time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Minister cannot understand the dilemma we are in. I am not arguing the substance of the subject matter. As a matter of fact, officially, I do not know what the statement is all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If the substance of the matter is in front of us I admit that I do not know what is being talked about in terms of what the Minister will say in his statement except that it is in regard to something relative to his portfolio.
April 12, 1988

I know the option that the Government can use. The Minister can go out of the House and make the statement, and no one in the House can stop him from doing that. I realize and appreciate that. The Minister is trying to co-operate with us. We should be given copies of the documents and we should wait a few minutes. The Government should be reasonable with us. We will hear his statement and our responses will be made in a democratic way. We will have debate. That is what the House of Commons is all about. We do not want to have a debate on one subject and a response to it a half an hour or an hour later.
I see that the statement is being circulated now. I am very happy. Give us 20 minutes to read it and we will proceed. The House of Commons will not fall because of that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there is a serious problem before us. There is a resolution. We have just now been presented with the Minister's statement. It is a reasonably lengthy statement compared to most.
As the Deputy House Leader has indicated, we follow the tradition in a most appropriate way. I cannot recall, other than the odd exception, when a Minister has not given us more than adequate advance notice concerning a statement to be made.
May I suggest, since the Government has indicated that it is not prepared to provide us with a few moments to read the statement, and in view of the fact that it has only been circulated in one official language, which is a problem, and an understandable one, and I believe we now understand at least the nature of the statement and we recognize its importance, that at least a few moments be set aside. As a result I would move that this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Just to recapitulate, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) have risen on the same point of order. We have continued on that same point of order.
Basically, members of the Opposition have been asking that they have some time to read a copy of the Minister's statement. I think the general consensus on the opposition side is that they would return within a reasonable period of time, perhaps by noon, when the Minister would give the statement and the Opposition would then reply.
First, let us consider the procedural law. It is quite clear that if the Minister wishes to go ahead, and while I have certainly remarked to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier that there is a long-standing tradition of giving notice to the Opposition, strictly speaking, he can go ahead at this time and make a statement.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has proposed, in view of the fact that this discussion has gone back and forth and has not resulted in a complete agreement, to move that the House adjourn. I have to advise the Hon. Member that there are long-standing precedents that make it quite clear that such a motion to adjourn, which in ordinary circumstances is not
Point of order
debatable, cannot be made on a point of order. I bring that to the attention of the Hon. Member.
I have a suggestion to make; that I adjourn statements by Ministers for the moment and carry on with routine proceedings. I suggest that both sides speak with each other, and it might be that by the time I have finished with routine proceedings they will have resolved this matter in an agreeable way.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments and am naturally guided by your wisdom. However, I think the whole point of this is that this matter could have been handled strictly by discussion among the House Leaders, in the hypothetical, if in fact the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) had not brought the matter to the floor of the House. I think that is a subject to which the Chair might wish to apply itself.


Brian Vincent Tobin: When you give advance notice you always mention the subject matter. That is not a good argument.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is because notice is often given with the understanding that it is embargoed. As my hon. friend for Ottawa-Vanier has said, he has no official notice of what is the subject matter of the debate. Therefore we were able to deal with the hypothetical until, unfortunately, our colleague from Winnipeg spilled the beans, so to speak.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this statement that we should proceed to put it on the floor of the House immediately, and give the Opposition an opportunity to respond, at its timing. I am prepared to do that, whether the members of the Opposition want to do it earlier or later.
I wish to return to the original point. Yesterday we saw a request for an emergency debate in which technically the person who had asked for it was not present. We acquiesced and let my friend, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) go ahead and make his argument. You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that there is no opportunity to respond. We let that happen. We are now asking for the same spirit of co-operation; not motions to adjourn the House-


Ms. Mitchell:: It is a very different issue.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -in order that this important statement can be made on the floor of the House of Commons. It could obviously be made at a press conference and brought back here to be debated.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Admit it, you made a mistake.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: But we have done the honourable thing by bringing it to the floor of the House of Commons first. In view of the nature of the statement and its subject matter, I suggest that it would be appropriate for it proceed now, and during the

April 12, 1988
Point of order
statement the House Leaders could co-operate in finding an appropriate time to respond.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear to those who respect this House as we do ...

As it is your duty, Your Honour has made a very reasonable proposal to the House; not cutting off the debate tomorrow morning or this afternoon. Your Honour has made a sound and reasonable proposal that will meet all the requirements and the traditions of the House, which is to have at least a few moments of reflection. It is not enough only to read the statement. My colleague who is the critic will want to consult for at least a few minutes. I am sure that the same applies to members of the third Party in the House, that they would like to reflect for a few moments before responding.
I have just learned myself that it is a statement of immense importance to the country. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), and the new Minister of State for Transport (Mr. St. Germain) are reasonable men. At this time I would like to take the first opportunity to congratulate the new Minister of State for Transport for his new appointment.
Surely, either the House follows your good advice and suspends for a little while, or I will make a suggestion directly to the Deputy Prime Minister. My colleague asked to suspend until 12 o'clock, others have said this afternoon. Why do we not follow the very intelligent suggestion of the Speaker to temporarily suspend and do the entire "show" at 12.15 p.m in a row.
Personally, I would like to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that it is a good proposal, but I do not like it. It is a precedent. The British parliamentary system works by precedent. Why should we have a statement first? Give us some time for reflection and then we will come back. The press will already have the full statement of the Minister. Then while they are doing their very important work we will ask any critic if he or she has anything to say now, but it will not matter any more.
I like the manner in which we have always proceeded. The Minister makes a statement and it is immediately followed by the various critics, then the press, which has an important job to do in reporting, can report in total and not partially on what is taking place.
My suggestion to you, Sir, as the Speaker and the guardian of the rights of the minority in this House, is that you made a proposal; if need be, why do we not adjust your proposal to fit the suggestion of the Deputy House Leader, and forget the time until 12.15 p.m. and do the full "show" at 12.15.
Surely the Deputy Prime Minister wants to have an orderly House. I see an Hon. Member indicating no. I want to have an orderly House. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to make an important statement, or whomever is responsible.
Surely it is not unreasonable to ask to postpone everything until 12.15.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I genuinely appreciate the words of my hon. friend who is a very distinguished Hon. Member of this House. I think that he also realizes and recognizes that when a statement is made it usually sets in motion a number of other activities and events so that it can be properly explained to the public at large.
I notice that Hon. Members were talking about 12 o'clock. The statement is before the respective Members now. Perhaps if I have a chance to explain it and elaborate as they follow through, it will be helpful to them in terms of responding. I submit that perhaps by the time I am finished it will in fact be 12 o'clock. With the very articulate and comprehensive explanation that I would provide to the House and the elaboration of some of the things contained in the statement, I think that Hon. Members will be much more enlightened and be able to respond more effectively.
As has been pointed out, as a Government we have made use of ministerial statements on many occasions. We believe that Parliament is where major and important statements should be made. There have been times when it has been absolutely impossible to get the notices to individual Members.
You and I, Mr. Speaker, have been around this House for a long time and have served in opposition. I can recall on many occasions that we were given an advance copy of a statement, or sometimes not even an advance copy of a statement, simply notice; perhaps at five or ten minutes to the hour, or during Question Period we would receive a copy of the statement and we would have to adjust our minds to responding to that statement.


Marcel Prud'homme: It was wrong then.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, it was wrong. In all deference to my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), I think he would agree that we as a Government have tried to improve that situation.
I have to say to the Hon. Member opposite that the decision was only concluded by Cabinet this morning. It was impossible to give notice at a much earlier stage. I regret it very much. It is not my pattern, it is not my tradition, and it is not my custom. It is not our Government's tradition. I explained to the Hon. House Leader of the New Democratic Party, and I tried to explain to the hon. critic, my friend who represents his province so eloquently and the transport industry so well. I tried to make that explanation. I am not attempting to use the House of Commons in a callous fashion. I regret it very much, and I apologize to Hon. Members. I hope that with the fullness of time and the appropriateness of the statement that I. am going to make they will understand and be in a position within 15 or 20 minutes to respond. I know that they will respond with vigour, conviction, and in a comprehensive manner.
April 12, 1988


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has indicated that he plans to proceed regardless of the suggestion made by yourself or by others in this House in terms of a more businesslike manner in which to proceed.
I do wish to indicate clearly that I take exception to the position taken by the Hon. Deputy House Leader when he blames this debacle on the Member from Winnipeg. The Government has obviously made a gross error in bungling even the introduction of this major announcement, and it is a major announcement.
If this is the manner in which the Government plans to introduce this major change in government policy, God help us in terms of what that change will actually result in.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I too am disappointed that the Government has decided not to wait until 12 or 12.15 p.m., which would have been in the spirit of reform that we were told was introduced in this place, along with respect for members of all Parties who do not sit on the cabinet benches. I am sure my friend from British Columbia, although he has only recently arrived on the cabinet benches, is outraged, but is compelled by his cabinet solidarity to sit and say nothing.
Let me say to the Deputy Prime Minister that we hope this does not happen again. As I listened over the last 20 minutes of debate which Your Honour has wisely allowed, I have hardly had time to read the full 10 pages of the statement.
However, because Your Honour allowed this debate so that important points could be made, I nevertheless was able to focus on the important points being made and on the 10 page document.
With regret I now sit down and await the Minister's statement. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, if you know what I mean.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear one other Member on this point of order. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Government have considered that this is a very serious decision which they are about to announce. I am also wondering whether the Government has considered the impact of this statement, in particular on the stock markets. This is a matter which will result in the privatization of a significant portion-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. He may well have a very important point, but it is beyond the point of order we are discussing.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a personal point of privilege. I did not want to raise the issue, but since the NDP House Leader raised it, I hope the Government will have the
Point of order
French copies available to all of us at this time, so that some members of my caucus who cannot work in the English language could follow and possibly read the document as soon as possible. Make it a practice, please.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point. I was unaware of that.

I can assure you I was entirely unaware of the fact that no French copy is available for my colleague who wishes to take part in this debate. I think that is really going too far, Mr. Speaker. I know the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mazankowski). I know he is a reasonable man. I am sure he would agree to postpone his statement until 12.15 p.m. We are not asking for the moon!

May I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that we are now entering what perhaps will be the longest 12 weeks in a row since I have sat in Parliament. There will be no adjournment, nothing.
I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister knows that he will get my total co-operation if I could at times cool the atmosphere. However, it is going to be a hell of a long 12 weeks in the House, and this is not the way to proceed today.
It is a major announcement. We do not even have the French text. Mr. Speaker, you know that I am always sensitive when we talk about French and English.

But we don't even have the French copy. We cannot proceed at this time. Mr. Speaker, I suggest you make a special appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister and have the speech postponed. It is already 11.45 a.m.. Soon it will be noon, and we might go on talking until 12.15 p.m. Please try and show some cooperation. We aren't asking for the moon.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member on a very short intervention.


John V. Nunziata: This is not the first time the Government has introduced matters in the House without having the document in both official languages, at a time when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government are critical of what is happening in the Province of Saskatchewan where minority language rights-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry about this because, as I said before, we have a tradition in this House of co-operation among the Parties and it includes giving the Opposition advance copies of Ministers' statements. Apparently, today

April 12, 1988
Statements by Ministers
that was not feasible. I listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister's statement.

I have made a suggestion which might resolve both complaints, that is, insufficient notice and the difficulty of not having a copy of the statement in our other official language.
I have listened very carefully to all Eton. Members, but I hope the Elouse will bear with me when I say that, strictly speaking and under the rules of this place, I cannot unilaterally intervene. The Eton. Minister has the right at this time to make the statement.


AIR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Elon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I refer to the comments of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I have apologized to him, and I want to assure him, although we did not have a copy in French, that copies are being sent to him right now. This is certainly not to be construed as an affront to him personally, or as an affront to my good friend the Deputy House Leader of the Liberal Party. I have tried to explain and I will continue to try to explain the reason for it. However, as I have said, we have made it a practice of trying to make as many statements in the House as outside the House. Quite frankly, according to past traditions, a statement of this nature would not have been made in the House; it would have been made outside the House.
I can assure Hon. Members that there will be lots of opportunity for debate. We are making a statement of government intentions, and I would hope Hon. Members would take it in that light.
I respect your tolerance and patience, Mr. Speaker, and I say to my hon. friends opposite that I appreciate their understanding, even though I know that if I were over there I would probably be doing the same. There is that understanding, and I guess it is one of the advantages of having had the opportunity to serve on both sides of the House, something which the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has not experienced and probably never will. Notwithstanding, I respect him as a colleague and as a friend. He always adds a lot of spice and vigour to debate in the House of Commons. I want to apologize to him as well for this misfortune. Hopefully he will understand and, as I go through the statement, he will recognize the importance of it and the implications.
My colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), tabled just a few moments ago the 1987 annual report of Air Canada. As one who has had the honour of serving as Canada's Minister of Transport, I have had the responsibility
of being accountable to the House for Air Canada. I am thus particularly aware of the pride and expertise required of Air Canada's more than 22,000 employees necessary to achieve yet another successful year in providing safe and efficient air services to Canadians.
Air Canada's accomplishments are all the more impressive when the strong and competitive nature of the Canadian airline industry is considered. Air Canada has not operated under the protection of government regulation for several years. Indeed, the entire industry responded admirably to the inevitability of a freer market environment long before the National Transportation Act was passed.
Regulatory reform has increased competition and resulted in better service to all Canadians, whether through the three national airlines or the extensive and growing network of regional and local carriers which has provided better and more frequent service to many Canadian communities, particularly in the outer regions.
Rather than competing for a static, regulated market, Canada's airlines are now expanding the market by providing better service across Canada through innovation and efficiency. They are striving to meet the needs of the travelling public rather than the needs of a regulatory agency.
All airlines, including Air Canada, continue to serve important public purposes, but complete Crown ownership is not necessary to carry this out. In fact, the reverse may be true.
As Air Canada prepares itself for the 1990s, major new investments will be required. Air Canada must be able to make its own financial and capital decisions to remain and develop as a world-class airline company. Air Canada needs the same opportunities as its competitors to get the investment dollars it must have to grow. This morning the Cabinet committee of Planning and Priorities reviewed this matter and we have reached a decision.
[ Translation]
Therefore, the Government has decided to allow Air Canada the freedom and financial options it needs to grow and continue to serve Canadians-while remaining Canadian-owned and controlled.
Consequently, legislation will be introduced shortly to permit all Canadians, but particularly Air Canada employees, to participate directly in the ownership of this internationally respected and successful airline.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The legislation will permit the transfer of all Air Canada shares to the public. Once the legislation is passed, appropriate financial regulatory steps are taken, and market conditions permit, the Board of Directors of Air
April 12, 1988

Canada will be asked initially to offer a treasury issue to all Canadians. On completion of this initial offering the Government's holding will be reduced to no less than 55 per cent of the shares of Air Canada.
In January of 1985 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that while Air Canada was not for sale at that time "There may be some persuasive arguments in the case of Air Canada that some people can make in regard to the disposition of equity. I'll take a look at it, but Canada needs a national airline".
The policy announced today is fully consistent with the Prime Minister's statement to ensure the existence of a national airline while allowing for the disposition of equity so as to attract new capital which is clearly required.
Since that statement was made some three years ago we have taken a careful and exhaustive look at the industry and at Air Canada, and indeed there are persuasive arguments for taking this initiative at this time. Canada has now not one national airline but three. The results of regulatory reform and the passage of the National Transportation Act have created a new environment and with it a stable, viable, and very competitive airline industry in Canada.
In 1988, partly due to the policies of the Government and largely due to the remarkable success stories of the employees of Air Canada and its competitors, both Air Canada and the industry are ready. Indeed, blind devotion to state enterprises would be the only possible reason for not proceeding at this time. Government should not jeopardize the airline's future by denying it the chance it wants and has earned, after 51 years in the public sector, to fly independently.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: While full details of this initiative will be contained in the legislation and will be developed by the Board of Air Canada over the coming months, I wish to inform the House further today of a few of the most important provisions under which this initiative will proceed.
First, Air Canada will be directed to use innovative new approaches to ensure that as many Canadians as possible will have the opportunity to participate in the ownership of the airline. Second, an employee share purchase plan will be established and financed by Air Canada and will be ready at the time of the initial offering. Third, no individual shareholder will be permitted to own over 10 per cent of the publicly issued shares.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: B.C.-BCRIC all over again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I know my socialist friends across the way don't like private enterprise except in Oshawa.
Fourth, cumulative foreign ownership will be subject to a restriction of 25 per cent of the publicly issued shares. Fifth, the Minister responsible for privatization will retain the Government's shareholding but will not intervene in Air
Statements by Ministers
Canada's commercial decisions. Sixth, the Government will instruct the Chairman of Air Canada's Board of Directors to vote its shares in accordance with the majority of the public shareholders. Therefore, it will be clearly an arm's length relationship.
The major operational and overhaul centres which have been built up over the years in Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg are sources of great pride for Air Canada and fundamental to the success of this airline. No centres will be degraded. The overhaul base in Winnipeg will continue as a prominent and integral function of Air Canada and an aircraft fleet will continue to be maintained there. These centres which have been built up over the years will be continued as the airline builds for the future in the new market-driven environment.
The provisions of the legislation and/or the articles of incorporation of the new company will ensure that the location of the corporate headquarters remains in Montreal, that the requirement that Air Canada provide services in both official languages consistent with the Official Fanguages Act will be maintained, as well as adherence to the Employment Equity Act. Air Canada employees can be assured, furthermore, that Air Canada policies such as those governing salaries, pensions, benefits, relationship with unionized workforce, official languages, and employment equity will be continued.
Of course, the National Transportation Act will continue to give the Government complete jurisdiction over critical areas such as safety and security, our first priorities in setting any transportation policy.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the privilege to announce the Government's decision with respect to the future of Air Canada.

It marks the ultimate success in the 51 year history of Air Canada. From a modest beginning it has grown to a vibrant, optimistic, and promising company of 22,000 employees, employees eager and capable of taking on the challenge of the 1990s in direct partnership with Canadians without Government in the middle.
I can think of no more appropriate way to conclude my statement than to quote Air Canada's own invitation to all Canadians to "share our tomorrows".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I should inform the House that I am advised that if under the circumstances representatives of the opposition Parties wish more time, the Government is in agreement with that. I take some guidance from the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to respond now and, of course, reserve

April 12, 1988
Statements by Ministers
the right to examine this statement in more detail by bringing out a huge fan to blow away the smoke, and by bringing out a construction crew to fold down the mirrors in order to ensure that we see the statement for just what it is.
We have a saying in the Province of Newfoundland. Of course, it is known across the country. It is frequently used in Newfoundland, namely, belling the cat when people try to present themselves as being all things to every special interest group. In addition it has been said that you cannot be half pregnant. The Government is today trying desperately hard to be half pregnant on the question of in respect of Air Canada and Air Canada's role within the country and within the country's transportation needs.
The most incredible thing in the statement of the Minister is that on the one hand he tells us that Air Canada needs to be privatized because it has reached a certain point in its existence and evolution where only privatization will allow it to be successful. On the other hand he spent some minutes in his statement telling us what a wonderful airline it was, that it is a leader in the world. In fact, Air Canada was the recipient only a few years ago of a major international award recognizing its contribution to airline travel in this country.
On the one hand, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) is telling the people of Canada not to worry, Air Canada will continue its important public policy role. On the other hand, this Minister assures us that when we pass over the shares, it will be at arm's length. The Government will not tell the board of directors what to do. It will be entirely in the hands of the private sector. It will run this airline. Before he can draw another breath, he is again assuring us that the public purpose, the public policy and the public need will be looked after.
By now Canadians are wondering how we will identify what the public need is, and then ensure that that public need and purpose is fulfilled, when in the same breath we say it will be at arm's length, we will have nothing to do with it, the private sector will run it. Is the Minister really saying that Air Canada's public purpose will be fulfilled as determined by the private sector? That kind of a public purpose as determined by the private sector is far and away different from what may be the public purpose, the needs of the people of Canada as determined by the Parliament of Canada.
Let us examine the most blatant contradiction in the Minister's statement. It was a very interesting one. The statement that was made today was extremely sensitive when it was drafted. It was tailored to the fact that there is an election in Manitoba. In the written copy of the Minister's statement, there are a couple of summary pages, and I find this amusing. These are pages seven and eight in English and later pages in French. Let us examine what the Minister tells us. It is a delight to be here. We do not need any more preparation time.
The Minister tells us first that the Minister responsible for privatization will retain the Government's shareholding. The
Government will retain 55 per cent after the first offering. In the first offering 45 per cent of the shares will be privatized. The Minister says that while we are a majority shareholder, the Minister responsible for privatization will hold those shares but will not intervene in Air Canada's commercial decisions. Did everyone hear that? That is qualifier number one.
What is qualifier number two? The Minister says that the Government will instruct the chairman of Air Canada's board of directors, the government-appointed chairman, to vote his shares in accordance with the majority of public shareholders. The chairman of the board who works for the Government and will continue to have 55 per cent of the shares will be told that he is to vote in accordance with what the 45 per cent of the shares that have been privatized are saying.
Number one, we will not exercise our majority position. Number two, our guy on the board will vote with the private sector which holds the minority position. That is qualifier number two. Do we all have that?
Now what is the next incredible thing the Minister says? The Minister then says that he wants to assure us that Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg are sources of great pride to Air Canada. Maintenance bases have been built up in those areas and all three of those bases will be continued. He goes on to say that they will be continued as the airline builds for the future in the new market-driven environment, and this was for the Manitoba election, that the Winnipeg overhaul base will continue as a prominent and integral function of Air Canada and Air Canada's fleet will continue to be maintained there.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), in good conscience, stand in the House and set out conditions which make it clear that the Government will no longer have any say in the operation of Air Canada, yet make clear that the minority shareholder, the privatized shares, will be running the show; that it will be a clear arm's-length relationship in the one breath and in the very next breath, for political purposes, tell the people of Manitoba not to worry because the base will be continued? The Minister cannot make that statement, and he knows it.
That is what I mean when I say that this Deputy Prime Minister is attempting a very difficult proposition today, which no one has yet managed, and that is to be half pregnant. The Deputy Prime Minister cannot assure the people of Manitoba who are in the middle of an election campaign and for whom this statement was crafted-the smoke and mirrors will disappear on April 26, the date of the election-that they will have the maintenance base, the many jobs and the technology in that regional centre, when he told them in his previous breath that it is the private sector, at arm's length from the Government, that will determine the future of this airline. He cannot have it both ways.
I say that what the Minister is really telling the people of Manitoba-or for that matter, the people of Toronto, the people of Montreal and the people of Stephenville, Newfoundland, from where I come, a place that now has an Air Canada
April 12, 1988

jet service-is that he does not know what commercial decisions will be made in the future. What he does know is that whatever the nature of those decisions will be, the Government will no longer have the ability to interfere. The Government will no longer have the ability to intervene, to give guidance or to ensure that an airline built with the dollars of the taxpayers of Canada to serve the country from British Columbia to Newfoundland will continue to serve on that basis.
This airline will operate on the principle of the bottom line, even though the taxpayers, having built this airline over 50 years, retain a majority of the shares. That is what being half pregnant means. That is why people who attempt that kind of proposition have no credibility and cannot be taken seriously.
I say to the Deputy Prime Minister, a gentleman to whom I normally listen attentively, a gentleman who is normally a straight shooter, that his attempt to qualify the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on the future of Air Canada, by saying that what the Prime Minister really said was that Air Canada would be sold at an appropriate moment, as we say in Newfoundland, takes all the nerve of a toothache. That would need the face of a robber's horse, and of course we know what part of the robber's horse we see when it is running away, and it is not the part that has the bit in its mouth.
To say that the Prime Minister did not make a clear statement on Air Canada is to defy the facts and the record. The Globe and Mail of January 15, 1985, ran a big banner headline reading: "PM says CBC, Air Canada not for sale". It did not say that the PM said that Air Canada might be for sale, may be for sale, could be for sale or shall be for sale. It said that Air Canada is not for sale.
The Deputy Prime Minister stood up today to tell the House of Commons, and through the House of Commons the people of Canada, that this is a part of the Prime Minister's master plan. I say to the Prime Minister that there really is no Santa Claus either. He will figure that out one of these days.
On January 15, 1985 the Prime Minister said that some people want to buy the CBC but the CBC is not for sale and Air Canada is not for sale. That is what the Prime Minister said. Today, we have once again discovered the value of the Prime Minister's word and the Prime Minister's favourite expression, "sacred". He says that aeroplanes are sacred instruments of travel, that the House of Commons is a sacred instrument of communication and that promises are sacred commitments to the people in the land where they live. We found out that that sacred trust is not worth the paper The Globe and Mail printed it on.
The Deputy Prime Minister today has come here with a policy that is in direct contradiction with the assurance that no less a person than the Prime Minister of Canada gave Canadians on the future of their national airline. That cannot be wishy-washied or shilly-shallied away by a few choice phrases on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister here today.
Statements by Ministers
One wonders about competence. The Government cannot even bring in a statement today with the normal, traditional, courteous advance notice to the Opposition. It cannot even manage to avoid that kind of a crisis. That Government will now try to manage the privatization of Air Canada. That would lead one to be very worried about the Government's plan.
The Government has announced today that in the first issue of shares 45 per cent of the shares of Air Canada will be sold, with the intention being, I suppose, because it is not clear, that there will be a second share issue following which 100 per cent of the shares of Air Canada will have been sold. The Minister stands in his place, puffs out his chest and lowers his voice, much like his seat-mate to the right, the Prime Minister, does from time to time, and then he says that this means that Canadians will be able to own Air Canada. Have you ever heard such a bit of double-speak in all your life, Mr. Speaker? Who do you think owns Air Canada right now, the Shah of Iran? Canadians own Air Canada.
The Minister tells us that we have entered into an environment of deregulation, a brand new day for Canada. It reminds me of the words we heard during the last election campaign, "inflicting prosperity on the nation". In Atlantic Canada they are not calling it an infliction, they are calling it an affliction.
In this new day of deregulation, the Deputy Prime Minister says that we now have three national airlines. I like Max Ward. I think he is a dynamic fellow. I think he is going places. I think he is a great Canadian entrepreneur. I think he has done exciting things for the airline industry. However, not even Max Ward, in the middle of his fantasies between the hours of 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. prior to waking, would describe Wardair as a third national airline. That may be where he is attempting to go and, God bless him, we wish him well. We hope he gets there. However, Wardair is not a national airline. There are two national airlines. One is Canadian International and the other is Air Canada. In the deregulated environment that we have lived in for the last two and a half or three years the airline industry in Canada is more concentrated than we have ever seen it before.
In conclusion, let me say that this statement is obviously the first step before the Government announces which company will supply the replacement aircraft for Air Canada's 727 fleet. There is great concern in the Province of Manitoba, where the 727 is serviced, that as it is replaced Manitoba could lose jobs. This statement is clear evidence that the Government cannot guarantee Manitoba that the replacement aircraft will be maintained in Manitoba, no more than it can guarantee any other part of Canada that Air Canada services will continue. That is the blunt reality. That is not my interpretation. The words are there and the Government simply did not have the good sense to realize what a contradiction it had committed to paper.

April 12, 1988
Statements by Ministers
A final word, Mr. Speaker. Bilingualism cannot be assured by the Government as a continuing characteristic of Air Canada if that corporation and its future is placed in the hands of minority shareholders. The Government is walking away from that commitment. Bill C-72 says that a Crown corporation means a corporation ultimately accountable through a Minister to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs. Under this plan Air Canada will not be a Crown corporation and the Government will not be able to guarantee that it will continue to provide bilingual services. The Government is again attempting to be half pregnant and generate as much smoke as possible.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I guess I should have given you more time.


Brian Vincent Tobin: This is a very disappointing statement. As I said before, you would need to have the face of a robber's horse to try and make it fly in this place. Air Canada, as presently constituted, flies very well, thank you very much, and we do not need this kind of half-baked scheme.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that this statement, which the Minister tried to smuggle in without giving adequate notice, got such a sharp negative reaction from Members on the opposition side. It should have had the same opposition from members on the government side if they really gave any consideration to the important step being taken.
We are changing a system which has existed for more than 50 years. We are doing it, not because there is a need for it, not because there has been any evidence that Air Canada is not efficient or has not operated for the benefit of the people of Canada as a publicly-owned corporation, but because of the blind ideological belief of the Conservative Government that the private sector can do anything better than the public sector. Yet there is no evidence of that at all.
As the Minister pointed out, Air Canada was established more than 50 years ago as a publicly-owned Crown corporation. This was done under a Liberal Government and Minister, Mr. C. D. Howe, who had the closest association with the big business community of Canada of any Minister at that time or probably since that time. Why did he do it? Not because he was a great believer in the virtues of public ownership. He did it for two reasons. First, because he realized the absolute necessity for Canada to have an air traffic system, and because he knew, as a result of his conversations and consultations with important leaders in the private sector, that they were not prepared to move in this direction. This was for a very good reason from their point of view. They could not see that they would make a profit at that time. After all, that is why private business functions. We do not question that. They operate if and when they can see a profit. They could not see a profit at that time so they were not prepared to do it. Mr. Howe and the then Liberal Government decided that we needed a national air service and established a Crown corporation.
Air Canada has been an efficient company. Even the Minister said that today. It has provided the people of Canada with high quality service, and not just in the high density traffic areas. Any company can make money serving people who want to fly from Toronto to Montreal or Ottawa or Vancouver. Over the years Air Canada has done what the private companies did not want to do because they could not make a profit. I do not blame them for that. That is the reason they are in business. However, Air Canada provided service to the sparsely-populated areas of Canada. It supplied service to small towns; for example, to Brandon, Manitoba. Since that town was sloughed off to the private companies it has had increasing difficulties getting service. The same is true of almost every other small town in this country. Competition and the need to show a profit every year has brought poorer service to most of the small towns and isolated areas in Canada.
We are seeing today another illustration of the failure of the Conservative Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to live up to the promises. I have before me a news story which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on January 15, 1985. The headline is: "PM says CBC, Air Canada not for sale". The story goes on to say that the Prime Minister gave assurances that the federal Government had no plans to sell either the CBC or Air Canada. He is quoted as saying: "Some people want to buy the CBC. The CBC is not for sale. Air Canada is not for sale." That is what the Prime Minister said.
The people of Canada agree today with what the Prime Minister said in 1985. On March 5, 1988, The Globe and Mail published an Environics poll concerning the selling of Crown corporations. The question was asked: Do you think the Government should or should not sell Air Canada? The response was: should, 31 per cent; should not, 51 per cent. It was the same in almost every region.
A similar poll which appeared in The Toronto Star on March 31, 1981, conducted by Angus Reid. The poll asked whether or not the following corporations were well run. With respect to Air Canada, 63 per cent said it was well run and 20 per cent said it was not well run. Fifty-three per cent said the Government should not sell Air Canada to the private sector while 35 per cent said it should sell.
An overwhelming majority of Canadians agree with the position taken by the Prime Minister in 1985. It is not the people who have changed but the Prime Minister, who is reneging on the promise he made in 1985.
The Government has prided itself on being different than the former Liberal Government. It said it would consult with the people and its employees. I am told that the employees who work for Air Canada were not consulted about this proposal to partially privatize Air Canada. There have been no discussion between their unions and the Government or the Minister
April 12, 1988

since last fall. The Government talked about consultation and co-operation with the people, yet it has not consulted or cooperated with its 22,000 employees who work for Air Canada.
We are told by the Minister that the reason for this privatization is that, like most airlines, Air Canada's airplanes are reaching the end of their service and must be replaced. It will have to spend large sums of money to purchase new, modern and more efficient airplanes. We do not question that. But where is the evidence that Air Canada as a Crown corporation cannot get the money it needs, as do other companies, to replace equipment?
If there are any questions about the ability of Crown corporations to borrow the money they need, one need only look at the provinces, virtually all of which have publicly owned utility companies. Every one of them has gone or will go to the market to borrow billions of dollars. There have been major expansions in Quebec, as well as new hydro-electric dams and power stations in Manitoba and British Columbia. There are major expansions of nuclear power plants in Ontario. All of these systems are publicly owned and none are having difficulty in going to the market to borrow the money they need for that expansion. In fact, they are having less difficulty than private companies because they are backed by the financial ability of the people of those provinces.
There is no question in my mind that Air Canada, as the publicly owned corporation it has been for the last 50 years, could continue to borrow the money it needs without this kind of privatization.
The Government is not taking this step because Air Canada cannot get the money but because it really does not believe in public ownership. It sincerely believes that the private sector can do anything better than the public sector.
We have other reservations about this policy. The Minister stated: "On completion of this initial offering, the Government's holding will be reduced to no less than 55 per cent of the shares of Air Canada". We have every right to be suspicious about that statement. The initial offering will be 45 per cent for the minority. Since the Government does not believe in public ownership and has no real commitment to it, what is to prevent it from presenting another offering in the future so that the Government's share of ownership will be 45 per cent or 35 per cent? That is just one of our main concerns.
The price for the shares that will be sold soon after a Bill passes Parliament will be low. It will be low because the Government is proposing the sale of a minority share, with no takeover possibility in the near future. We have some very canny and shrewd investors in Canada, and sometimes we worry about the ethics of some of them. I believe some of these large investors will be quite willing to buy minority shares at a low price because they believe, justifiably so, that in the not too distant future more shares will be put on the market. At that time they could take control of the company and the value of the shares would rise sharply.
Committee Reports
Let me remind the House that among the big winners in the sale of shares are the brokers. We know that in the takeover battle Mr. Campeau carried on in the United States recently the brokers and people involved in the buying and selling of shares made hundreds of millions of dollars for their involvement. This sale will bring in about $300 million, if that is what 45 per cent of the shares will bring in. They will get 45 per cent of a company which probably has assets worth $5 billion. This proposal comes from a Government which prides itself on being a sound business operator.
Let me deal with one more point which is very important to me and the people of Winnipeg. It concerns the Government's promise that the work done at the maintenance facility in Winnipeg will continue. I think the people of Winnipeg, for very good reasons, will be very upset, skeptical and suspicious. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) shakes his head. I was here when the former Government permitted Air Canada, or as it then was called, Trans-Canada Air Lines, to move its head office and most of its facilities from Winnipeg, where they were first established, to Montreal, step by step. What do we have now? What we have is a promise that the present maintenance work will continue to be done in Winnipeg. But the present work is being done on DC-type aircraft. What happens when the DC-type aircraft are gone? What happens if Air Canada buys airbus aircraft?


Mr. Holtmann:: It's a big hangar.


David Orlikow: And we have seen lots of empty hangars in Winnipeg. We have seen the workforce in Winnipeg go from thousands to hundreds under a Liberal Government. The people of Manitoba are afraid that this is just one more step in the dissemination of the air industry in Manitoba which was so important for so many years, for generations. We are going to oppose this Bill in every way we can, both in Parliament and outside.


LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION PRESENTATION OF SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, concerning A Review of the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings].


Claude Lanthier: Madam Speaker, there is a particular point I think should be raised right now. I just heard that a press conference on this report has just ended. The press conference,

April 12, 1988
Petitions
held by two Opposition Members, concerned a report not yet tabled in this House.
I realize the report was supposed to be tabled around 11.05 a.m. and that the press conference had been called for 11.15 and would end at noon. However, the press conference was held without the Committee Chairman, without a single Member of the Government being present, and before the report was even tabled in this House, which is highly irregular.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the right to raise a question of privilege as soon as I have all the facts about a situation which to me is irregular to say the least and a reflection of the cavalier attitude of the Opposition.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member has any complaints he should direct them to his own Government and especially to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), because of the way he made his statement about the privatization of Air Canada. If the Hon. Member's privileges were breached, they were breached by his own Government, and especially by the Minister of Transport because of the way he made his statement on the privatization of Air Canada. I think the Hon. Member raised a question that has nothing to do with the Opposition and a great deal to do with his own Government.


Claude Lanthier: Madam Speaker, with all due respect for the Hon. Member's experience in this House, and far be it from me to measure my experience against his, but nevertheless, if we had decided to delay tabling this report until tomorrow morning or next week or even this afternoon or another more appropriate time, what would have happened? Doesn't it mean the press would have been advised of the report by Opposition Members a week before the report was officially tabled in the House? I still say this is irregular, and in time I intend to raise a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) has informed the House of something which happened this morning and has told the Chair that he is reserving his right to raise the question of privilege. After having checked the facts, if the Hon. Member wishes to do so, I am sure that he will take the usual means, that is he will state those facts in writing to the Chair who will then make a decision.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure and, indeed, an honour, to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 dealing with the free trade deal.
This petition is signed by quite a large number of constituents who are of the view that the trade deal between Canada and the United States will have a serious impact on our ability as a country to continue independent action on economic, cultural and political matters. They are of the understanding that the agreement will result in a loss of jobs in a number of sectors of the economy as well as a number of regions of Canada.
The petitioners simply call upon the Parliament of Canada to dissolve in order to enable an election to take place so that the people of Canada can hear the views presented by the different Parties on the matter and can make a decision on something which will have a profound impact on their lives and, perhaps more importantly, on their children's lives and their children's children's lives. They are asking that they have a chance to have input into this debate during a national general election.


Mr. Roger Clinch (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the veterans of the region of Bathurst, New Brunswick. They request the establishment of domiciliary care facilities for veterans at the Chaleur General Hospital or one of the nursing homes nearby.
I am sure you would be interested to know, Madam Speaker, that presently the families of the veterans of this area care for their loved ones at a considerable distance from their homes. They ask that this House remedy the situation as soon as possible by establishing domiciliary care facilities for veterans in the Bathurst area.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, as a result of negotiations, I think that the House is willing to defer applications made under Standing Order 29 till 3 p.m. to facilitate consideration of certain items on the orders
April 12, 1988

of the day and that the Speaker himself is aware of my request and will hear me at 3 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his comments. There has been indeed an agreement between the various parties and the Chair and applications under Standing Order 29 will be heard after the Oral Question Period.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 11, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that because of the Ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 47 minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, as I was saying yesterday on debate on this Bill, there is ample evidence to show that in most cases privatizers are free-loaders and that without public investment the private corporate sector will not invest. That was amplified again this morning in the case of the announcement concerning Air Canada.
One can ask how the employees in the uranium industry feel about this. I refer to the employees of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and the employees of the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation which corporations are to merge. There are two major unions involved in this matter. The union of energy and chemical workers represents the employees at Cluff Lake mine in northern Saskatchewan in which SMDC holds a minority share. The steelworkers represent employees at the Key Lake mine in which both SMDC and Eldorado have a share and the Rabbit Lake mine. Both mines are in northern Saskatchewan. There are three steelworkers' locals involved in Eldorado at Port Hope.
Both these unions have been the subject of glowing testimonials by the former Minister of State for Privatization concerning the prospects of the new company, in particular the shareholdings which will go to them. This is a promise which is quite vague. Despite it the unions and employees concerned are implacably opposed to the privatization of these companies. There are many good reasons for this.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
The Canadian labour movement was four-square in its support of the disarmament and non-proliferation treaty. It has been four-square in its support of full and adequate environmental, safety and health concerns. Members of the labour movement believe, and I think with justification, that these matters are in jeopardy or will receive less attention by a privately owned company.
In this respect one has only to look at what happened in Uranium City and how a policy for one-industry towns is desperately overdue. It is not too late in the uranium industry and in a number of others for a special fund to be established which would see so many dollars per tonne, per kilogram or pound of production out of all production set aside. When an ore body is gone in 20 years, 30 years, or 40 years the community in which it existed, all the businesses, homes and employees will be protected. These funds would be for retraining, for moving expenses and early retirement. People could be paid for the businesses which they will lose and for the homes which are boarded up. Such a national policy is long overdue. We need only look to Uranium City to see the terrible situation which transpired there.
Since this is such a bad Bill I therefore wish to move an amendment as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor: "Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestitute of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair recognizes the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on debate.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I do so even more determinedly than in the early stages of the debate, given the announcement by the Government today about its intention to begin the privatization of Air Canada. That move is just one other indication of the determination of the Government to continue at an accelerated pace its program of privatization.
It is a program based not on whether Crown corporations are operating efficiently, or on meeting the needs of the people in the areas in which they operate, or on an examination of the reasons former Governments established these Crown corporations, but rather on the Government's rigid, ideological belief that anything private industry does will operate better, more

April 12, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
efficiently, more profitably and more in the interests of the public than a publicly owned corporation. There is no evidence of that.
The fact is that we have never had in Canada at the level of the country as a whole a Government, a CCF Government, an NDP Government, or a Government with social democratic ideas, which believes that in many areas of life in the country public ownership would meet the needs of the people better than private ownership. All the Crown corporations we have in place were established by Liberal or Conservative Governments. Very often they were established because the private operators in those areas, and I am thinking of the railways, were virtually bankrupt and thus unable to fulfil their obligations in terms of meeting the needs of the people of Canada by providing transportation facilities.
At the time to which I refer the Government took over all the private companies which were virtually bankrupt. It paid much more than should have been paid for them. It established the Canadian National Railway as a Crown corporation owned by the people of Canada.
This proposal of the Conservative Government in Ottawa and the Conservative Government in Saskatchewan to take the publicly owned Eldorado Nuclear Limited, which is owned by the people of Canada and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, which is owned by the people of Saskatchewan, and amalgamate them, privatize them and sell shares in them is not based on factual evidence that these companies will operate better or more efficiently than the presently publicly owned companies, but on the ideological views of the Government.
I should make it clear that those views are not the views of the people of Canada. In recent polls the people of Canada have shown quite clearly that they believe that most, if not all, of the Crown corporations are well run. They believe in public ownership. In a recent poll conducted by Angus Reid the question asked was, "Are the following Crown corporations well run or not well run?" For Air Canada, 63 per cent believe it is well run; 20 per cent believe it is not well run. For CBC, 62 per cent believe it is well run; 25 per cent believe it is not well run. For Canadian National, which we know has had its problems, as have all publicly or privately owned railway companies, 47 per cent believe it is well run, and 30 per cent believe it is not well run. For Petro-Canada, another company that the former Conservative Government promised to privatize and which this Conservative Government will probably want to bring forward proposals to privatize, 59 per cent of the people of Canada say it is well run, and only 20 per cent say it is not well run.
The Angus Reid poll also asked the question, "Should the Government sell any of the following Crown corporations to the private sector?" The poll lists the following results: Air Canada, sell, 35 per cent, not sell, 53 per cent; CBC, sell, 27
per cent, not sell, 62 per cent; Canadian National, sell, 31 per cent, not sell, 54 per cent; Petro-Canada, sell, 37 per cent, not sell, 49 per cent. That is the view of the people of Canada with respect to privatization of the major Crown corporations in this country. They are opposed to it.
We oppose the sale of Eldorado Nuclear because we believe it is a bad deal. Why? Because the deal is so structured that the public sector takes the risks and obligations, as it has up until now, and the private sector will get the profits, not only from the commercial activities of the company when Eldorado and Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation are merged, but also from the heavy public subsidies which are given the uranium mining industry in the form of favourable taxation, marketing arrangements, and sweetheart contracts.
We have had no assurances from the Government that it recognizes the sacrifice of the public sector and the public interest in this deal. It is clear that this deal has been structured so that the Government can say that privatization works. One only need look at the share price. What the Government does not say, and what it wants the public to ignore, is that in order for this stock flotation deal to succeed, which is all it really is, the public sector will underwrite the risks by assuming the debt of Eldorado Nuclear and the Saskatchewan company, and the federal Government will assume the further liability of Eldorado's nuclear waste problems at Port Hope at a cost of perhaps up to $75 million.
This take-back of debt has been described by the financial advisers to the Government as necessary for the flotation. I wish to remind Members of Parliament that Eldorado's debts are substantial. They are in the range of $550 million. The federal Government will receive from the newly merged company approximately $250 million leaving $300 million that must be made up in the sale of shares in the new company before the Government breaks even on its debt obligation alone. This says nothing about the cumulative investment which has been made in Eldorado in the form of government equity.
The Government needs a high share price or else it will wind up with a brick in its hands. We know what happened in British Columbia with BCRIC, the privatization of the Bennett Social Credit Government; it issued shares at $5 which now trade at 90 cents.
Is there any certainty of a high share price? No, because uranium markets are currently in chronic over-supply and prices are depressed. If the United States were once more to close its market to foreign producers, in response to the distress of its own suppliers, conditions would be chaotic. Of course, the trade deal that we talked about would do nothing for Canadian producers caught in this bind.
For proof of what I have stated, let me refer to an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail on March 31, 1988. The article was entitled, "U.S. Senate passes bill on uranium that would undercut free-trade pact", and it is under the by-
April 12, 1988

line of Jennifer Lewington. I wish to quote a few paragraphs from that article:
One part of the Senate bill, which passed by a vote of 62 to 28, would penalize use of foreign uranium, including imports from Canada-a direct violation of the proposed trade agreement.
The article further states:
One Canadian official who monitored the floor fight yesterday, said the Senate bill "absolutely" violates a "standstill" clause in the U.S.-Canada free-trade agreement in which both sides pledged not to go against the terms before the deal is implemented January 1, 1989 ...
Under the bill, between now and 1994, U.S. utilities that use foreign-enriched uranium for between 37.5 and 50 per cent of a their supply would pay a penalty fee of $200 (U.S.) a kilogram. The penalty would decline in time over a 12-year period.
It is not surprising they passed a Bill like this. As this article states, Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New Mexico where a large part of the American uranium comes from, supports the uranium Bill, and criticized the free trade deal with Canada. He said, "In its present form, the proposed agreement will place our uranium supply and industry in jeopardy". He also criticized the trade deal for retaining restrictions on U.S. investment in Canadian uranium while allowing "Canadian ownership, financing and subsidization of the industry".
The prospects for this company when it is privately owned are less than perfect. The ability of the company to repay the debt which it is undertaking when it purchases this company from the Government of Canada is, to say the least, doubtful.
I wish to talk for a few moments about the reaction of the people who work in the industry. After all, they have a major stake in the continued successful operation of these two companies. Two of the major unions representing workers at Eldorado and the Saskatchewan Mining Corporation are the steel workers and energy and chemical workers unions. The energy and chemical workers represent employees of the Cluff Lake mine in northern Saskatchewan in which the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation holds a minority share. The steel workers union represent employees at the Key Lake Mine in which the Saskatchewan company and Eldorado hold minority shares, and the Rabbit Lake Mine. Both those mines are in northern Saskatchewan. The steel workers union represent three locals at the Eldorado Uranium Refinery at Port Hope, Ontario. Both of those unions have been subject to the growing testimonial by the former Minister responsible for privatization about the prospect for the new company, and particularly the shareholders which will go to them.
When introducing the Bill on March 29, the former Minister said:
The new company will employ over 1,000 people. Those people represent a resource to the company as important as the uranium reserves it owns. I can assure the employees of SMDC and Eldorado that both the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan have placed a high priority on ensuring that employee concerns are adequately addressed through the negotiations leading to the final merger agreement and through the
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
privatization process thereafter. Maintaining a committed, motivated
workforce is clearly in the interests of the corporation and all Canadians.
That is why the agreement stipulates that employees be given the
opportunity to participate in the ownership of the company. The details of that
plan will be developed as the company moves into the privatization phase.
Despite this supposed shareholding-and it is a promise although it is quite vague-the unions concerned are implacably opposed to the privatization. Why? There are many good reasons about which they have told us. I am sure they would have told the Minister and the Government about them. I am sure that the Government would have listened if it were really concerned about the views and feelings of the workers.
Let me deal with the question of safety. Perhaps the greatest concern of the workers and their unions is the federal Government pulling back in the safety area, safety in the broadest sense including occupational safety, environmental safety, and public health.
In the 1940s the federal Government recognized the importance of nuclear energy by first expropriating the assets of Eldorado mines and then using the declaratory power in the then BNA Act to take jurisdiction of the resource. This federal involvement and taking of responsibility underlines the seriousness with which nuclear energy was regarded and still should be regarded. The question now being asked by the unions and ourselves is, should the Canadian Government be backing out of the nuclear field when the problems which were beginning to be recognized when the declaratory power was invoked are now with us and are intensifying? We realize how much more serious and important are those problems.
Here are some of the issues which the unions have raised with us. They have talked about increased problems in nuclear plant safety and have used the United States model as an example. They have referred to the problem encountered at the Kerr-McGee company operations. Hon. Members will remember the Karen Silkwood case, which was made into a major movie, and the almost complete meltdown which occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. They also referred to the difficulties faced by the American people in getting information in both cases. The unions believe-and we believe it as well-that we would encounter similar difficulties here in Canada if these two companies were privatized.
We also have the specific Canadian example in the negotiation of federal regulations governing the nuclear industry between 1982 and 1988. There should have been tripartite discussions among labour, business, and Government. Without hands-on experience there will be less information for the federal Government to draw on.
The alternative is to use political pressure to get the federal Government to address safety questions. We have had continuing problems in Canada with radioactive waste and their disposition. The people in Manitoba are very concerned that Atomic Energy and the Government will try to dispose of waste plant material in northeastern Manitoba. They have made it quite clear that they do not want it.

April 12, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
It is no longer just a regulatory matter. Political leaders can be approached. As I indicated when I spoke earlier, we have the record of Mr. Roman and his complete opposition to taking known steps to protect the workers in his companies against the danger of being seriously and adversely affected health-wise in uranium mines.
The workers realize that there is tremendous political sensitivity to the nuclear industry. They know they can expect some justice in dealings with the employer when the employer is the Government, federal or provincial, because of this awareness. They know that the closure of the Eldorado mine at Uranium City in 1981 brought attention to the problem of what happens, when a mine closes, to workers living near the mine site who are carrying mortgages on the homes they have purchased. These homes are their only real savings. When the mine suddenly closes down they are left with nothing. They cannot sell their homes because very few people will be living in the area. Because the mines were publicly owned, the workers who had to leave Uranium City obtained a fairer settlement. It was not only a few who had to leave Uranium City; the whole population had to leave. The settlement at Uranium City was superior to what employees received when the Pine Point mine closed. It was operated by Cominco, a subsidiary of a great corporation which over the years has demonstrated little concern for its employees or the people of Canada-Canadian Pacific.
There is a great fear that in this deal the new private owners will be able to walk away from any facility which does not fit the corporate plan-in other words, any facility which does not provide adequate profits in the view of the new private owners-and the workers will have to pay the price.
There are two obvious examples-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I apologize but I must interrupt the Hon. Member as his time has expired.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words about Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
The Bill which was put forward by the previous Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs would certainly make dramatic changes to the structure of the Canadian uranium mining industry. It would create a large new corporation by merging the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation and Eldorado Nuclear Limited. Both companies have mining operations or shares in mining operations in Saskatchewan, as well as major refining and upgrading facilities at Blind River and Port Hope in Ontario.
This would create a major world-class Canadian uranium mining and processing company. I understand it will have some of the largest and lowest priced reserves in the country and will be able to compete on an international level. This is important for an industry which has been going through an extremely adverse period of time over the last several years
during which world prices have dropped from the 1970 level of $40 to $50 per pound to around $17 U.S. per pound today. Of course this puts many companies in a position of not being able to compete in a world market situation, whereas the proposed Eldorado-Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation will be able to compete with low world market prices at the present time.
I understand from information provided to Members that the new company would have some 1,000 employees as well as some 400 employees in the Key Lake Mining Company. The over-all assets are estimated to be $1.6 billion with sales annually of some $500 million. The legislation does provide that the shares will be divested over a 7-year period and no Canadian shareholder will have more than 25 per cent of the shares and no non-Canadian will hold over 5 per cent of the shares.
We have here a merger of two major uranium mining companies. When we look at the documentation provided, though, we wonder why the Government was so generous in its arrangements with the Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Devine. It appears that even though Eldorado resources have close to the same amount of assets, it ended up with a very small percentage of the ownership of the proposed new company. Eldorado has assets worth $950 million and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation has assets worth $973 million. Yet, the percentage of ownership in the deal will leave Eldorado with only 38.5 per cent and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation and Saskatchewan Government with some 61.5 per cent of the ownership in the company.
We must look at the Government's strategy in most of these privatizations. The strategy which applies to the Eldorado case is to sell the operating company and its assets, in this case for cash, and leave the debt with the Government of Canada. In that way the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is able to take the cash realized from the sale of the shares and apply it to the current year's operation to reduce the deficit of the year. That was done in the Teleglobe case. The Minister was able to lower the deficit a year ago to below the $30 billion mark by selling off $500 million or $600 million worth of shares. I understand that that is the technique being used in this case, to leave the debt with the Government of Canada and apply whatever cash can be realized from the sale to the current operating year's deficit in order to reduce it.
In this case there is one other twist in that Eldorado resources has large environmental responsibilities in the town of Port Hope and surrounding townships for low-level nuclear waste from its refining and upgrading operations over the past years which must be cleaned up. The Government has made a commitment to do that. In this procedure the Government is selling the operating company to the private sector and leaving the financial responsibility for the environmental clean-up with the Government of Canada. Some of the documentation
April 12, 1988

provided by the Government estimates the cost of that to be $100 million. Most of the responsibility for that will be left with the Government of Canada and not charged against the sale of the current corporation.
That does not seem to make much sense in that the Government of Canada will be left with all of these costs. The Minister will sell the company and get his cash, but the Government has not spelled out what it will do about the environmental clean-up of the low-level wastes in and around Port Hope or what it will cost. There is a formula presented in the documentation as to the sharing of that cost, but it appears that most of that will be left with the Government of Canada rather than charged against the Eldorado sale itself.
It is not even clear whether the Government is going to carry that out. The Prime Minister made a commitment in 1984 to do it. There has been a task force appointed and a proposal made for that environmental project, but no actual decision has been made on whether that task force report is to be acted upon in any way. Clearly the Tories have a bad record as far as Eldorado resources and the entire uranium mining industry is concerned. In 1979 when they came into power they immediately decided to put the new refining operation at Port Hope, even though the uranium in Ontario was being produced in the Blind River-Elliott Lake area.
When the Liberal Government came to power in 1980 we immediately acted upon a policy and commitment which we had made in the 1980 election campaign that we would locate refining and upgrading facilities for natural resources in and near the communities where those minerals were being processed or mined. That policy has resulted in a great deal of benefit for the town of Blind River. The $150 million refinery established there has created 180 jobs, provided important income for the community, and has provided a major industry for that town which lost its main sawmilling operation 10 years ago.
The other aspect in play in this agreement is that in the free trade agreement the Government gave up the further upgrading policy of the Government of Canada, that being that we would process and upgrade our uranium resources and other natural resources within our own country. In the free trade deal we gave up the right to that policy and could well face the prospect of the loss of the processing of uranium in our own processing facilities which could cost the Government several hundred million dollars. The idea of processing our uranium in the United States or European countries does not make sense, especially since the Government of Canada has gone to the expense of building major refining and processing industries in our country.
It is interesting to note that in establishing its refinery in Blind River, Eldorado resources brought in people from all over Canada; some from Port Hope, some from the Ottawa area, some from Uranium City. It has developed a very good working relationship with that community. It is often described as a model corporate citizen. I suppose there are
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
always some tensions between a major player and municipal corporations, but I think that on the whole the arrangement in Blind River has been excellent. There has been great cooperation in assisting, through corporate donations, in the provision of major facilities such as their sportsplex, civil recreation facility, and golf course. They have played a major role in the community. I think that it has been a model relationship and one that has been extremely helpful. I would hope that in the divestiture, those commitments and promises made through the policies of Eldorado resources to provide assistance to the communities, both in recreation and in civic development, will be maintained. That would be a major concern of my constituents and of the residents of the Town of Blind River.
We know that under this divestiture the ownership of the company will move to the shareholders of the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation. The headquarters will move from Ontario to Saskatchewan and 61 per cent of the control will be moved with it to the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation. There must be a firm and determined commitment from the new corporation that will be created, Eldorado Resources, to maintain those responsibilities to the community.
It is interesting that in the free trade agreement, which the Government has been ballyhooing in its $ 12-million advertising campaign designed to sell it to Canadians, not once has it been mentioned that we are giving up our policy of further upgrading uranium resources in Canada. Surely every Government of the past has struggled to do further upgrading of resources, but that will be given up, supposedly in return for improved assess to the U.S. market.
This week we heard that the United States Senate has already passed a resolution which will impose penalties on United States utilities that use foreign uranium to meet more than 30 per cent of their needs. Of course, this resolution has not been passed by the United States Congress yet so it has not become law, but we are still very unclear on whether or not there will be total access.
A legal injunction is now before the Supreme Court of the United States. That court may rule on a previous decision of a lower court in that regard as well. Clearly, wide-open access to the United States market is in question. If the United States is not competitive, I do not think that we will ever have it.
If the Bill to which I referred is voted down in Congress, and if the legal questions before the Supreme Court of the United States are ruled on in a certain way, there will still be no guarantee that inefficient U.S. producers in New Mexico and those states which have imposed dumping duties on western Canadian potash will not do the identical thing to uranium. As long as the Americans are getting their share of the market and are able to compete, the markets will somehow stay open. However, if they are not, there will be countervailing duties.

April 12, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
It would not be difficult for inefficient American producers to claim that Eldorado and SMDC are subsidized because they received government guarantees for their debt instruments. Clearly, the American producers would not have any trouble showing that these companies were dumping against the Elliot Lake producers who sell to the Ontario Government, because they could prove that uranium was being sold in the U.S. at a lower price than it was being sold to Ontario Hydro.
Whether or not there is a free trade, if United States producers are threatened they will maintain control on imports, either through the congressional system, the regulatory system or countervailing duties. That will become very important to the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation and Eldorado Resources.
Over the years, no company other than the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation has demanded that it be exempt from the further upgrading policies of the Government of Canada. It is content to see its uranium processed in the United States. If this Bill goes through and the corporation is formed, I hope it will have enough concern for the communities of Blind River and Port Hope that it will want to see uranium upgraded in Canada rather than going to the United States as yellowcake.
Again, I would hope that the services, the labour relations and the worker benefits which have applied to Eldorado workers in places like Blind River and Port Hope will be maintained and that the company's commitment to the communities, both through good corporate citizenship and through grants and assistance to the communities, as well as its policy of operating a high level of activity, will be maintained and that in giving up its right to further upgrading of uranium in Canada the Government will not undercut that commitment.
There is a certain balance to be maintained in the production of uranium-trioxide in Blind River and the upgrading of it at the Port Hope facility. It is not clear whether or not Eldorado's Port Hope facility can meet the full capacity of the Blind River operation.
Those are some of the concerns I have about this Bill. I understand that we will be dealing with it in committee. This is a corporation with very rich reserves that can compete on a world scale. It is important to do further processing of our uranium and natural resources, and I want to see that done in an efficient way so that we are making the very best use of our resources and providing the maximum employment in communities like Blind River in which major Eldorado resources processing plants are located.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the amendment moved by my colleague from Regina. That amendment suggests that there should be a delay of six months before this Bill is read for the second time. Of course, the reasoning behind such a decision to delay second reading consideration is itself deeply affected by our
understanding of the context within which this privatization is taking place.
Yesterday the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs stood up and said this privatization was the last of a set of steps taken under the Canada Development Investment Corporation. Those steps included Teleglobe, de Havilland, Canadair, and now Eldorado. Yet today we have an entirely different situation because the Government suddenly decided to dramatically expand its efforts to privatize crucial public institutions, which have been at the heart of this country for years, by announcing that, and I quote from the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), that this legislation will permit the transfer of all Air Canada's shares to the public.
That puts an entirely different framework around discussions about privatizing Crown corporations such as Eldorado. For that reason it is absolutely crucial that we postpone consideration of this specific decision until we can get a sense of this rather bizarre and remarkably sudden step taken by the Government. It was done so quickly that the Minister's statement could not even be handed to opposition critics before it was delivered in the House.
We now have a sudden and tremendous expansion of the scope of the privatization thrust by the Government. That, it seems to me, forces this House to take very seriously the amendment of my friend which suggests that this legislation be not now read a second time, but that it be done six months hence. It is quite clear that the Government has not spelled out its strategy with respect to privatization. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has not articulated the strategy. In fact, if anything, he has articulated promises in the past which now seem to be in direct conflict with the strategy with which the Government seems to be proceeding.
I am sure I do not need to remind you that in January of 1985 the Prime Minister said Air Canada was not for sale. Yet this morning we have an announcement that all of Air Canada's shares will be transferred to the private sector. That is a complete contradiction of a promise made not during an election campaign but during the current term of the Government. That suggests that the Government is not following a strategy. If there was a strategy to get the CDIC portfolios transferred to the private sector, as was claimed by the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs yesterday, it has now been abandoned. Instead, a tremendously dangerous new step has been taken in the Government's attempt to severely damage the public sector. That step marks a major escalation in the approach the Government has taken to this point.
As well, this step has been taken without dozens of key questions being answered. How will it be possible in this far-flung country for us to maintain public service to isolated communities which are difficult to serve? What constraints
April 12, 1988

will exist on these companies once they are privatized? EIow will it be possible for the Government to give up control of a key institution like Air Canada and at the same time say it will keep the maintenance facilities in Montreal and Winnipeg? You cannot hand over control to someone else and yet tell them what they are supposed to do. It is not possible. That is a complete contradiction.
Neither is it possible to say that Air Canada employees can be assured that policies such as those governing salaries, pensions, other benefits, relationships with unionized workers and employment equity will be continued. You cannot say that because you are passing control of this key national institution to the private sector.
As I said, this morning the House was given a complete redefinition of the privatization strategy which has functioned up to this point. Given that, it is not possible to look at the isolated case of Eldorado Nuclear at this stage and come to any kind of sensible conclusion. The broader strategy is not spelled out, and it must be there to justify a set of privatizations such as the Government seems to be undertaking. That is why we have moved this amendment.
We moved this amendment despite some of the tortuous argument presented to us this morning, suggesting that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has somehow maintained his previous position with respect to Air Canada. It is not possible to say that Air Canada is not for sale and then announce on behalf of the Government and Cabinet that Air Canada will be entirely sold to the public. It is not possible to do that without making a complete U-turn, as the Government has done. In doing so, it has thrown completely into question any strategy or framework it has so far followed with respect to privatization. What will be the result of this new strategy for communities like mine, for communities in eastern Canada and communities in isolated parts of western Canada?
It is no accident that the polls concerning the operation of the Crown corporation talked about by the Deputy Prime Minister show that the Atlantic Provinces, British Columbia and the outlying parts of our country have the highest support for this airline as a national institution. In the case of British Columbia, 72 per cent of Canadians felt that Air Canada was well run. In the case of Atlantic Canada, it was 67 per cent compared to only 17 per cent and 19 per cent respectively who felt that it was not well run.
When asked whether any national institution should be sold, 53 per cent of British Columbians and 58 per cent of Atlantic Canadians were against the sale of Air Canada. I come from one of these more isolated constituencies which face serious problems with respect to airline service.
Since Canadian Airlines became an amalgamated institution, it has cut out its direct service into Windsor and decided to subcontract to a Canadian partner, as it calls it, which uses a smaller aircraft that is much more uncomfortable. We will
see precisely the same kind of decisions take place on the part of Air Canada when it must look at its bottom line rather than consider national service and public accountability. That is why it is crucial that we accept this amendment and put off consideration of this Bill with respect to Eldorado Nuclear until we get a clear sense from the Government of what its new strategy represents.
At the moment, its new strategy looks certain to result in a dangerous shambles for the people from outlying Atlantic Canada, outlying western and northern Canada and for the people in places like southern and northern Ontario who will be hard hit as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are three minutes left. Does the Hon. Member wish to use that time after Question Period, or will we go into questions and comments?


Steven W. Langdon: I am finished with my comments, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order please. It being 1.47 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1.47, the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Ottawa Coalition against Political Executions in South Africa have been holding early morning vigils in front of the Langevin Block to raise awareness about the plight of many political prisoners who are now facing death in South Africa, part of whom are the Sharpeville Six. Their efforts seem to be falling on deaf ears given the Government's reluctance to act decisively on the South African question.
In 1985 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) assured the membership of the United Nations that:
If there is no progress in the dismantling of apartheid, our relations with
South Africa may have to be severed absolutely.
The Prime Minister knows, as do all Canadians, that the Botha regime is not interested in taking steps to abolish apartheid. Why does the Prime Minister not face the fact that, unless the South African community can be economically and diplomatically isolated, South African political prisoners will

April 12, 1988
continue to be put to death, development efforts in the neighbouring countries will continue to be sabotaged, and the African population will continue to live in a country where racism is an institutionalized way of life?



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Soil Conservation Week. Soil is a resource that is degrading at an alarming rate. Total on-farm costs of land degradation in Canada are approaching $1 billion annually. It took Saskatchewan soils over 10,000 years to form, yet in less than 100 years of farming nearly half of the organic matter has been lost.
That is why we should applaud the three-year $500,000 joint Federal-Provincial Soil Conservation Program called "Save our Soils". The purpose of this venture is to encourage soil and crop management practices by farmers. This program aims at raising public awareness, establishing on-farm demonstration projects, and monitoring soil degradation levels in each region of the country. Furthermore, Saskatchewan's Agriculture Development Fund is assessing innovative farming methods, and farmers are demonstrating ways to maintain long-term viability and soil productivity. These efforts will be supported by the International Soils Conference sponsored by CIDA to be held in Saskatoon in June of 1989.
Congratulations to all those who are working today to preserve our soil resource for future generations.



CULTURE


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the success of one of our fellow citizens and the international tribute paid to him yesterday. Frederic Back won an Oscar for his film L'homme qui plantait des arbres. What is extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, is that Mr. Back already won an Oscar in 1982 for his film Crac.

I would also like to congratulate the National Film Board whose animated short George and Rosemary was nominated, and the great Canadian director, Norman Jewison, whose film Moonstruck won three Oscars.
The striking international success of our filmmakers only serves to highlight the immediate need for film distribution in Canada so Canadians can see our films. As filmmaker Jean-
Claude Lauzon said at the Genies Awards: "Glory means nothing if Canadians do not see our films".
The Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) promised such legislation in February, 1987. Rather than delivering, she has caved in to Jack Valenti and the U.S. film lobby. I urge her to introduce this Bill now and allow Canadians to see our excellent Canadian films before she wins the Oscar for worst non-performance by a Minister for the third straight year.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the irrigated alfalfa industry was well able to compete with other crops when the majority of income came from the sale of the crops, but now the competitive crops receive income from government sources while the alfalfa growers receive no help whatsoever. The claim that the alfalfa industry is depressed due to the low price of hay does not take into consideration the economic mechanism responsible for the low prices, such as large acreages of annual crops like barley and oats which do receive government money, and which are cut and baled as forage. How can the farmer who specializes in a perennial hay crop as a cash crop compete against such assistance? Consequently his market vanishes and the price he gets is cut in half.
Do you know what? Our irrigated alfalfa producers will soon disappear as well if the help given to their competitors is not also offered to them.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, on March 24, 1988, I spoke in this House about a ceremony planned for the following day in Riga, Latvia, to commemorate the victims of the mass deportations of 1949 from Latvia. I said at the time that if the U.S.S.R. authorities allowed the ceremony in Riga to proceed peacefully, we would have seen a concrete example of glasnost.
Unfortunately, the demonstration was not allowed to proceed. Riga radio reported that the site of the gathering at the Statue of Liberty was sealed off one half-hour before the scheduled commemoration. According to another report from Riga, the life of a representative for one of the unofficial journals was repeatedly threatened if he gave information about the events in Riga. In Tallinn, at least five Estonian
April 12, 1988

human rights activists were detained by police ahead of similar memorial activities.
These events do not greatly inspire confidence in the policy of glasnost, but one must hope for future change.



SPECIAL CANADIAN GRAINS PROGRAM


Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, contrary to some reports by members of the opposition, the Special Canadian Grains Program is running smoothly and cheques are being delivered to producers as quickly as possible. By the end of March, approximately 33,000 producers outside the Wheat Board area were issued first payments based on last year's acreage. Those who have not received cheques are Ontario producers with soybean acreage in 1987. Their payments will be issued by the end of April based on last year's applications.
This delay was unavoidable because of the shift in production patterns from winter wheat and corn to soybeans between 1986 and 1987. Due to this changing cropping pattern, first instalment payments for producers with soybean acreage could not be based on 1986 program records. The shift in production was first noted by the producer associations, and after discussions with them and other producers it was decided to base this year's program on 1987 claims. Delays in the first payment issue were considered preferable to making overpayments.
Every effort is being made to ensure that funds are in these producers' hands before spring seeding operations to provide cash flow to assist with the 1988 plantings.



COMMUNICATIONS


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, once again rural and northern Canadians are being treated unfairly by the Government's policies. As a result of the 10 per cent telecommunications tax imposed on January 1 of this year, local and long distance calls made from mobile telephones are taxed, even though local calls from regular telephones are not.
For many people who live in the North and rural areas, a mobile phone is not a luxury, it is a complete necessity. By definition, every call to your child's school, the doctor, the dentist or to your neighbour is a long distance call when you live in a rural area. For safety reasons alone, many northerners feel it is crucial to have a mobile phone in their vehicle, on their trapline, or in their cabins. Others need mobile phones
because their livelihood takes them to remote areas where other phones are not available.
It is completely absurd and grossly unfair that mobile phone calls in the North or remote areas are taxed, I urge the Government to remove this unfair tax. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for fair treatment.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the sale of the Canadian Forces Station in Senneterre was announced on March 8, 1988. This sale is part of the program to shut down 17 stations on the CADIN/Pinetree line announced in 1985.
Since the shutdown of this base was announced, I have cooperated very closely with the recovery committee, the town council, Canadian Forces representatives, employees of the base and Public Works Canada.
The Town of Senneterre has sought to acquire this property, considering it to be an important element of its economic development policy.
I would like to mention the outstanding work done by Major Gabriel Tremblay, Mayor Denis Sawyer, the town councillors, Roger St-Pierre, Jean Roy, president of the community development project, and the town's general manager, Yvon Boucher.
Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in the ability of the Town of Senneterre to put this magnificent station to excellent use.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this week, the week of April 11 to April 15, is Local Government Week in the Province of Ontario. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. John Eakins, for taking this initiative which is in its fourth year. The Parliamentary Assistant to Mr. Eakins, Mr. David Neumann, the Member of the Provincial Parliament for Brantford, is in the Ottawa area promoting this particular initiative. Fie is visiting Ottawa, Kemptville, Merrickville, Brockville, among other municipalities, in order to promote Local Government Week.

April 12, 1988
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this fall we will have municipal elections in the Province of Ontario. It is important for citizens to be aware of their responsibilities with regard to municipal elections.
The initiative of Local Government Week will serve to promote local government, to advise citizens of their rights under local government, and to ensure that citizens participate to the fullest.
If the Premier still believes that it is the role of Canada as well as that of every province to preserve the linguistic duality of Canada, then presumably the size of the linguistic minority is not relevant. Fundamental principles are.
The Premier's new language legislation, by failing to implement the fundamental principle of linguistic duality, betrays both the spirit and the letter of the Meech Lake Accord, and belies the Premier's own words in the Legislature last July 9. Surely even Conservatives understand this.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, Rouge River Valley in Scarborough is a precious natural treasure. As well as containing rare wildlife, the valley's 5,000 acres serve as an outdoor classroom for thousands of school children who visit the area to learn about conservation.
Despite the valley's natural significance the Ontario Government is determined to develop it for luxury housing. Representatives of the Save the Rouge Valley System organization are here in Ottawa to gather support for preserving the valley.
I have been pleased to join with Jim Robb, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Ron Moeser, Gloria Reszler, and Cathy Gregorio in their meetings here to lend my support to their efforts.
Tomorrow the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) will visit the Rouge for a first-hand look at this beautiful area.
At this point, the start of Wildlife Week in Canada, I call on the Ontario Government to listen to the people and to save the Rouge Valley for our children and our future.



SEARCH FOR A LASTING PEACE IN CENTRAL AMERICA

Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend, from April 9 to 11, I attended in Oxford, England, an international conference on peace and development in Central America. More than 20 countries, including Canada, were represented at that conference by parliamentarians of all political parties. That conference will not have been fruitless but, on the contrary, very productive since tens of proposals have been put forward for the establishment of a lasting peace plan in Central America.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to recall that the crucial problems of the five Central American countries are a growing debt and an urgent need for economic development assistance. I am sure that our government will not be insensitive to the present plight in that part of the world and that it will spare no efforts to bring a lasting peace to more than 20 million human beings who deserve more than the indifference of their fellow creatures.
* *
*



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, during debate in the Saskatchewan Legislature to ratify the Meech Lake Accord several short months ago the Premier of Saskatchewan said this:
Section 2 of the new amendment recognizes the existence of Frenchspeaking Canadians, located primarily in Quebec, but also present elsewhere in Canada-as a fundamental characteristic of our nation ... Affirmation is given to the role of Canada, as well as that of every province, to preserve the linguistic duality of Canada.



CALL FOR GOVERNMENT FUNDING

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the farm debt crisis has steadily worsened since the Government came to power in 1984.
The Farm Credit Corporation has been prevented from doing its job because of the lack of action and decision by the Government. In July of 1985 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) ordered a review of the Farm Credit Corporation's mandate and operations and promised to report by September of 1985. Almost three years later we still do not have that report.
April 12, 1988

The situation has worsened steadily. For instance, last year the FCC went into a negative equity position of $124 million. It is estimated that that figure will be $300 million this year.
How can an agency such as the Farm Credit Corporation which is insolvent itself help farmers who are in financial difficulty? Over 30 per cent of our farmers are in serious financial difficulty.
I call upon the Minister of Agriculture and the Government to put the FCC back on a sound financial basis so that it can help the farmers whom it was set up and designed to help.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Felix Holtmann: First, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Government of Canada has created such an economic boom that the federal transfer payment formula has triggered an additional $77 million for Manitoba.
Second, the former NDP Howard Pawley administration kept this information from Manitobans and, in fact, had Manitoba NDP Members of Parliament cry, plead, and beg for more federal funds for hospitals, health care, pharmacare and highways.
Third, the NDP Government in Manitoba collapsed.
Fourth, a desperate New Democratic Party elected a desperate leader from a desperate labour union by the name of Gary Doer. When Doer discovered on a shelf this $77 million of additional transfer dollars he made an election promise to give a tax break to Manitobans using federal transfer funds.
I feel sorry for the NDP Members from Manitoba and all Manitobans who have been deceived by this new leader.
What happened to health care? What happened to highways? What happened to education? What happened to pharmacare?
At 20 per cent of the popularity in Manitoba is it possible that the Democrats under Doer are done?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On January 14, 1985, in Montreal the Prime Minister said: "Air Canada is not for sale". Now this morning the Deputy Prime Minister
Oral Questions
stated in a tortuous way that what the Prime Minister had really said was that Air Canada was not for sale at that time.
The Deputy Prime Minister is wrong. He knows that he is wrong. He has been trying to cover up for the Prime Minister. What the Prime Minister said was that Air Canada was not for sale period. That is what the Prime Minister of Canada said.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: That statement, made in the company of his friend Louis Laberge, ranks now with the statement that our social programs are a sacred trust-and he then moved to deindex old age pensions; the statement he made to his Party during the leadership convention that he would never lead Canada into a free trade agreement. There is another broken promise.
I do not want to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister in one of those tortuous rationalizations he attempted this morning, or from the new Minister of Transport with a phoney argument. I want to hear from the Prime Minister of Canada why he broke his word.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says, and I am quoting him exactly: "The Prime Minister said that Air Canada is not for sale period."
I refer my right hon. friend to The Gazette of Montreal of January 16, 1985, which reports what I said: "Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said Monday in Montreal that Air Canada is not for sale, but did not rule out selling a minority interest". That is exactly what the Government has done today, sell a minority interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Because the Leader of the Opposition has completely distorted my statement in English, and for the benefit of his transport critic I want to give him a reporter's report from January 15 as well in French, from La Presse, which states:

"There is a possibility that shares in Air Canada will be sold to the public, but the Government would certainly retain a majority interest." That was my position in January 1985, and it is the same position being taken by this Government today.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Louis Laberge, the President of the Quebec Federation of Labour, took the same meaning from the Prime Minister's statement that everybody else in the country did. To quote the Prime Minister: "Canada needs a national airline. Air Canada is not for sale." That is what he said in the company of Louis Laberge.

April 12, 1988
Oral Questions

Perhaps we should ask Mr. Laberge what he thought about the Prime Minister's statement.


EFFECT OF PRIVATIZATION ON SERVICE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, clearly, Canadians can no longer depend on the Prime Minister's promises. What is going to happen to small communities in Canada that depend on Air Canada's services, when decisions on flight routes are taken by the private sector? How can the Deputy Prime Minister claim that air transportation facilities will remain open in Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg, when it will be up to the private sector to decide whether to maintain or terminate these facilities? Why can't the Government at least be frank with Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, just as I thought: First, the Leader of the Opposition distorted my statement in English, as usual, and now he has distorted it in French as well. I would like to quote what Pierre Vennat wrote in La Presse on January 15, 1985, and this is a direct quote of the Prime Minister's words: There may be good reasons for selling Air Canada, said the Leader of the Government. I will consider the matter, but Canada needs a national airline. In fact, there will be a national airline, Air Canada, which in addition to its more obvious responsiblities will also be responsible for serving the most remote areas in this country and ensuring their survival. The management of Air Canada sincerely believes, and has said so publicly, that the corporation will be able to do so with increased participation on the part of the Canadian public, including Air Canada employees, which will make the airline stronger, more efficient, more profitable and more effective as a national airline.


APPARENT CONTRADICTION BETWEEN DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in this morning's statement, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the legislation will include the transfer of all Air Canada shares to the public, which is not what was said this afternoon by the Prime Minister. Everybody in Canada had understood the Prime Minister had made a solemn commitment to the effect that Air Canada would remain in the public sector in this country.
The Deputy Prime Minister said this morning, Mr. Speaker, that now Canadians can own Air Canada. That was a surprise to us. We thought that Canadians already owned Air Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: In his trade deal the Prime Minister is selling out Canada. Now today he begins to sell out the infrastructure that has held this country together.


Mr. McDermid:: No one believes that except you and the NDP.


John Napier Turner: This country was built on a national railway. This country was built on a national broadcasting-


An Hon. Member:: You have been wrong in every one of your predictions and you are wrong again.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will put the question, please.


John Napier Turner: The people of Canada want to know what else is up for sale. What other promises of the Prime Minister will be broken? Is the CNR up for sale? Is Petro-Canada up for sale? Is the CBC up for sale? Let us know what is up for sale in this country.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is not only distorting what the Prime Minister has said and what we in fact have announced today, but he is distorting what was traditionally the position of the Liberal Party, particularly of his seat mate, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, who, on April 12, 1985, said it was "important that Air Canada sever its financial ties with the federal Government. It does not have to put it on the block right away, but the industry must be aware that the Government is moving toward privatization".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, that selective quote, I am sure, will be answered by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry for the deliberate mistruth that it is.


SALE OF SHARES
Brian Vincent Tobin: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister. It was amusing a moment ago to hear the Prime Minister defend his flip-flop on Air Canada by suggesting that he indicated there might be a minority share position offered, therefore, that explained his flip-flop.
I noticed that the Deputy Prime Minister's ears literally glowed. This morning in the House he stated, and I quote directly from his words a few hours ago that are still echoing in this place, "The legislation will permit the transfer of all Air Canada shares to the public", 100 per cent of the shares.
Now, Prime Minister, you are so anxious to stand-


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question, please.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister, you are so anxious to stand and defend-
April 12, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member can put the question appropriately.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister, is the Prime Minister telling the House now, a few hours past the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, that in fact the Government's plan is not to sell all of Air Canada shares but only a minority position? The Prime Minister ought to be aware that this morning we were told the first offering was 45 per cent, with all of the remaining shares to be sold at a later date.
Now, Prime Minister, have you got your act together? Can you remember your story?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to respect the proper way to ask questions and the proper way to respond. The Hon. Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quite right in saying that 45 per cent of these shares will be offered in the form of Treasury shares immediately, and the legislation will call for the eventual transferral to the public depending upon the conditions.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It's all shares now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I find it very strange, because if we are to take the Opposition at its word, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry said that this is precisely what we should do, don't "put it on the block right away, but the industry must be aware that the Government is moving toward privatization". That is precisely what we are doing, Mr. Speaker.
Why is the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe attempting to distort the words of the Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry who has a keen interest in this issue, who I think has spoken out with clarity, and I respect him for it? We have taken his comments into consideration as we studied this issue.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is obviously spending too much time in the company of the Member for St. John's West, but he is only half as funny.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I have to defend my fellow Newfoundlander at this pale attempt to imitate him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are only half as witty.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe is defending the Hon. Member for St. John's West. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister is defending the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: In this unusual spirit of unity, perhaps the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe can put his question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I think someone in the Gallery went too far when they said the Deputy Prime Minister was only half a wit, or a half-wit.


PROTECTION OF MAINTENANCE BASE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Deputy Prime Minister is the following. This morning the Deputy Prime Minister said in his statement to the House that the Government of Canada would have an arm's length relationship with Air Canada, that it would let the company operate on a commercial basis, and would not interfere in any way, shape, or form in its decisions.
In the very next breath the Deputy Prime Minister went on to say that he wanted to assure the people of Winnipeg that the Air Canada maintenance centre there would be protected, the same in Toronto and Montreal.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister on the one hand offer shares on the basis that the Government will have its hands off, and in the next breath pretend that he can give assurances to Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, or Stephenville, Newfoundland, about Air Canada's future operations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman does not have to believe me, but I would think that he would want to believe Air Canada. That is fine. That is his privilege and his prerogative, and he has made that very clear. He called me a liar in an indirect way, and I would ask him-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -to reconsider it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I called you a half-wit.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will want to check the "blues", because I think the words "deliberately distorted" attributed to me is unparliamentary


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, of course, has every right to check the "blues" and bring the matter in front of the Chair at an appropriate time, but this is not the appropriate time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that if the Hon. Member paid a little attention to the structure of Air Canada he would know that 80 per cent of its employees are located in the three major centres of Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg, very important operational, overhaul, and maintenance centres.

April 12, 1988
Oral Questions
With regard to the situation in Winnipeg-and it was raised by Hon. Members opposite; we did not raise it but it has to be clarified-the statement reads: " 'Regardless of the aircraft type which is eventually selected as a replacement for Air Canada B-727 fleet, the future of Air Canada maintenance base in Winnipeg is not in question', says the airline's VicePresident of Maintenance and Engineering".


Brian Vincent Tobin: Not "says the Government".


Donald Frank Mazankowski: "Air Canada is very pleased with the work being done here. We fully intend to keep using these facilities whether we maintain the 727 replacement fleet or one of the other aircraft types we already own". What could be more clear than that, Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister broke his promise to pensioners. He broke his promise to taxpayers. He broke his promise to those who wanted regional development-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


John Edward Broadbent: -and now he has done it with Air Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that recently a majority of Canadians have said that they like Air Canada in terms of its performance and that they want to maintain the present structure of Air Canada, how can the Prime Minister account for this broken promise, once again, other than the triumph of Conservative ideology over good, practical, common Canadian sense?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the NDP were interested in the wellbeing of Air Canada, its employees, and the people it serves, he would pay much more attention to the kinds of initiatives that are being put forward today, and a lot less to public opinion polls. He should stop relying on public opinion polls and rely on important matters.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Call an election.


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I can't hear him, guys.


John Horton McDermid: Don't forget Imperial Oil, Ed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In deference to my hon. friend I would ask him to take the time to read the compte rendu of The Gazette of January 16, 1985, which says: "Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said Monday in Montreal that Air Canada is not for sale but did not rule out selling a minority interest. A group of Air Canada employees says it is interested in purchasing up to a 40 per cent share in the airline".
This was said both in English and in French. It was said in the presence of a distinguished Canadian, as was mentioned, Louis Laberge.
My hon. friend will agree, I think, as he reviews the statement, that what has taken place today is perfectly consistent with what I said in January, 1985, and is very much-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The NDP may think the world stands still, but it does not and there are requirements for the future. We are going to meet this on behalf of all Canadians to make a stronger and a better Air Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SALE OF SHARES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. I tell the Prime Minister, as is usually the case, that I always check his immortal words before I come into Question Period. I saw his quote about perhaps selling a minority of shares, but I want to ask the Prime Minister why he is misleading the people of Canada today.
We have had it admitted by the Deputy Prime Minister earlier in the House in his statement, and in Question Period, that the intention of the Government is not simply to sell a minority of shares; the eventual goal is to sell all of Air Canada.
Since in 1985 the Prime Minister talked only about a minority share, why have they done a flip-flop and now committed themselves to selling out Air Canada completely? That is the issue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know-


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, what happened? Why don't you answer, Brian?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Leader of the New Democratic Party should cool down a little bit. He gets awfully angry when he asks questions.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, yes, we like the truth in here.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We like the truth.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is hurting his image a little bit.
April 12, 1988


Mr. Masse:: It is not good for the polls.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: You are giving away our country.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Hang on to your seat, Derek.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has the floor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would just hope that the Leader of the New Democratic Party would consider the statement in its fullest. The expectation is that legislation will allow the transfer of all Air Canada shares to the public eventually.


John Edward Broadbent: Right, that is the betrayal.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Once the legislation is passed, appropriate financial and regulatory steps are taken, and market conditions permit, the board of directors will be asked to offer initially a Treasury sale of up to 45 per cent, and the Government's holding would remain in the 55 per cent range. If it is then in the best interest of the corporation, the best interest of the airline, and the best interest of Canadians to proceed further, then it will-


Nelson Andrew Riis: He promised that you wouldn't.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -but 55 per cent will remain in the hands of the Government until such time as further action might be taken.


WINNIPEG OVERHAUL BASE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the country will have noted that the Prime Minister refused to answer that question, because he knows he has been caught making another broken promise-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa has the floor.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister or his spokesperson, the Deputy Prime Minister, today, since they promised-and it was not Air Canada; it was the Deputy Prime Minister's words today with reference to the overhaul base at Winnipeg-that the "Winnipeg overhaul base will continue as a prominent and integral function of Air Canada", and if the intention is to turn, as was made clear in another part of his statement, operational control over to the new shareholders, how can that promise ever be kept down the road?
Isn't the real reason that we are seeing this reference today simply another disguising scheme to get the Conservatives through the Manitoba election? Is that not what that is all about?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Remember the CF-18.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about disguising schemes, I have it right here, and I am quoting:
-we in the NDP are not against privatization per se, but there must be a
practical reason for selling a Crown corporation.
For example, if there was bad management in the Crown corporation, it did not have sufficient money, or there was no public policy reason for keeping the corporation, then maybe it could be sold to the private sector.
Who said it? Ian Waddell, Hansard, February 13, 1987.


John Edward Broadbent: That's right.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We'll campaign on that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Please call an election now.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Mr. Crosbie:: Come on over, Lloyd.


Some Hon. Members:: We want Lloyd.


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will accept that I am somewhat overwhelmed by the wild endorsement from the other side.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am overwhelmed by both sides.


Lloyd Axworthy: And I hope from the Chair itself as well, Mr. Speaker.


FUTURE OF WINNIPEG MAINTENANCE BASE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, while talking about the source of policy, I think it is proper to point out that if the Deputy Prime Minister is referring to the speech I gave to the Financial Post conference, he should properly read the speech which recommended, first, a recapitalization of Air Canada, which the Government has not done, followed by public hearings on Air Canada so that full exposure of the pros and cons of its role could be properly discussed and so that public education could take place.
In keeping with the habits of the Prime Minister, they never follow my good advice. That is why they are in the trouble in which they are today with this measure.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 12, 1988
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question with the Deputy Prime Minister. In the statement made this morning the Government makes very clear that it is going to incorporate into legislation a commitment to retain the corporate headquarters of Air Canada in Montreal. That is a good stand with which I agree.
Elowever, why, in terms of commitments to the maintenance base in Winnipeg, is there no such commitment incorporated in legislation? All we have are good intentions which the Government cannot back up because it is giving away the power to back up those commitments.
Why will the Deputy Prime Minister not incorporate the commitment to Toronto and Winnipeg as it has for Montreal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry for giving me the benefit of his advice, counsel, and wisdom over the years. We have followed a number of his speeches and comments. He talks about the qualification which he put on that particular statement. My understanding is that if it was to be recapitalized, in some way, shape, or form, Air Canada would have had to have had an injection of money.


Lloyd Axworthy: Right. You got it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am surprised that when the Member was the Minister of Transport he did not elect to do that. On March 29, 1984-and I think he was the Minister of Transport at that time-he said: "The company Air Canada has good opportunities for growth but the Government is not willing to make the necessary capital investments". That statement was attributed to the Minister of Transportation by The Globe and Mail on March 29, 1984.
He had the opportunity, he had the option. Why did he not choose to do it?


John Napier Turner: What's the point?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, I was clarifying his colleague's statement.


John Napier Turner: Thank you. We had difficulty following that one.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Hon. Member to reread the statement which provides assurance of an employee share purchase plan, that no individual shareholder will be permitted to own over 10 per cent of the publicly issued shares, and that cumulative foreign ownership will be subject to a restriction of 25 per cent.
It then goes on to say:
That the major operational and overhaul centres which have been built up
over the years in Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg are sources of great pride
for Air Canada and fundamental to the success of this airline ... The overhaul
base in Winnipeg will continue as a prominent and integral function .. .
It is all part and parcel of the same qualifications and commitments that we made.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it comes as a surprise to me that they use my speeches for advice. I thought they got all their advice from Frank Moores.


RETENTION OF MONTREAL HEADQUARTERS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Government has made a very clear commitment to entrench in legislation the preservation of company headquarters in Montreal, which is a proper case. However, under the statement made by the Minister today the Government has no powers to do that for any other establishments of Air Canada, including those in Toronto and Winnipeg. We want to know why the Government is prepared to do that for one centre but not the others.
Taking into account the Minister's so-called commitments, will he say today in this House of Commons, in Question Period, that he will make the commitment to Winnipeg and Toronto that they will get the same protection in legislation as he is offering to Montreal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, obviously the corporation, whether a Crown corporation or a private corporation, has to have a head office. That is incorporated in the legislation as other areas will be incorporated in the legislation and/or the Articles of Incorporation. That is what I said.


WINNIPEG MAINTENANCE BASE-MINISTER'S COMMITMENT
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In his statement this morning he makes it clear that the Chairman of Air Canada will vote in accordance with the directions of the private shareholders. How can the Minister guarantee the 2,300 employees of Air Canada in Winnipeg, and particularly the large number who work in the maintenance base, that the private shareholders will follow the commitment which the Minister is making in his statement today?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is a firm undertaking in an Air Canada public release which is obviously endorsed by the Chairman of Air Canada and indeed the President of Air Canada. That is the same today as it was yesterday.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: How about a year from now?


FUTURE OF WINNIPEG BASE
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Air Canada made a statement based on instructions he received from the present owners. However, the
April 12, 1988

Minister is proposing that in the future the Chairman will take his instructions from the private shareholders.
What is to prevent the private shareholders, who are quite legitimately interested mainly in making a profit, from saying that it does not pay them to maintain the base in Winnipeg or bases in other cities? Surely the requirement is an assurance in legislation that the bases in Winnipeg and Toronto will be maintained at their present or higher levels.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine why the Hon. Member is so nervous about Winnipeg. It is a profitable maintenance centre, it does good service, and has dedicated employees. Air Canada has made a firm commitment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Remember the F-18.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In the event that the Hon. Member is not aware of everything that goes on there, in addition to maintaining its own aircraft Air Canada's Winnipeg maintenance base also performs maintenance contracts for other carriers and the airline will continue seeking out and bidding for these opportunities. It is a going concern. Why would you want to remove it, Mr. Speaker?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns the plight of the Turkish claimants who are here today on Parliament Hill.
I understand that the Minister has recently met with representatives of the Turkish delegation. Can the Minister inform the House of the discussions which she just completed with the delegation? Can she further elaborate for the House upon whether she informed the group that she, as Minister, can and will act under Section 115(2) of the Immigration Act which permits the federal Government to admit any individual into this country under compassionate or humanitarian considerations?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the Act. My discussion with the leader of the Turkish community which is in Ottawa today was to inform them that the process which we put in place last Friday, and the commitment which I made to them, would end with their demonstration on Parliament Hill. I will be making a statement to inform the House more fully at three o'clock.
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. Surely the Minister knows that the humanitarian and discretionary powers afforded her under the Act exist for a specific reason, to deal largely with humane cases which are neither black nor white and arise unannounced, whether through natural disasters or man-made unscrupulous scams.
Given that the former Minister of State for Immigration has described these individuals as "innocent victims of unscrupulous consultants," the consultants being the real cancer of the disease who go unaddressed, why is the Minister so steadfastly opposed to administering the humanitarian criteria which the Government used 40,000 times last year, one of which times was for Professor Georges Grossmann who did not need humanitarian assistance to stay in Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, what we as a Government want to accomplish in terms of immigration and refugees is that the law be applied not in an arbitrary fashion; in a humane fashion and a compassionate fashion, but not in an arbitrary fashion. That is why there are two Bills that we would like to get passed so that we can deal with the larger issue of refugees and immigrants, and refugees' families and immigrants' families, and family reunification, and the growth we want in immigration in Canada and our ability to be humane in a fair way to everyone.


NATIVE PEOPLES
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Inuit in New Quebec told me about a problem concerning a group of Inuit who were moved from Port Burwell in 1978.
As you know, in 1984 former residents of Port Burwell started proceedings to sue the federal Government for $55 million. In October 1987, the Minister announced that negotiations had started between his special representative on the James Bay agreements and the Makivik Corporation.
My question is this: What tangible progress has been achieved in these negotiations toward settling a question that is very important to the Inuit of New Quebec?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, as

April 12, 1988
Oral Questions
always, has expressed a concern on behalf of his constituents. I am pleased to inform him that the eight families from Port Burwell will receive compensation by the Government of Canada of some $2.5 million to go toward their relocation. The other part of the assistance is that, because they are beneficiaries under the James Bay Agreement, they will receive assistance in continuing their relocation.
The negotiation process, I believe, was successful. I believe all sides benefited, and we would hope to look forward to further negotiations on other issues involving the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.


AIR CANADA
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on reading the Minister's statement for the third time, I have concluded that the most half-baked, hare-brained paragraph in the whole statement is an abdication of the Government's responsibility to the taxpayers. The Minister says that 55 per cent of the control of Air Canada will remain in the hands of the public, and in his statement he said that the Government will instruct the Chairman of Air Canada's board of directors to vote its shares in accordance with the public shareholders who are the minority shareholders. Who will represent the taxpayers of Canada who own 55 per cent of the airline?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman calls it a hare-brained, half-baked idea, but the Chairman of Air Canada said this morning at a press conference something to the effect that this initiative is good for the employees, good for customers, good for communities, and it is good for Canada. I think the Hon. Member should take that into consideration.
Air Canada has been functioning as a commercial corporation in a newly structured regulatory environment. It competes with the private sector and it behaves in every respect as a private sector corporation. As a Government we have not intervened in the day-to-day operations and management of Air Canada, and that is consistent with what has been going on in the past.


ACQUISITION OF SHARES-CONTROL OF CORPORATION
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am just flabbergasted that the Tories are continuing a policy the Liberals started. I ask the Minister what, in his statement or in the Government's policy, will prevent a group of individuals who happen to be on the boards of several airlines, or several airlines, themselves from acquiring 10 per cent of the shares each and having effective control of Air Canada, or what will
prevent a foreign owned airline from having 12 per cent of the shares and having effective control of Air Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather convoluted assessment. If the Hon. Member looked at this again, he would find that only 10 per cent of the publicly issued shares could fall into the hands of one person, and that would be roughly about 4.5 per cent. In the case of foreign ownership-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But you're going to sell all of them.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We made a clear commitment here that 45 per cent of Treasury shares are to be issued-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Initially.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Maybe 10 years down the road, maybe five years down the road-


John Edward Broadbent: Maybe two years.


Mr. Cassidy:: We'll make sure that you never do it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If it is in the best interests of the corporation to do more, that is when that decision will be taken-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Trust is the issue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Hon. Members do not want to listen to the answer.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I want to refer to Saskatchewan's language law, Bill 2. We are told today by press reports that Mr. Devine, the Premier of that province, will not accept any amendments to his controversial language Bill.
Given that the powers of persuasion, powers that we thought would be the best avenue to use to convince Saskatchewan to be generous and open, have failed to bring the matter to a satisfactory solution, I wonder if the federal Government could not now use its spending power. As we know, the federal Government can offer financial and technical assistance. However, we are not aware of what the offer has been. Could the Prime Minister share with us what the offer has been and what he intends to do to come to an amicable, more generous, more open, and perhaps more caring solution to the problem?

April 12, 1988


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the Hon. Member because it is certainly in line with discussions that are ongoing and are taking place now with senior Ministers of the Government of Saskatchewan. I am glad to be able to report to the Hon. Member that we are canvassing on an urgent basis the implications and ramifications of the decision in a very wide range. I think this is a very hopeful sign.
This is a Government that is giving leadership under the Prime Minister with respect to a very important issue. It is not taking us four or five years, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister yesterday, to try to resolve these matters. Rather, we are dealing with them on a very important and urgent basis.
Yes, we will be talking in terms of assistance that can be rendered to the Province of Saskatchewan in order to ensure that the interests of minorities are in fact protected in Saskatchewan and that the interests not only of the minorities but of all the citizens of Saskatchewan and of Canada are properly represented at the federal level.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the question that begs to be asked is how long are these discussions going on and what happens at the end of the day.


SURVIVAL OF MINORITIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: My supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Premier of Saskatchewan was quoted as saying that Saskatchewan would be completely bilingual in ten or fifteen years. You yourself quoted the Premier's statement in the House yesterday. We know it has now been six years since the Constitution Act of Canada gave official language minorities the right to be educated in their own language anywhere in Canada. In Saskatchewan there are no French school boards or French schools. Six years after the Constitution Act was passed there is still no access to education in French in Saskatchewan. Why do minority groups believe ... what does the Prime Minister have to say to minority groups? What do we have to do to make this Government understand it is time to act, to stop talking and really do something about introducing measures that will give minority groups a chance to survive in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: If I am not
mistaken, Mr. Speaker, the report of the Commissioner for Official Fanguages indicates that in recent years there has been substantial progress in Saskatchewan with respect to the use of French. I agree this does not relieve us of our responsibility as the federal Parliament, as the federal Government, to do more. That is what the Minister was referring to. We are going to use all our resources at the federal level to help the provincial government provide various services and opportunities for the linguistic, cultural and social enhancement of the Francophone minority of Saskatchewan. I think that this is
Oral Questions
entirely in line with the results being sought by the Hon. Member.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last September in Montreal, Canada and 30 other countries signed a treaty aimed at trying to restore the world's ozone layer which has been seriously damaged by the use of CFCs in aerosols. Five of the G-7 countries which will be meeting at the Toronto summit in June represent two-thirds of the world's use of CFCs. In the past the Prime Minister has not hesitated to raise other issues such as South Africa at economic summits. Therefore, will he undertake to raise the issue of the ozone layer treaty at the Toronto economic summit, and at the same time urge the other five countries to follow the lead of Canada and the U.S. in banning the use of CFCs in aerosols?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Canada is of course deeply concerned by the evidence of the thinning of the ozone layer. On behalf of all Members of Parliament I want in a special way to congratulate the Minister of the Environment for the tremendous leadership he provided at the Montreal conference in this regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He has had discussions regarding our G-7 partners concerning the matters which should be on the agenda. There is a strong view that this dimension of the environment should be considered by the participants at the Toronto summit in June. I take good note of the suggestion of my hon. colleague and will bring it forward for consideration by the other leaders at the industrialized summit.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that this will be the last question of Question Period.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, first I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration on her new appointment and I wish her well. I also have a question for her.

April 12, 1988
Privilege
Considering her Government's delay in imposing a visa requirement on Turkey for months after it knew of the racketeers and false promises which brought many Turks here without proper status, will she consider a two-month delay in further deportations of people in the backlog in order to allow time for consultations, both to put Bill C-55 into working order for control of refugee status determination, and to work out a consistent and fair method of handling the 48,000 in the backlog?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his good wishes.
I should say that the normal process followed with a friendly country was followed with the Turkish refugee claimants, that is, there was a period of discussion with the Turkish Government and the visa requirements were put in as soon as practical.
I have examined that part of the issue very carefully and some of the delays in the process were of course because the refugee claimants wanted to take advantage of our appeal process, which they have every right to do. However, it is too lengthy, and I agree with the Hon. Member that Bill C-55 will help us to deal with these things more expeditiously. Of course, after that time we will have to look at the 48,000 in the backlog and I will thank him for his support in promoting Bill C-55.


BILL C-55-REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, considering the fact that all non-governmental spokespeople in Canada, church, labour and Bar associations, as well as others, have condemned Bill C-55 because it violates the Supreme Court decision three years ago on oral hearings, will the Minister consider the delay I suggested in order to negotiate with the Canadian Bar association and the Senate for amendments to Bill C-55 that would make it workable and capable of being passed without challenges immediately at the Supreme Court?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first I wish my hon. friend were in a position to help me in the Senate. I could use it.
Let me just say that we regard Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 as parts of a complete package dealing with this issue. It is the two taken together that will help us deal with this problem.


PRIVILEGE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the distinguished Deputy Prime Minister, who is after all a former House Leader, would want to take the opportunity
to correct his mistake in Question Period when he referred to me by name. He must know that I am the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. In spite of all the Government's efforts to get me out of that riding I am still the Member.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it certainly was not my intention to aid in that unfortunate process going on in Vancouver. I was merely quoting an extract from a statement the Hon. Member made. I apologize to him. Who would not know that the Hon. Member is the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway? I apologize for that.

[ Translation]


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29 NATIONAL UNITY-RIGHTS OF LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to move a motion that the House do now adjourn and, as I did yesterday, I would like to make a few points in support of that proposal. If the motion is deemed in order, I would be ready to debate it tonight, as provided for in the Standing Orders.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of reasons why I once more ask for that emergency debate on the language situation in Saskatchewan. First, there is no need in my view to remind you of the situation as such, because everyone knows it raises constitutional questions, especially as to the interpretation of the Meech Lake Accord.
Moreover, we should keep in mind that the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of French speaking Canadians in Saskatchewan had been violated since 1905. This is not a trivial matter, it is a serious injustice that must be addressed without delay.
Since Bill 2 tabled in the Saskatchewan Legislature also flies in the face of the spirit of national conciliation that prevailed in the Meech Lake Accord, and since Bill 2 in no case can redress the harm and injustice done to Francophones in that province, I believe those facts alone warrant an emergency debate because it is this Federal Government's direct responsibility to ensure that minority rights are respected.
Mr. Speaker, there are other reasons why the debate must take place as soon as possible. The Prime Minister stated in this House that he and his ministers had discussions with Premier Devine over the weekend. Unfortunately, the media this morning reported those negotiations had failed since Premier Devine stated nothing could convince him to amend Bill 2 in any way. This points to the total failure of the Prime Minister's persuasion effort.
April 12, 1988

As an alternative, the Government could use its spending power, as I mentioned earlier. Now, the Prime Minister stated he had or would make offers to the province, but we are in the dark as to what is going on, as to what those offers are. We do not know who is involved and at what level. However, since it is a direct administrative responsibility of the Government to financially help provinces to honour their Constitutional obligations, I think that it would be in this House's interest to know those objectives.
Finally, I think an emergency debate must be held because we are told that the province is going to pass the Bill as quickly as possible, probably before the weekend. That will make the situation almost impossible to change. Therefore, we must act quickly to prevent such a situation.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in the power of persuasion, I believe in the respect Canadians have for their Parliament. I believe that democracy is deeply rooted in the heart of citizens. That is why we must hold an emergency debate, because it will allow all voices to be heard.
It would not only be the Prime Minister's power of persuasion but the elected Hon. Members of this House calling on their fellow citizens' common sense, finer feelings and generosity.
Mr. Speaker, I would like us to seriously and thoroughly debate that issue tonight in this democratic forum.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has made the same request yesterday. Having given much consideration and attention to it, and under the circumstances, I decided yesterday that it would not be appropriate to hold an emergency debate on that matter, and I do not think the situation is any different today. I know that this issue is most important for both Francophone and Anglophone minorities in Canada as well as for the country's unity, but I must repeat today that an emergency debate would not be appropriate under our Standing Order. I want to assure again the Hon. Member that this issue is very important to the House of Commons and to all Canadians. And I thank him for addressing it.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the House Leaders and I think you will find that there is agreement to revert to Statements by Ministers in order to
Business of the House
permit the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) to make a statement and for the opposition spokespersons to respond.
I also believe that within the context of that agreement it is also understood that the hour of the adjournment of the House will not be extended under Standing Order 19.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there have been such consultations. Quite frankly, after the conduct of the Government this morning with respect to the statement on the privatization of Air Canada, our first inclination was that the Government did not deserve to be allowed to depart from the ordinary rules of the House and to be given permission to give a statement other than during the time set for it.
However, we noted that the subject matter of the statement to be given dealt with the issue of the Turkish claimants, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) did find it possible to provide us with copies of that statement in both French and English well before the time she wanted to give the statement. It is not clear why it was possible for that to be done on the part of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and not possible for the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). It is another example of the complete bungling and confusion when it comes to the handling of the business of the House.
In any event, under the circumstances and particularly in light of the subject matter of the statement, we are prepared to give unanimous consent to allow her to give the statement at this time, provided that the House will adjourn at the ordinary time of adjournment and the sitting not be extended by virtue of the time the Minister will take for her statement.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, indeed there were positive discussions between the House Leaders earlier today. I want to use this occasion to thank the Minister in her new portfolio for giving us the courtesy as opposition spokespersons of having an indication of her comments well in advance, in both official languages. It is a very appropriate and thoughtful initiative.
It was that which encouraged us to agree unanimously to revert to Statements by Ministers to hear her comments and allow the spokespersons of the opposition Parties to respond.
Let me take this opportunity to say that it is quite in contrast to the bungling process we saw earlier today with respect to the proceeding dealing with the Government selling off Air Canada to private interests. However, we are enthusiastic in terms of supporting the Minister in her comments regarding the Turkish claimants who are in town today.

April 12, 1988
14390_____________________________________
Statements by Ministers



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, like other Members of the House and other Canadians, I have concerns for the situation in which the Turks who arrived in Canada to claim refugee status, ultimately without success, find themselves.
Last Friday evening I went to meet the group of marchers to explain the Government's position to them. I met them collectively and individually so that they would have an opportunity to ask any questions.
Today I met with their leaders again to explain directly to them my position at this moment and to reiterate once again that our Immigration Act must be respected.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker that last Friday I went to meet the group of marchers, and today I met them again to explain directly my position and to reiterate that the Immigration Act must be respected.

As Hon. Members in the House know, Canada's Immigration Act provides us with a legal process to assess claims to refugee status that are made in Canada. The process allows for various levels of appeal, all of which have been tried and exhausted by these people.
We recognize that these Turkish citizens were originally the victims of unscrupulous travel consultants, but once in Canada they have taken every opportunity to exercise their appeal rights under due process of the law. Those who remained chose to continue with the process.
The prevention of this kind of unfortunate situation is one of the reasons we have been attempting to introduce new legislation in the form of Bill C-55 and Bill C-84. Bill C-55 will allow the Government to deal more quickly with refugee claims and thus reduce the incidents of people remaining in Canada while their claims are under review, sometimes for many months or years.
We recognize that this is a stressful time and a difficult time, but we must also remember that in reality these people are hopeful immigrants and not refugees. If we allow our system to be abused, those who are in genuine fear of their lives and need our protection will be at risk.

If these people leave voluntarily and respect our laws, once they are in Turkey they can go through regular channels and make a new application for entry into Canada.
As the Minister responsible, I will not hold the deportation order against them. If they satisfy the selection criteria for Canada and Quebec, they will be accepted.
As I said before, these people have had the benefit of due process. They have made use of the various provisions and guarantees available under our legislation. Their claims for refugee status were examined thoroughly and rejected by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, by the Immigration Appeal Board, and, for those who decided to take their case even further, by the Federal Court of Canada. At each level, their claim for refugee status was denied.

Under Canada's immigration law, due process is a lengthy process. Complying with removal orders is the last step in the process for these people. I should also point out that some 400 of their compatriots have already chosen to return to Turkey of their own volition.
In considering the situation of these Turks, I am also mindful that today there are some 48,000 persons in Canada claiming refugee status, more people than live in a city in Canada such as Rimouski. Each of these persons also has a story to tell and they, too, must receive our attention and our fairness. Canada has a record of fairness. It has a record of compassion in the treatment of real refugees. It is important to examine this situation in the light of our broader efforts on behalf of refugees.
In 1987, 17,000 refugees were resettled from abroad, 12,000 came from government sponsorships and 5,000, I am pleased to say, were sponsored by private groups who are showing a growing interest in helping real refugees. In 1988, this Government has increased its sponsorship to 13,000 and we expect that private groups will continue to expand their sponsorship this year to some 6,000. It is interesting to note that in 1987, 8,165 of the sponsored refugees were women. Canada contributes millions of dollars annually, in addition, to refugee assistance abroad.

Canada provides every protection for genuine refugees arriving at its borders. Despite its record, the Government realized that its current method of processing refugee claims was inefficient.
Bill C-55 was introduced to provide for a more efficient, entirely equitable and faster process for refugee status recognition.
Madam Speaker, the issue today is those people who were ordered to leave Canada on the weekend and who decided not to obey that order. I stand behind this commitment. I wrote to the Turks to ask for their co-operation and compliance with the laws of Canada.
April 12, 1988



Both they and I have so far met our obligations under the law and we must continue to do so. Finally, I am tabling for the House my letter to the Turks as well as a backgrounder on the situation.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister for the process by which this statement arrived today. I must say that to a certain degree I regret the philosophy that has characterized the Minister's statement because it is a philosophy that essentially gripped her predecessors. When I say I am regretful, I say with the utmost respect that I think the Minister's appointment as the new Minister responsible for immigration was met with substantial enthusiasm across the country by various organizations. It was perceived that the new Minister would bring a refreshing outlook in respect of the immigration policy. However, early in the mandate we still see the traces of her predecessors.
I believe, as do most Canadians, that the situation facing the Turkish claimants and the situation they in turn have imposed upon the Government and Parliament is very difficult. It is a difficult situation because it is emotionally charged. There are human beings involved and the future of young and old is affected. Anytime those variables are put into the equation any conclusion will be derived at through much pain.
I appreciate, as all Canadians do, the difficulty of the situation. We are not making impossible demands, nor are we trying to suggest an irresponsible response from the Government that would jeopardize our immigration or refugee programs. We have not suggested, nor will we suggest, that these individuals be given refugee status. Their own lawyers have concluded that the majority of them are not refugees under the United Nations Convention definition. We are also not suggesting that they break any Canadian law by overstepping or ignoring deportation orders. We may disagree with the law or with the deportation order, but our position is that in the end one must respect the laws of this country.
We are not recommending to these individuals that they camp here overnight regardless of the decision just handed down by the Minister. As much as we believe in the democratic right of individuals and groups to demonstrate before Parliament, we also value and respect the properties surrounding Parliament Hill. Therefore, we believe that that would be a set-back in terms of receiving the compassion this Government may be prepared to offer. Therefore, we are not making those demands.
As an opposition Party, we recognize something the former Minister of State for Immigration recognized. He told our committee that these individual claimants are innocent victims of an unscrupulous network of scams and con artists who have profited from these actions and that these are the symptoms of a larger, cancerous cause. He recognized the cause of these people coming here. He recognized that they have basically sold everything and have nothing to return to. The Minister in her own speech a few moments ago recognized that these
Statements by Ministers
persons are a by-product of an unscrupulous network of individuals. But what is the Government doing about the cause of this problem which continues to manifest itself? We saw a few months ago the same thing in Portugal. We placed a visa requirement on Portugal, and they moved to Brazil. We put a visa requirement on Brazil, and they moved to Turkey.
We put a visa requirement on Turkey. Where is this problem going to manifest itself now? How many other people will become the victims of individuals who profit from the desperation of human beings? Is it not a responsibility of this Government, or any other government, to stop the racketeering and trading in human flesh? Is it not their responsibility to prosecute, to throw these people behind bars, to strip them of their dignity as they have stripped these people of their dignity?
The Minister said she must abide by and respect the rule of law. We do not argue that. She stated that the Immigration Act must be respected. We are not urging the Minister to show disrespect. We are not urging the Minister to go above and beyond the Immigration Act. Section 115(2) indicates that it is completely lawful and in keeping with the Immigration Act to offer humanitarian assistance in some cases. It reads:
The Governor in Council may by regulation exempt any person from any regulation made under subsection (1) or otherwise facilitate the admission of any person where the Governor in Council-
That is the Government or Minister.
-is satisfied that the person should be exempted from such regulation or his admission should be facilitated for reasons of public policy or due to the existence of compassionate or humanitarian considerations.
This clause is not without precedent. Her own Government last year admitted under the humanitarian program some
27,000	individuals. Under the provision of ministerial permits, which waives all necessary processing because of the circumstances, an additional 18,000 people were admitted. This means that in 1987 alone there were some 43,000 people who were allowed into the country. Why?
The answer is because Governments, including this one, have recognized that immigration questions are not always black or white, that many times there are cases that fall between the cracks. Any Government is in need of a humanitarian stream that will allow it to react compassionately and humanely where justified. That is how we reacted to victims of natural disasters or, as in this case, victims of unscrupulous consultants. That is how we reacted in the 1970s and 1980s when, above and beyond our immigration program, there were waves of different special individuals coming in. Those Governments were open and recognized the dilemma that these individuals faced.
We have not been asking the Government to break the law, to go beyond what is empowered in the Immigration Act, but merely to consider-and not even to guarantee-that the Minister apply the humanitarian criteria that are at her

April 12, 1988
Statements by Ministers
disposal. We ask her to do this not on a group basis but on an individual case basis. This would allow the Government the ability to protect itself from those who perhaps are a security or a health threat or those who are not meritorious in terms of receiving humanitarian compassion. We would rest by the decision taken by the Minister after the application of such a humanitarian program, whether it be in the affirmative or in the negative.
Throughout the process we have recognized that it is not an easy one. We have recognized that there is a long-term viability to the system which must be protected by the actions of one Government. This Government in the past, as others have done, has stepped in when humanitarian considerations have required it to do so in order to reach a fair and humane solution.
This dilemma is a human dilemma. These individuals came here as a result of misleading information. We met with them this morning. We were told that they sold everything to buy their tickets and to bring their families here. They did not do that to undermine our country. They do not wish to stay here to subvert this country. They came here with expectations and dreams. They were misled, yes, but they are in a human catch-22 situation. All we have suggested and continue to suggest to the Government is that these people are not refugees and that it should not break the law but that there is a compromise here to consider. We urge it to consider that compromise because there is considerable confusion in the system.
People will see that the Government permitted over a year convicted terrorists to stay in the country. There was the situation involving Mr. Finkel who was convicted of several crimes in several countries. He was given permission to stay here. Contra rebels, who may have been involved in atrocities in their homeland, have been allowed to come into Canada as refugees. We saw the entrance of Professor Georges Gross-mann under humanitarian considerations. There is legitimate concern for who gets in and who gets out.
I see that you are indicating, Madam Speaker, that my time is nearly up. I conclude by asking the Minister, who is a fair-minded individual and a colleague from Toronto, one who understands well the dilemma of a multicultural, multiracial society and the role that immigration has played in the evolution of our own city and, indeed, of our country, to search, not for ways of breaking the law or undermining the refugee program, but a human solution that will address a human problem.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I also wish to thank the Minister for having provided us with good advance notice of her statement in both official languages. I commend her in the short time in which she has been Minister for having acted as she did to go to meet with the Turks a few days ago and to meet with them again today. I know that there can hardly be anyone in the House who has a heavier load of duties than does the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall). I am very glad that she undertook that face-toface meeting with the people who are perhaps to be deported from Canada.
However, I cannot agree with her statement. There is much in it that is reasonable. But there are certain points that I feel at best betray a lack of attention on her part to what has happened in the last few years.
For example, the Minister spoke at the beginning of her statement about respect for the Immigration Act, yet her Government I would add, not of course in her administration of the Act but previously, and the former Government in some ways treated the Act without respect and set an example that, unfortunately, has been followed by many people, especially the racketeers who found a loophole and have made millions and millions of dollars out of it.
I am particularly concerned that the Minister should consider that her Government, while she was a cabinet Minister, although not in this portfolio, from the fall of 1984 delayed and delayed action on this Bill. After the Supreme Court decision early in April of 1985 her Government delayed action to bring in a new law. After the Plaut report was received, held for several months, tabled and published in June of 1985, her Government referred it to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration and asked for comments.
That committee studied it, heard the officials, who were supposed to have the information about how they conduct the refugee matters, heard the public, and every person from the public who came asked for respect for the Supreme Court decision. The committee reported in October of 1985. On the backlog specifically it reported in December of 1985.
The Minister's Government ignored that report, violating the standing rules of the House, and neglected entirely to answer any of the recommendations. A year and a half later it still has not taken action either to correct the weaknesses in the Immigration Act or to put in any of the recommendations asked for unanimously by that committee. In fact, it has allowed the backlog to grow alarmingly, far bigger than it had been before.
In May, one year ago, the Government introduced a Bill that flies in the face of the Supreme Court decision of three years ago that requires an oral hearing with all the meaning that that carries in national and international legislation.
The Minister talked about respect for the law. Bill C-55 flies in the face of the convention that Canada signed 20 years ago with the United Nations. The United Nations representative in Canada pointed out inconsistencies between the Bill and the convention and asked the Government to make amendments. Of course it did not order that amendments be made. Of course it put its concerns in gentle language because it has no coercive power. It can only try to persuade.
Every public witness out of several dozen witnesses that came before the House to speak on Bill C-55 condemned it for that reason as well as for others. The only public witness who
April 12, 1988

did not condemn it and who was strictly neutral was the representative from the airlines who came only to protect their financial interests. In answer to questions he stated that he had no comment on the Bill. The only witnesses who supported the Bill were the former Ministers and the officials who had drafted it.
The Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Bar Association representing 35,000 lawyers in private practice-this Government is busy privatizing says that private enterprise is the engine of recovery yet this bureaucrat absolutely rejected the advice of the representative of 35,000 lawyers in private practice. The Canadian Labour Congress, La Confederation des Syndicats Nationaux, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, and dozens of smaller groups wrote, petitioned, and in many ways urged the Government not to adopt the Bill without amendment.
Since the Government absolutely refused to consider the amendments that they asked for, and insisted on the screening system and on the refusal of a review or appeal in the Bill, the public opposition has remained so strong that when the other place recently conducted hearings from coast to coast it found the same thing-every witness that appeared opposed the Bill as it stands.
It is unfortunate that it is the Government which has demonstrated a lack of respect for the rule of law, and specifically a lack of respect for the Immigration Act and for the need of making amendment to it. I think it is very unfortunate that up until this point the Government has declined to listen to the Canadian public who have expressed themselves through well respected public institutions, including those who have given their own time and money to feed, clothe, house, and otherwise help refugees because they believe those people were in need.
That Bill and the other Bill C-84 will not work as they stand. Every lawyer who is not paid by the Government has said that they will not work. The lawyers who are paid by the Government are the ones who led the Government into the debacle of the Singh decision three years ago in the Justice Department.
Therefore, I urge the Hon. Minister to consider that it is monstrous for her to assume that she is only deporting 30 or 40 Turks, and perhaps a few more. According to the Government's estimate there is a big majority of 48,000 more people to whom she will have to give consideration.
The public support for the Turks in Quebec, where most of them live, has reversed the previous public alarm at their entry. In every community I know of across Canada the public who have met refugees and even met those who have been brought on a scam like that, or met those who came not narrowly as refugees but because they feared for their lives in
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Iran, Beirut, the Soviet Union, El Salvador, or Chile, prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and to help them rather than take the chance on sending them back.
Turkey has a record of human rights violations. It even has some opposition Members of Parliament in jail. I know that there are Members on the government side who take a dim view of that, since they remember that they were in opposition once. That is not a country to which we should be forcing people to return, especially given Bill 140 in Turkey which can be used by the Government there as an excuse to punish any of those Turks who have spoken in criticism, even in justifiable criticism, of his or her Government while outside the country.
I would urge the Minister to reconsider the decision she has given us today and to consider the honourable course of revising her approach in the manner that I have suggested.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House. 1 would have some brief comments on this question, and if I am not mistaken, occasionally Members are allowed to comment on Ministers' statements.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) is asking for unanimous consent of the House to make a statement following the statement of the Minister and the Member of his own Party. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member does not have unanimous consent.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Benjamin (p. 14369).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) had completed his remarks. Are there any questions or comments following his speech?

April 12, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited


Michael Morris Cassidy: I would like to ask my friend, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), if he could comment a little on what he can discern about the privatization policy of the Government. Yesterday the Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Blenkarn), the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, assured the House that Air Canada was not for sale. Today we find out that Air Canada is for sale. Yesterday Petro-Canada was not for sale, but perhaps tomorrow it will be for sale. Yesterday, although Eldorado was on the block, we were told that the CBC was not for sale. It is going to build a fancy and substantial new headquarters in Toronto, and perhaps it will be on the sale list tomorrow. What the devil is going on? I ask my friend, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor, if he can explain, since the Government cannot or will not, whether Canadians will have any social investment, or whether it will all go into the private sector regardless of the impact on taxpayers, and regardless of the impact on service to the Canadian people?


Steven W. Langdon: It is a remarkable and difficult task to explain what is Conservative logic within its privatization policy. There is simply no such logic. There has been a complete reversal, a complete flip-flop today, a breaking of promises, a recognition of one policy strategy yesterday and today a recognition of a completely different strategy and policy. I must say that this is consistent with the lack of direction and the lack of consistency of the Government throughout its nearly four years in office.
The only explanation which can be given for this dramatically poor performance in terms of leadership, in terms of explaining itself to the public, is that the Government is an incompetent Government which has not yet managed to get its act together and, therefore, Madam Speaker, is doomed from ever having that chance in the future.


Mr. Schellenberger:: I have a question, Madam Speaker. My constituents are very much in favour of the move that has been announced today to privatize part of Air Canada.


Michael Morris Cassidy: How do you know?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Because I check with them constantly, something the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), I believe, does not perhaps often do.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I meet my constituents every day.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) whether he might explain to the country and to my constituents the policy of his Party of nationalizing the banks in this country.


Steven W. Langdon: I am quite interested to hear the suggestion from the Hon. Member that his constituents are in favour of selling Air Canada. The most recent polling information available on the subject comes from the March 5, 1988 edition of The Globe and Mail. It indicates that in every region of the
country there is a preponderance of people in favour of keeping Air Canada within the public sector.
This assures that we will have at least one airline committed to a national service crossing the country, reaching remote communities, and providing regular service to communities which do not necessarily have the population to justify it.
I point out to the Hon. Member that even among Conservatives identified in this poll, 43 per cent are against the sale of Air Canada and 42 per cent are in favour of it. Even within his own Party there is no support for the ridiculous move which has been made today.
As I am certain the Hon. Member knows, our policies are adopted at conventions. We have never made a commitment to nationalize all banks in the country. There is no such commitment, and I say that as the previous policy chairman of my Party responsible for much of the policy development at conventions in the 1970s and 1980s. No such policy was ever adopted to nationalize the banks.
There was a policy adopted to nationalize a single bank, which was justified at that time as a policy to give greater control over the financial and monetary policy of the country, given the fact that the Bank Act had just been passed by the previous Government which loosened that control very considerably. I have absolutely no apology for such a pragmatic and sensible response to a foolish move on the part of the previous Government.


Mr. James:: Madam Speaker, I should like to make a comment. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has said on a number of occasions that the objectives have not been stated by the Government in connection with privatization. I should like to bring to his attention excerpts from the speech of the former Minister of State for Privatization on May 6, 1987 wherein she indicated the five basic objectives for the federal Government choosing the privatization initiative.
The first was the changing economic environment for many Crown corporations. The original objectives behind their creation were no longer valid. Some Crown corporations were created to meet public policy goals which are no longer legitimate. The case has been stated in connection with Air Canada and Eldorado.
In addition, Governments have other options than the owner taxation and spending regulations available to public policy. It was indicated that we must study effectiveness, and the Hon. Member's Party seems to be positive with regard to the effectiveness of privatization in Manitoba recently.
There is abundant evidence to suggest that many Crown corporations are not as effective in serving their clients as the private sector. We must take a look at that and see if they are. That is an objective.
April 12, 1988

Public funds must be considered. Public ownership of Crown corporations places enormous demands on government resources to manage and financially support various enterprises, and it is taxpayers' money.
On a day to day basis accountability is not always focused as it should be. In addition, some Crown corporations cannot expect the infusion of the federal funds necessary to expand in the global economy.
If we use the example of Air Canada, it is difficult for the corporation to compete with private sector airlines without a great infusion of capital. If it does not get it from the private sector through investment, it will come out of the pockets of taxpayers.
Then the Minister dealt with management styles, as well as fairness and equity. Many Crown corporations compete directly with the private sector. In effect, some businesses have indicated, as was stated by the competitors of Air Canada and Eldorado, that they are competing against themselves. That is not fair and must be taken into consideration.
I think the evaluation process which must take place in connection with selling Crown corporations has been stated in an emphatic, positive, and straightforward manner by the Government.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, very briefly we have a national institution in the shape of Air Canada which was created to serve the vast transportation needs of a country which is unique in its size, unique in the diverse spread of its economic activities, and unique in its population.
It is very difficult to believe that a private sector operator will take on the difficult servicing of remote communities, the regular servicing of communities which need air service yet cannot provide the population base for such heavy servicing, such as the Hon. Member's own constituency of Sarnia- Lambton.
If the creation of a national institution made sense and was crucial in the past, if it could make money available in the past, not by taking it from government tax coffers but by the loans it was able to pay back to refurbish its fleet, why the sudden u-turn today? There is simply no national logic and certainly no logic suggested in that statement of a year ago.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse)-Labour Relations-Federal minimum wage; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Canada Elections Act-Funding of municipal New Democratic Party candidates in Toronto; the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr.	Parry)-Taxation-Northern	deductions-
Eligibility of communities.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Benjamin (p. 14369).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Since we have resumed debate I should like to warn all Hon. Members to be very careful. Because of today's announcement it seems that we are getting more and more away from the subject matter of the Bill that is being discussed.
I would not want anyone to raise the question of relevancy, so I would advise Hon. Members to be careful.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to make a comment in respect of that last point. I certainly respect the Chair's concern in terms of the direction of the debate being kept within the confines of the motion before us. I express some concern, however, since the motion before us is to postpone consideration for six months rather than to adopt the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do understand what the Hon. Member is trying to say. I understand that privatization in itself could be relevant. However, the Hon. Member was talking about the comfort and size of airplanes, and I have a problem with relevancy on that. I think everyone understands what I was trying to say. We shall continue with debate.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your comments. It is going to be a little difficult but I assure you I will not raise questions about relevancy during the course of my remarks.
The motion before the House now deals with the Eldorado question in the light of the government policy of privatization. The motion proposed is to delay the privatization of Eldorado

April 12, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
and the merger with the Saskatchewan mining corporation for six months. The reason for raising that now is extremely relevant because suddenly the whole privatization policy of the Government is up for grabs as a result of the announcement made today.
Up until now we have been assured that the Government was going to privatize a bit of this, a bit of that and a bit of the other thing, and that the subsidiaries of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, of which Eldorado is one, would be hived off to the private sector, but that the large corporations which were assets in the Government's portfolio would in fact not be sold off.
Regardless of the qualifications which the Prime Minister tries to put upon it, there is no question that Canadians understood that his pledge after meetings in Montreal in 1985 was that Air Canada would not be privatized.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I very much appreciated your comments about relevancy. It is a time-honoured tradition in the House that a motion to postpone consideration for six months is really a filibuster type of motion. It will not postpone the privatization of the corporation, as the Hon. Member has said, but postpones Parliament's consideration of the wisdom of the legislation brought forward to the House by the Cabinet.
We have immediately seen the Member ignoring the comments which you made about relevance. He has gone on to make a quite inaccurate statement on government policy. The government policy has been clear and consistent prior to the last election and subsequent to the last election.
We have the filibuster amendment before the House. Surely that is enough of a parliamentary tactic for the Opposition. The least we can expect is that they will stay relevant to the motion to postpone consideration of the Bill rather than going off on these wild goose chases.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The point has been made to the House and I do expect that Hon. Members will be careful.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I assure you that I am always careful. Regardless of the niceties which the Member from Calgary is suggesting, the impact of a motion for a six-month hoist is that you do not carry out a measure now but rather in six months' time. One purpose of waiting for six months is to get clarification of what the Government intends to do with respect to privatization. Is everything on the block or not? It looks to me increasingly as though everything is on the block.
I think that is relevant and important. I think Canadians should know exactly what the Government intends to do because Canadians have indicated overwhelmingly that they do not want major Crown corporations to be privatized. They have questions about the privatization of smaller Crown corporations such as Eldorado, which happens to be before us
now. We have not had an opportunity in this House to have a profound discussion on the principles which were put forward by the former Minister of State for Privatization, which were quoted by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James).
If that is the Government's policy, then let the Government bring back policy to the House of Commons and let the House of Commons reach a judgment as to whether or not those principles are valid. Having done so, let us look at any proposals the Government may have with respect to privatization in the light of those principles.
The Minister of State would have been a lot more helpful if she had talked about principles on public involvement and public intervention, not only with a view to getting things out the door but also to getting things in, because there are many instances in which it is entirely appropriate for there to be social ownership and for there to be public participation. I was commenting on some of those cases yesterday. However, Madam Speaker, we have not had that debate.
It was argued by the Minister of State in her speech that if the environment changes maybe you should privatize. I am not sure how that applies to Eldorado, and even if there are changes in the economic environment I am not sure that there are not other approaches which should have been examined and canvassed rather than the one chosen by the Government.
If I may say so, certainly the same question arises with respect to the issue of the day which, I am sure you will agree, one cannot help but refer to a bit, that is, the announcement with respect to Air Canada. With regard to the question of whether other options are available, the other options were not examined in the case of Eldorado and there is no indication that they were examined with respect to Air Canada either.
With regard to the question of effectiveness, it was suggested by the Minister of State responsible for Crown corporations-although it turns out she is responsible for getting rid of them-that Crown corporations are less effective than those in the private sector. Again, I am not sure how that conclusion is reached with respect to Eldorado and certainly the statement made today by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski) was fulsome in its praise of the effectiveness of the way in which Air Canada had operated in competition with airline companies in the private sector.
There is the question of public funds. I am not sure what public funds were required for Eldorado to remain in the public sector. We have not received that kind of information and, regrettably, it is not the practice to table that kind of information in the House of Commons. I say very seriously that the Members of Parliament who make the ultimate decisions on such issues as this should be much better informed than we are. The information provided to Cabinet and officials making decisions such as the Eldorado decision or the Air Canada decision should be made available to Members of Parliament, the opposition Parties, and the public in order that we can judge whether we are getting a good deal or a bad deal.
April 12, 1988

We have concluded that we are getting a bad deal on Eldorado. One of the reasons for that is that we have learned, with regard to the costs and benefits to the public of Canada, that the public is giving a blank cheque in terms of the prospective costs of cleaning up the Eldorado refinery site in Port Hope. We are selling off hundreds of millions of dollars of debt at 30 cents or 40 cents on the dollar to the newly merged corporation. That does not sound like a particularly good deal to me. It suggests to me that the Government has slashed the price of Eldorado at a time when the market is weak in order to get it out of the Government's portfolio.
We do not know what the case is with Air Canada, but it seems to me that if it is not less effective there must have been other ways of handling it. I think Canadians will conclude that today's announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister is a bad deal for Canadians. It is a bad deal to have a privatization policy which that particular deal violates, according to the criteria set out by the Minister responsible for privatization. It violates it in almost every respect, and yet the Government is still apparently planning to go ahead with it.
Then there is the question of accountability. We have raised questions about Eldorado, but we have not had them adequately answered. How will the uranium mining industry as represented by Eldorado, a major player, be accountable to the public on such issues as safety from nuclear radiation and the safety and health of the workers involved?
As an Ontario politician, I was involved when we in Ontario were attempting to get a handle on the dangers to health and safety to the miners of Denison Mines in Elliot Lake. Believe me, it was an impossible situation, exacerbated by the intervention at that time of the Government of Canada which sought to impose weak health and safety rules on the workers. In fact, it seems to me that the matter was extremely badly handled at that time.
Eldorado is about to be privatized. We want this to be delayed. We do not think it should occur because we think it is a bad deal. At the very least, we should have some understanding of how accountability for the workers and for the Canadians who may be affected by radiation will occur. We do not have that information.
If I can extend the parallel, we do not know how accountability will take place with respect to Air Canada either. In uranium mining, as in air transportation and rail transportation, we have developed a unique structure which has served Canada well. That structure has been provided by initiatives taken by the public sector. Eldorado is one example of this and Canadian National and Air Canada are other examples. There has been the continuation of private sector companies as well.
There has been healthy competition between the public and the private sector, and this has served Canada well. This has been a difficult country to develop, and one of the reasons we
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
have succeeded in making this country work has been the initiatives of these public as well as private sector enterprises.
We are about to abandon that approach. The Government says that it is abandoning the whole idea of a public enterprise culture which is what has helped to make this country great. Many parts of Canada will continue to depend on that intervention by Government. "Intervention" is not a dirty word to me, particularly in those cases when it is absolutely essential that there be public involvement so that Canadians can have adequate standards of living, reasonable opportunities and reasonable equality. This is only ensured through acting together.
In a family, there is nothing wrong with acting together to make sure that the kids get educated and that the old people are looked after. Canada is a big family as well. We use different means in order to ensure the same kinds of things if we are a caring, a sharing and a compassionate society. However, we are pulling away from that kind of society and are letting the law of the market rule in more and more sectors.
Yesterday there were reports in Montreal newspapers about the rather extraordinary speech made by Robert Campeau, a man who has now become an American industrialist, to the Canadian Club in Montreal. I regret that he had almost nothing to say in French, his native tongue, to the Chamber of Commerce of Montreal, but he was blaming and damning the Government for being too soft. He was suggesting that we should get out of medicare and that we are spending too much on social welfare and the like. He somehow conveniently forgot that the Campeau Corporation, now the proprietor of some $12-worth of retailing assets in the United States, in fact benefited at its initial stages from the intervention and participation of the Government of Canada, the City of Ottawa and the public sector. This gave Mr. Robert Campeau, his colleagues and his associates a springboard from which they were able to build the multibillion dollar corporate empire which Mr. Campeau now controls.
I asked myself what the devil is going on. I ask why these things are happening. What is the Government hearing? What is really involved?
If there had been opinion polling about the privatization of Eldorado, I suspect that it would have duplicated the results of recent opinion polls which have suggested that even a majority of Progressive Conservative supporters, and that is rock bottom because they are down so far in the polls, think that Air Canada should have stayed in public hands. I bet that they would say the same thing about Eldorado as well.
I do not know what the political strategy of the Government is. If it tries to pull in New Democratic votes or Liberal votes on issues like privatization, it will find itself running into a brick wall of resistance.
Why do Canadians resist this ideological drive to privatization? What is the reason for this? I would say it is quite simply

April 12, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
because Canadians are satisfied, deep down, that it makes sense to do certain things publicly, just as it makes sense to do certain things privately, and just as sometimes it makes sense to do things jointly between the public sector and the private sector.

Madam Speaker, I don't want to dwell too long on the issue of Air Canada, but just the same, I think it should be said that the Prime Minister of our country made a very clear promise that Canada was not for sale and that perhaps a minority interest would be sold. Now that promise has been completely forgotten after the statement made today by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). He made it very clear that now all Air Canada shares would be available, that privatization would allow the sale of all shares to the private sector, without any control or direction from the Government. There were no assurances that in future, we as Canadian taxpayers would be able to pressure the management of a corporation like Air Canada to provide air services to remote communities lacking transportation facilities.
Madam Speaker, the same applies to Eldorado. We will have no authority to instruct the corporation to take action in the interests of Canadian men and women and of its workers who are at risk because they work in uranium mines.

I regret the broken promises of the Government. I regret the degree to which it is now apparently moving toward Thatcherism and Reaganism, moving toward all the worst nostrums of the right wing of politics, nostrums which have been discredited in the United States and which have helped increasingly to make that country an economic weakling in the world despite the fact that it is still a superpower militarily.
We have also seen how Great Britain's employment and manufacturing bases have been undermined by the kinds of policies followed by the Government of Great Britain. Nonetheless, we are now seeing the Government here following that same course.
Canadians increasingly distrust the Government. They get calmed down for a while because the Government toes a narrow line, does not say very much and hides its true intentions. Then, all of sudden, when we see a Bill like this one on Eldorado or hear a statement like today's statement on Air Canada, the true colours of the Progressive Conservative Government come out all at once.

Madam Speaker, that is not why Quebecers voted for the Progressive Conservative Party in 1984. At the time, Quebec voters thought the Conservatives were really progressive. Madam Speaker, you were among those Conservative candidates who joined the Progressive Conservative Party because they thought it was really a progressive party. It isn't. It is clear, Madam Speaker, that the Conservatives want to impose right wing policies. They want to impose policies borrowed
from President Ronald Reagan in United States and Mrs. Thatcher in Great Britain, policies that run counter to the opinions of Canadian men and women. That is why, Madam Speaker, we are in favour of applying a six-month hoist to the proposed legislation on Eldorado Nuclear Limited. We want discussion and debate in the House on privatization policies before proceeding with a measure like the privatization of Eldorado. Now that the Government has started to privatize big corporations like Air Canada, will Petro-Canada and the CBC be next? I really don't know. In any case the Government is clearly taking another step backward in terms of the progressive policies sought by Canadian men and women across this country.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, does the Hon. Member think it is a good idea for employees of a Crown corporation to have some ownership in that corporation, which is one of the proposed ways of privatizing Crown corporations?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, the Liberal Government prior to 1984 and the Conservative Government since 1984 had the opportunity to democratize and open up the management of Crown corporations. They failed to do so. Since those Crown corporations are owned by the people of Canada already it seems to me that the issue is, what is it about the direction of Crown corporations that should be different, if anything? I happen to think that a substantial amount of change can and should have taken place. For example, representatives of the employees should have been put on the board of directors of every major Crown corporation. That is a good idea. I think different means of decision-making and working styles should have been developed within Crown corporations as an example of how the Government of the day expected management to function in the private sector as well.
We know the degree to which Japanese corporations have been extremely successful in penetrating the North American market. One of the reasons is that the management style is much more participatory, open, and extends responsibility and authority right down to the sweeper, the mechanic or assembly person on the shop floor. That of course has not occurred in this country because of blind resistance to having trade unions or workers involved in decision-making affecting their workplace, their work, or the company for whom they work. That occurs in the private sector and, unfortunately, in the public sector as well. I have to say that even companies as effectively managed as Air Canada have not come nearly as far as they should have in that particular direction.
The Hon. Member talked about share ownership in Crown corporations, the idea that you have to privatize Crown corporations in order to give a few shares to employees because somehow that is going to make the place work better. If you look at options, opportunities and alternative methods, that could have been done without having to go to privatization.
April 12, 1988

There is no particular necessity or requirement under privatization that those employees' share ownership continue. As the shares are sold off, as employees' priorities change, they may end up back in the hands of large corporate shareholders.


Mr. Thacker:: That is called freedom of choice.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Management may cease to put shares in the hands of employees. There is no guarantee that the employees with a handful of shares have any meaningful voice in the place they work. I think that is wrong. There are other ways we can handle this question.
I appreciate the Eton. Member raising the issue because it concerns work styles and the way workers organize, which 1 believe is a fundamental issue for Canadians in the 1990s.


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak to some of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). I am very concerned about this allegation that the Government does not talk about its agenda. The Hon. Member indicated that no statements had been made on this subject. There are newspaper reports which indicate that we talked about examining all Crown corporations, including Eldorado and Air Canada. Certainly one of our campaign themes in 1984 was to better manage Crown corporations. In the November 1984 Economic Statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) as well as the Budget of May, 1984, concrete plans were announced for the rationalization and privatization of Crown corporations. If this is a surprise to Members opposite then I am a little concerned about what they have been reading.
In addition, there are public documents which concern how we think employees should be taken into consideration. I am surprised that the NDP, as defender of the worker, is not talking more about that. These public documents show how we want to take employees into consideration. For example, the Government requires a new owner of a Crown corporation to provide a superannuation plan at least as generous as the norm for the industry in which the new company operates. There are all sorts of things like that.
What we are really hearing is the philosophy of the Party which the Hon. Member represents. That Party believes in state intervention. All this other stuff the Hon. Member brings up is just camouflage. The NDP see us moving away from the present system to where we have more and more free enterprise that will allow for employee involvement and growth such as we have at de Havilland. Just look at the mess Boeing took over at de Havilland. The order book was a mile long and the ability to produce was one yard long. What a job they have had to turn that around and keep all those people at work! That is an example of privatization.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to be arguing that there should be no government involvement in the private sector. He is of course arguing against the policies of his own Government. Through its tax policy, tariff policy,
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
trade promotion policy, consumer standards policy, indeed any number of policies, the Government is constantly involved in a very intimate way with the fortunes and future of different companies in different regions of Canada.
For example, there was the loan to General Motors at Ste. Therese on very preferential terms. That was direct intervention in the largest single industrial corporation in the country. In theory, I suppose the Hon. Member would say that he and his Party are opposed to that kind of intervention. Yet they do it all the time.
My Party has no problem with saying yes. Where it is of benefit to Canadians, it makes sense to have public intervention. Governments do it all the time. What I believe is wrong is the hypocrisy of a Party which says it does not believe in that kind of thing, but when the chips are down it will go ahead and do it. However, because it does not believe in it, therefore the Government is not prepared to plan for it and do it in a coherent way. That is what bothers me about this whole question of privatization. Whether it is Air Canada or Eldorado, basically the view is, let us get them off our plate and out of the government sector regardless of whether or not that is a sensible decision. The Government never sees any reason, at least officially and in theory, for new public initiatives in cases where it is desirable.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I think I will take up this debate where we left off with the question of the reason for privatization and what is the role of state enterprise.
You will recall that in Question Period today the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) mentioned my name in a quotation of a statement in which where I supposedly supported the privatization of Air Canada. I think that stems from a speech I gave in this House on December 1, 1986, when as NDP privatization critic I tried to define the issues in the debate. I was trying not to be an ideologue. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) said a few moments ago that we are blind ideologues. We just want to have state enterprise and we cannot deal with the possibility of privatization because state enterprises are the basis of socialism. He accuses us, by implication, of being ideologues. I will admit that we sometimes do that on this side of the House, too. We throw things at the Government and say, "You are blind ideologues. You just want to privatize for the sake of privatizing. You are a Margaret Thatcher, or that kind of right wing idealist".
In my speech on December 1, 1986, I was trying to deal with the notion that perhaps within the Canadian tradition we could have a sensible way to look at our mixed economy where there are some Crown corporations and many private corporations. Crown corporations only amount to 12 per cent of businesses in our country. I suggest to the Hon. Member for

April 12, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Sarnia that that is not out of line with other industrialized countries.
In my speech on December 1, 1986, as reported at page 1627 of Hansard, I said:
We in the NDP are not necessarily against privatization. We are not saying in every case we should not privatize, we are saying that you have to have sound economic reasons for it. We want to know what they are in this case.
I do not have the exact quote of the Deputy Prime Minister from Question Period, but it was similar to what I said. The Government should not privatize if there is sound management, if the company is being supported by Canadians and it has a public policy role.
My personal view is that if it does not fulfil those requirements we should certainly look at privatization. I do not consider myself a blind ideologue, nor do I consider the Member for Sarnia and some of his colleagues to be blind ideologues.
Those who support Crown corporations should examine the role they are playing, and those other Canadians who want to privatize Crown corporations should look at the reasons for that privatization and the inherent dangers that are involved.
I am particularly concerned about Eldorado Nuclear because my colleague, the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), and I are presently conducting an inquiry on behalf of the New Democratic Party into the nuclear industry.
We visited the Port Hope area and indeed held a hearing there on February 5, 1987. I referred to this in Hansard, as reported at page 3193 on February 6, 1987.1 said:
I was in Port Hope last night to hold an inquiry on behalf of the New Democratic Party into the nuclear industry there. Last night we heard from people who are concerned about the low level waste disposal, that is, all the nuclear waste which was mined in the past through refineries and by Eldorado Nuclear in Port Hope, Ontario. Port Hope is about 120 kilometres east of Toronto. I heard from 13 people representing unions, government bodies, industry and from ordinary people who live there regarding their concerns about nuclear waste. It is a big concern in the country. The Government of Canada is deeply involved in that.
One of the concerns of those people was how environmental problems would be dealt with if Eldorado Nuclear was privatized.
I want to deal with the environmental implications of this proposal. In considering the environmental aspects of Bill C-121, consideration should be given to the situation at Eldorado Nuclear now and the wider implications of uranium mining which the newly merged company will encounter. Eldorado Nuclear has severe environmental problems to deal with, especially at its Port Hope, Ontario, refinery, where there has been a difficult struggle about the nuclear dump site, as well as at the northern Saskatchewan mine sites.
Essentially, Eldorado's Port Hope dump site is full, and the situation has been summarized very well by the Library of Parliament in its research paper. It states:
The effluent treatment process at the Port Hope refinery produces approximately 600 tonnes/year of solid waste that is mainly calcium oxide
(lime) containing calcium floride and uranium at 500 to 1,000 ppm. This material, and much smaller quantities of other solid wastes that contain metallic impurities including arsenic, are dumped at a licensed site near Port Hope (the Granby dump site). This depository is close to being full and yet no alternate site or plan has been selected. Eldorado has been waiting for the federal Government to decide what should be done with this dump, and presumably the new company will also wait for direction. Any plan that requires the removal of the material to a new site will be very expensive (mainly transportation), and according to the details released with the merger plans, the costs will be borne mainly by the federal government (possibly to as much as $100 million).
Why is the federal Government continuing to bear this cost after the privatization?
One of the unsolved problems we are hearing about in our inquiry into the nuclear industry is the disposal of nuclear wastes. For years, companies like Eldorado Nuclear and others have been producing nuclear materials but have been unable to come up with guaranteed ways of disposing waste, either in the case of low level nuclear waste at Port Hope or in the case of Ontario Hydro with their swimming pools in the nuclear reactors which have used rods of a high level of nuclear wastes. The cost of disposing of this waste has never been taken into account and it has become a big issue in terms of the privatization of this company.
The resolution of Port Hope is mainly to dump the responsibility onto the federal Government which will pay the bulk of the costs.
The first $2 million will be borne by the company, 23.5 per cent of the next $98 million will be borne by the company, and 76.5 per cent by the federal Government. Anything over $100 million will be borne by the federal Government entirely. Certainly, this is somewhat of a sweetheart deal for the company.
Normally, companies are purchased with assets and liabilities, but in this case some key liabilities have been taken over by the federal Government. Why? I think the answer is simply that the Government in its desire to privatize at all cost is desperately anxious for a good share price on the flotation of the new company's stock. What better way for the federal Government to get that than to assume the liabilities of environmental responsibility and of Eldorado's enormous debt. The Government can then privatize to one of its friends, in this case, Denison Mine, one of the companies in the empire of the late Stephen Roman.
There was an article in The Globe and Mail last weekend written by Paul McKay. He said that medical records and royal commissions have shown that a pathetic army of the miners Mr. Roman employed at his uranium mines in Elliot Lake, Ontario, have gone to their own early graves because their lungs were needlessly poisoned with radioactivity and mine dust. The article went on to say that because the problems can surface many years after contamination more are fated to follow them.
He said that they will be the victims of two decades of primitive mine conditions in a company that refused to spend
April 12, 1988

more than a pittance on mine safety equipment and which had a wilful ignorance of study after study proving that uranium miners were being ravaged by cancer and lung disease. The article went on to state that only after one of Canada's most bitter wildcat strikes in 1974 and a subsequent royal commission that publicly vindicated the health and safety experts, did Mr. Roman and his company, Denison Mines Limited, install safety equipment.
That is rather a damning indictment of Roman and Denison Mines. Mr. Roman, the great free enterprise buccaneer, of course got most of his money in the development of Denison Mines from hand-outs from Eldorado Nuclear and guarantees from the Government's Eldorado Nuclear.
The Government is now prepared to sell Eldorado Nuclear without including the entire environmental responsibility and the enormous debt. The environmental difficulties do not end with dump sites. There are further problems in Port Hope and in Saskatchewan mine mills. Continued operation of the Port Hope facility, especially at the present high rates of production-9,000 tonnes of UF6 annually-will generate considerable levels of solid and liquid waste. With the proximity of the plant to both Lake Ontario and the townsite, the new company would do its image a great deal of good by committing itself to efforts to recycle or clean up and sell all such wastes. No mention has been made of such an approach.
Clean-up problems also exist in the mills in Saskatchewan. The tailings that are produced contain small amounts of uranium, radium and other elements. Very good effluent treatment is required on an ongoing basis and a thorough understanding of the principles involved have to be taught to the personnel involved. Historically, such understanding has been suspect at best. These are problems the Government is not really acknowledging.
It seems to me it is too early to privatize Eldorado Nuclear. We need a full government inquiry into the nuclear industry and what is happening in the nuclear industry and how we can deal with some of these environmental problems such as the disposal of high level and low level nuclear waste with which Eldorado Nuclear is so involved. So I think it is too early to privatize Eldorado Nuclear. I also think the Government has taken too much of the responsibility for the debts and for the immense environmental problems.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House my speech of December 1, 1986. I tried to deal with some of the principles of privatization in that speech. I pointed out that the Government's privatization campaign, as I saw it, was not a response to public pressure. I said, as reported at page 1626 of Hansard'.
Rather, it seems to stem from a neo-Conservative ideology which I think is at odds with Canada's history. Crown corporations go back to the construction of the Lachine Canal in 1921. That was our first public enterprise and it was undertaken by the Government of Lower Canada when a private firm involved failed. We have seen the same pattern throughout Canadian history. Our
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Crown corporations have been a binding force for a small population in this vast country which is next door to the most powerful country in the world. We have had our reasons for Crown corporations. They have been justified by the need to provide essential services, develop national resources, operate public utilities, bail out private sector firms, or pioneer in new fields.
They were established not only for a public presence but also a Canadian presence in areas where the Americans might well have otherwise stepped in.
We in the New Democratic Party believe there must be, then, reasons for privatizing the Crown corporations, given that they have a role to play in Canadian history. There have been public opinion polls taken on this issue. Those polls show that most people want to keep Crown corporations except for one group, those who earn over $55,000 a year. The rich want to sell the Crown corporations. I suspect it is because they would like to buy them so they can benefit by picking up these jewels that Canada owns. It is a phoney question to ask if we would not want the workers to own it. The workers already own it. We all own it, collectively. There is room for the workers to become more involved by getting them on the board of directors and having them involved in the health and safety aspects of the enterprise, particularly in the uranium industry. The steel workers have made great improvements there and are still fighting to make better improvements.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House a paper prepared by Professor John Langford for the Institute for Research and Public Policy at a conference a couple of years ago on privatization. Professor Langford is a professor of public administration at the University of Victoria. He attempted to analyse the reasons for advocating privatization. He said one belief is that privatization will remove the state enterprise threat to the mixed economy. The premise is that Governments now own too much of the economy. How much state enterprise in some industrial sectors is significant or insignificant? He said the fact is that state enterprise accounts for only about 12 per cent of the economic activity in Canada. That is not out of line with the situation prevailing in a number of other successful industrialized countries.
That refutes the argument that there is too much state enterprise. Another reason given in support of privatization is that it will create new jobs, new investment, a renewed economy, and a rationalized private sector. While that may sound promising, I am wondering about the historical evidence in this area. The Hon. Member from Sarnia told us of an experience he had. I can speak about my experience from British Columbia. The former Premier, Bill Bennett, privatized many of the Crown corporations in British Columbia in one lump. It was called the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation. People bought shares for $6 a share. They now sell at less than a $1 a share. That privatization scheme was a disaster and some investors are still paying for it. It did not particularly create any jobs.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) once said: "I have yet to see a takeover that created a single job except for lawyers and accountants". Privatization could be spoken of in the same way and it could simply lead to further corporate concentration. Privatization does not necessarily create jobs. It has to be

Eldorado Nuclear Limited
shown where the jobs will be created. In the glut in the world right now with respect to uranium, and in the basic failure of the nuclear industry and the reactors, the fall-out from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, it will be very difficult to expand the nuclear industry whether it is private or public.
Another thought is that the Crown corporations demoralize or damage the private sector by draining off available capital and competing unfairly. Professor Langford considers the prerogatives of Crown corporations. He pointed out that in some instances Crown corporations have to move in ways that private corporations would not do, for example, in certain public policy initiatives.
I could go on and speak about the arguments on privatization, pro and con, but all I will say is that we think this is a bad deal. We think the Government is giving it away, likely to its friends, perhaps to Denison which has such a bad environmental record. We think the Government is picking up untold costs for environmental clean-up. I have been there and I have seen the problems associated with it. We do not think this will create any more jobs or create more economic growth. It is just privatization for the sake of privatization. When that happens, we in the New Democratic Party will oppose it, as we do now.


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, I just want to say to my hon. friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), and my neighbour in the Confederation Building, that I am a little concerned when he says the federal Government is attempting to put Eldorado Nuclear in good financial shape. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) seemed to be lauding the Government, or being positive towards the Government being involved in state intervention or financial assistance in connection with private enterprise. He mentioned General Motors in Ste. Therese. It appears likely that the Government will have to look at every individual situation.
My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway said he is not necessarily against privatization, but he is saying we are going into wholesale privatization. In three and a half years we have privatized, if we add a lot of incidentals, perhaps 19 corporations. We have 127 corporations wholly owned by the Government of Canada which fall under 54 parent corporations.
He says that his Party is not necessarily against privatization. I ask him which privatizations Members in the socialist Party have supported. I do not know of any that have been brought forward by the Government that they have supported.
I know that the Hon. Member speaks convincingly and with heart. I ask the Hon. Member when his Party has supported such privatizations and which ones.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, that is a pretty hypothetical question. The Hon. Member cannot argue that the Government has not privatized a great many corporations and then ask us which ones we support. We will obviously not support the privatization of Air Canada because the company is
April 12, 1988
working well. It is functioning well, pursuing a public purpose and the people do not want it. Why should we support that?
If the Hon. Member were to give me one that is a real dog and for which there is a good sale, then we will support that.
I wish to take up the first point raised by the Hon. Member. Let me clarify what I was arguing. I was saying that in this deal with Eldorado Nuclear Limited the Government is in fact taking all the risks. It is assuming debt liabilities and environmental liabilities. With Eldorado Nuclear those are the big risks.
The Government is doing that to push up the value of the shares so that it will look as if it is getting a good deal for the shares. But the Canadian taxpayer will be paying down the line when it assumes debts and big liabilities for environmental clean-up. That is what I am saying.
This is something like smoke and mirrors, something like saying, "We are doing well. We will put this on the market at a high share price". But in fact through the back door we are paying the costs of the environmental clean-up which is to come in the future and assuming debt liabilities. That is why I think it is a bad deal. It is also a phoney one.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member a question about the environmental problem with Eldorado and in particular with respect to the question of the clean-up of the Port Hope refinery. I am disturbed over the fact that the risks that are entailed there are being overwhelmingly taken by the public sector despite the fact that Eldorado is being privatized. So it seems like there is a policy to privatize the profits and keep the losses or costs in the public sector.
Does my hon. friend agree with that? Does he feel that the estimates that have been given, which could put the costs as high as $75 million to $100 million or more of extra public expense involved with the clean-up of the refinery waste at Port Hope are realistic? If so, how does it benefit the taxpayer if we take in $100 million or $200 million in the sell-off of Eldorado and then turn around to pay out $100 million or more for the clean-up of the refinery wastes? Is that not like the de Havilland deal where the Government paid Boeing to take over de Havilland? Is that not the type of situation which is occurring?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is a shell game, Madam Speaker. Of course that is what it is. That is what is going on.
With respect to the low level wastes, I think the figure cited by the Hon. Member may be grossly too low. The problem results from the 1930s or the 1940s when radium was processed. At that time we did not know the same things that we know today so there was a lot of it dumped around.
The low level wastes are the wastes that come from the production of uranium products and the yellow cake that ultimately goes to be used in other aspects of the uranium fuel cycle. These are not the radioactive rods that are in the big
April 12, 1988

hydro generating nuclear plants. However, they are very important.
People in Scarborough will know that in the McClure Crescent area of Scarborough there are 6,000 tonnes of soil which are contaminated. They are talking about removing that. I can tell the Hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) that we have some of this in British Columbia. We have a problem in Surrey with low level nuclear wastes.
When we were having our hearings we were told that in the Port Hope area there is something in the order of 1,200,000 tonnes. Can Hon. Members imagine the cost of removing that? That cannot be put into the lake. Some of it is leaching into the lake. This is a serious matter.
I am astounded by the environmental problems and the contaminant problems that exist in the Golden Horseshoe area around Toronto and in southern Ontario. It is something which astounded me when we took our trip into that area. I do not think that anyone in the federal Government, the Crown corporation, until now Eldorado Nuclear, or the Province of Ontario has really faced up to what that clean-up bill will be. It will be a huge bill.
Under this legislation, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre points out, the Government has committed itself to picking up a lot of the costs. I think I cited the exact figures. The first $2 million will be borne by the company. Of the next $98 million, 23 per cent will be borne by the company and 76.5 per cent by the federal Government. We are looking at about $75 million or $76 million. The cost to clean up the rest of the wastes will be borne entirely by the federal Government. That is a nice way to get Eldorado Nuclear out of its historic environmental waste disposal problem. It is one of the big liabilities, if not the biggest, of the company. It is just being quietly shelved out the back door.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I realize that we will not have much time to complete the debate today. Perhaps I can make a few comments before we wrap it up for today's session.
I begin my comments on the amendment put forward by my colleague from Regina on a rather sad note. This is a very dark day for the country. We are discussing turning over Eldorado Nuclear to private interests without any context of an over-all plan for turning over Crown corporations to private interests. Earlier today the people of Canada were shocked with the announcement of another initiative of the Government with respect to turning over Air Canada to private interests. Again, this is being done without the benefit of a comprehensive program or any context for this particular initiative. It is simply an ideological response on the eve of the pre-election period.
I suppose in a sense that we can talk about both of these initiatives because we in the New Democratic Party are deeply troubled when we see the Government going against what is obviously the wish of the public.
Senate and House of Commons Act
I would like to consider the result of some polls that have been conducted in the last couple of days. For example, in my own Province of British Columbia I notice that when residents there are asked, some 72 per cent of British Columbians feel that Air Canada is a well run enterprise. When asked whether or not it should be sold to the private sector, the overwhelming majority of British Columbians say no, it should not. They are proud of Air Canada. They feel that it is well run and that it serves Canada. They say that it is internationally renowned. It is considered one of the best 10 airlines in the world. It is profitable.
I suppose that Canadians from my Province of British Columbia have certainly indicated clearly what they want done. It goes contrary to the Government's initiative. Perhaps that helps to explain why the popularity of the Government is so low in the country and particularly in places like British Columbia. It is because people simply do not have faith in the initiatives of turning over publicly owned enterprises to private interests.
I see, Madam Speaker, that it is time to complete my remarks for today.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West) moved: that Bill C-245, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (suspension), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I wish to speak today and introduce the subject of my Bill, C-245, which is intended to further the spirit of honourable conduct and thought which motivate both this House and the other place. Perhaps I might also extend that to include committees, following my experience of the last hour or so, where we spent the better part of an hour on a procedural matter that should have taken a minute or so, primarily due to what I might call the grandstanding of a particular Member who was not a regular member of that committee, but who chose to use the opportunity to engage in partisanship or other activities not germane to the subject to attempt to draw attention to himself.
The Chambers of Parliament are properly the forum to address long-standing questions of proper management, economic justice, and a fair society. They are properly the realm of reasoned debate, where individual insights contribute

April 12, 1988
Senate and House of Commons Act
to a collective wisdom. Parliament should be the hub of political action with the rays of its policy deliberations stretching over an ever mobile society.
There are moments when those goals are not upheld. There are times when Members fail to abide by the rules of the House. This Bill is an effort to ensure that those moments are less frequent. The Bill is a statement that the House does not support the actions of a Member who deliberately flouts the traditions and practices which bring credibility and responsibility to these Chambers.
The Bill would ensure that, if a Member is ejected from this House or a Senator from the other place, his or her sessional allowance would be deducted for the period of suspension. In other words, the Bill is an unequivocal statement that the House, and indirectly the people of Canada, do not support the actions of Members which are unacceptable in the parliamentary tradition.
The monetary penalty is not the significant issue, because in reality it is not an amount that is so large as to have a great impact. It is somewhat like a hockey player who earns a $300,000 salary receiving a fine of $1,000. What is significant, just like the hockey fine, is that it sends a signal regarding appropriate or, more correctly, inappropriate behaviour in this place.
There is no doubt that behaviour of the type we have seen displayed in this House from time to time is unbecoming, and is offensive to most Canadians who watch these proceedings. It casts a negative cloud on all Members of the House, not only the offenders. It reduces the respect of Canadians for politicians, Parliament, and governments. This is neither healthy nor desirable in a democratic society.
I have a list here of some past incidents and Members who were suspended. I have decided not to reiterate those events as it would simply give credit, credibility, and attention that they do not deserve.
Members of the House have welcomed the increased independence and responsibility that our work has been given through parliamentary reform. Through recent reforms to the committee system and the process of Private Members' Bills such as this one, we are increasingly given the opportunity to voice our individual opinions, expertise and dissension, and to seek the inclusion of those views in public policy.
This is certainly a legitimate process, and it is an integral part of our representation of constituency and regional concerns. We are failing to serve our electors if we do not effectively use parliamentary debate and scrutiny.
However, there are cases when a Member persists in actions which do not serve the interests of Parliament or constituents. Members can, through intentional misconduct or a mere lapse, bring discredit to the House. It is neither warranted by tradition nor desired by our colleagues. The Speaker may intervene to avoid conflict, and will always exercise great care in ensuring that the rules of the House are followed. In most
cases, the Speaker uses the skills of tact and knowledge of procedure to effect a resolution. In a few cases reconciliation is not possible, and disciplinary action must be taken.
Currently, the strongest punishment that the House through the Chair can exact is suspension. This penalty is not levied frivolously. In fact, a full series of events must occur before suspension is considered. A Member might challenge another's statements in terminology that is unparliamentary, or refuse to withdraw an inflammatory comment. Under recent reforms, the Speaker may eject that Member from the House without, as was previously the case, seeking a vote in the House. This single reform removed the ties of political partisanship from the disciplinary process. The second reform that I am proposing strengthens that process.
This Bill will not mean the end of suspensions from the House. Differences of opinion and interpretation will continue to mean that Members oppose one another's analysis of events and policies. This opposition is constructive, because it improves the openness of Government and the effectiveness of its policy. Rather, this Bill will mean that suspension is discouraged as as means to achieve goals which are inconsistent with the honour of these Chambers. Regretfully, what is chastisement to the House is an event to the media, and Members can incur a suspension for purposes of showmanship, not thoughtful criticism.
Clearly, a suspension of a Member may come about because he or she chooses to put political grandstanding ahead of the work of the House. Priorities such as this reflect poorly on all politicians individually, and on our parliamentary system generally.
This Bill will not prevent Members from establishing those priorities should they so choose, and it will not prevent suspensions in the future. It simply states that parliamentarians will not receive benefits for violating decorum in the House for personal political advantage.
In summary, the Bill asks Hon. Members to stengthen their commitment to decent parliamentary behaviour and practice. It asks them to assert unequivocally that they do not support the actions of those who flout the guidelines of the House. This is a Bill consistent with the goals of reason and discipline which the House espouses, and I feel it is worthy of support.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised an interesting point in presenting this Bill to the House. I certainly would like to see the matter studied further. I do want to observe that the impression that might be conveyed to someone following these proceedings is that nowadays the naming of a Member and the resulting suspension of that Member from the sitting is a frequent occurrence, so frequent that some additional sanction is required in order to prevent this from happening.
Over the last year or two, it seems to me that the actual naming and suspension of a Member from a sitting has become extremely rare. This is due not only to the interest of Members
April 12, 1988

in maintaining decorum, which may not always appear to be the case, but I do think that that interest is there, but also to the manner in which the current Speaker works to diffuse potentially difficult situations, rather than letting them mount to the point where the only way to restore order is by naming a Member and suspending him or her from the sitting, thereby ejecting them from the House.
I must say that, upon reflection, to some extent I take issue with what may be implied by the Hon. Member's remarks, that is, that it happens frequently nowadays that Members, in order to gain publicity, deliberately seek to have themselves named and ejected from the House. I cannot say that this has never happened over the history of Parliament but it is certainly not the case nowadays, not according to my own observations. While it may be argued that the remedy proposed in the Hon. Member's Bill would be a useful tool in maintaining the decorum of the House and in discouraging Hon. Members from getting themselves named and ejected, I think it could honestly be asked whether this additional sanction proposed in the Hon. Member's Bill is necessary if one looks at the number of times in the past 12 months, or for that matter in the past 24 months, that Hon. Members have actually been named and ejected from the House. I think if we look at those statistics we will find that this has happened very rarely.
I predict that this is likely to be the case in future, dependent of course on the way the Speaker of the day works to defuse situations rather than to allow them to build up to the point that it is necessary to restore order by naming an Hon. Member and actually having that Member ejected from the House for the day or the remainder of the sitting.
While I think the Hon. Member has raised an interesting point and while I should like to see it studied further, I want to place on record my view that we are not, currently at least, faced with a situation where a clear case has been made for an additional sanction to prevent people from trying to get themselves named and removed from the House in order to seek publicity.
I do not want to see people doing that deliberately. I think that should be discouraged, but I think we should examine to what extent this is actually happening or is likely to happen in future.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the House Leader of the Liberal Party indicate that he thinks there may indeed be good reason to study the matter further. I should like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin). I think he brought the matter forward for the first time some time ago. His persistence over three and a half years is laudable.
Senate and House of Commons Act
I think most thoughtful Members of the Chamber value very highly the authority of the Speaker, the necessity of the Speaker, and the role the Speaker plays in our proceedings. With 282 strong-minded individuals-and after the next election there will be about 13 more-it is easy sometimes to envision chaos because feelings run deep and strong.
In my close to nine years in the Chamber I have seen some of that. I guess the strongest feelings I saw were related to amendments to the Canadian Constitution some years ago, back in the early part of the 1980s. Feelings ran deep and the job of the Speaker was very difficult indeed. I think situations like that led the parliamentary reform committee, which has served the House so admirably since the last election in bringing forward progressive and positive changes, to recommend some changes in the authority of the Speaker to name Members.
Members may recall when they were first elected, those who came to the House in 1984 and those of us who served earlier, that the Speaker would name a Member. That step in the Chamber had to be followed by a motion, which usually came from the Government House Leader and most often resulted in a standing vote. We were really voting to uphold the ruling of the Speaker to suspend a Member for the balance of the sitting day. That was the usual form of the motion, although historically I think there are some precedents where the motion has called for longer periods of time.
The reform committee, supported, I think it is fair to say, by all three Parties in the House, decided that the Speaker on the Speaker's own initiative when dealing with repeated actions by Hon. Members which disregard the authority of the Chair should indeed have the authority to name a Member. The second part of the suggestion of the reform committee-and it was picked up by the House and is now part of our Standing Orders-is that the Speaker could then call upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure that the Speaker's order was carried out if in those rare instances a Member refused to comply with the naming.
We have taken it away from the authority of the House in terms of the Commons. The old system still applies in the Senate, in that the Senate works under the system which was prevalent in this Chamber prior to the latest changes in our Standing Orders.
I think we have all applauded that. I think the last time, just in a statistical sense, that someone was named in the Chamber was on June 11, 1986. That is getting close to two years ago. That is a distinct improvement over the first couple of years of the life of this House when there was a great deal of discourse, a great deal of naming, and a great deal of disregard for the authority of the Chair which indeed, as the Hon. Member for Edmonton West pointed out, resulted in publicity on almost each and every occasion for the Member who chose to disregard the authority of the Chair.
We are facing another election soon and subsequent thereto we may indeed have many new Members in the Chamber who

April 12, 1988
Adjournment Debate
do not really recognize, at least in the beginning, the importance of the authority of the Chair. I think that was true after the 1980 election. There are probably more incidents of naming in the first year or two of a Parliament than there tends to be near the end of a Parliament when Members have had an opportunity to work together and to understand the importance of chairmen in committees and the importance of the Speaker in the Elouse.
Bill C-245 is a very simple one. It probably has one negative ribbon in that it tells the Speaker that, through the act of naming the Speaker can affect the Member's paycheque. Indeed it is something that we may want to consider. In terms of what we want to do with a Member's allowance or a Member's indemnity, it might be better to have the authority of the House involved. For instance, on a second offence or a repeated disregard of the authority of the Chair, it might be smarter to deal with the issue of indemnity on the basis of a motion which could be considered by the House and voted on by the House.
I am thinking in terms of those very rare situations when Members are suspended for perhaps a week on the authority of the House. Certainly there are many examples in society. The use of money, in this case the withholding of money, would be a publicly visible symbol of the displeasure of the Speaker, should it be, or the displeasure of the Chamber with the behaviour of a Member and what it does to our traditions.
If I listened carefully to my friend across the way in the Liberal Party, and I have had some discussion with the Hon. Member who moved the motion, I think there might be a predisposition on the part of the House to accept the motion which I intend to move. Therefore I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-245, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (suspension), be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill be withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


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


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


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


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


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, if you remember back to your high school days, I will bet that you read a lot of books and probably some books by Charles Dickens. Do you remember those wonderful novels by Charles Dickens; David Copperfield, Nicholas Nickleby, A Tale of Two Cities, Bleak House and A Christmas Carol? I am sure you remember as well the marvellous novel, Oliver Twist. I am sure you read Oliver Twist but if you did not, I will bet you saw the musical at the movies.
You must remember all the marvellous characters in Oliver Twist. Do you remember the scene where young Oliver actually said "Please, Sir, may I have some more"? That was a great scene. You must remember some of the other characters in that novel including Fagin and the Artful Dodger. What is that, Madam Speaker? Yes, you are right, Fagin and the Artful Dodger are actually pick-pockets. They put their hands into other peoples' pockets and took their money out.
Do you know, Madam Speaker, that that is happening to you, I, and every Canadian right now? We are actually having our pockets picked. You know, of course, of whom I am speaking. I am speaking of the artful dodgers of the NDP who are actually picking our pockets right now.
I know that you were as shocked as was I, Madam Speaker, when you heard the story. If an NDP supporter wants to make a financial contribution, not to the federal New Democratic Party but to a candidate in a municipal election in Toronto, that supporter sends the contribution, not to the municipal candidate but to the federal New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party sends that contribution back to the municipal candidate. The municipal candidate does not get it directly but rather through this roundabout scam through the federal New Democratic Party.
The federal New Democratic Party then actually issues a tax receipt to the contributor for a contribution used not by the
April 12, 1988

federal NDP but by a municipal candidate. That tax receipt can be used by the contributor as a deduction directly from federal income tax, not from the taxable income but from their federal income tax directly. In that way they get a tremendous benefit.
Do you think that that is legal, Madam Speaker? Do you think that that is in keeping with the spirit of the federal elections expenditure legislation? Do you think it is moral? My answer to all of those questions would be absolutely no.
What does the NDP say about that? The Hon. Leader-and I put that word in quotation marks-of the NDP, the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), says that there is nothing wrong with that at all, it is quite legal, do not worry about it, everything is fine. Other members of the federal NDP caucus say that it is great. However, I must qualify that because not every Member of the New Democratic Party federal caucus says that it is great, legal, and moral. Some of them have told me that I am right, that this is not a proper thing to do and that they wish they were not doing it. However, their Leader says that it is okay and legal and so they go right on doing it even though they do not think it is the proper thing to do.
You may remember, Madam Speaker, that the NDP used to wash these contributions through the Ontario New Democratic Party. They used to turn them over to the Ontario New Democratic Party which, in turn, would give them to the municipal candidate and issue a tax receipt against Ontario provincial income tax. They do not do that anymore because the Ontario legislature, in its great wisdom, has said that that practice should not be legal, that it is contrary to the spirit of the elections contributions and expenses legislation and that it is immoral. It passed legislation which made it absolutely clear that it was illegal.
If I was an NDP candidate running for municipal office in Toronto at the moment, in light of this great scam set up by the federal New Democratic Party I would probably decide to pay for the election campaign out of my own pocket. Instead of spending the money directly from my own pocket, I would send it to the federal New Democratic Party which would send it back to me along with a tax receipt which I could deduct from my federal taxes. At the same time I would have the money in my hand to spend on my campaign.
What a scam. What a rip-off. It is just atrocious. The NDP has been using this tax loophole and it should not be allowed to get away with it. It should not be allowed to put its hand in our pockets. We must stop the artful dodgers of the NDP from doing this. Is the Parliamentary Secretary going to get the hand of the NDP out of my pocket and that of the rest of the taxpayers of the country?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I heard a Member of the New Democratic Party across the way say that the previous speaker is always worth
Adjournment Debate
the price of admission. I wonder out of whose pocket the price is coming.
The Member raised this issue in the House, and justifiably so, at a time when other issues were being raised about the reporting of expenditures in the last election campaign.
The House is having difficulty concluding second reading of amendments to the Elections Act. It is a very thick Bill and we are having trouble at the grass roots Party level and in this Chamber agreeing to a short debate and movement of the Bill to committee where these issues could be dealt with in statute form.
The Member is right that it is a pocket-picking exercise for people to get tax receipts, therefore reducing the amount of money coming into the federal Treasury, and then spend the money for purposes which do not relate to federal politics. That is the issue the Member raises. There are other issues which came out of the examination by the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the election expenses returns for the County of Frontenac.
I had occasion to go through a number of election expense returns from all Parties, including my own. It is interesting to see the way in which Parties tend to treat elections in terms of both sides of the equation. There are a great many returns from some Parties on which the names of individuals making donations do not appear because the limit is set at $100 and Parties only have to report the names of people who donate $100 or more. We find large donations from political associations and unions. Then, with other Parties, the names of a great many individuals are reported as making donations. It is not that people are getting the tax receipt in one case and not in the other. It is simply the way Parties deal with the reporting of the names of individuals.
Another part of the form deals with rebates for election expenses. Money can be spent during an election campaign on campaign expenses, candidates' expenses and election expenses. Election expenses produce a refund, another pocketpicking exercise. Fifty per cent of the money spent on election expenses is refunded, and we must wonder whether, in some cases, items that properly belong under candidates' expenses or campaign expenses are put under election expenses simply to get a larger rebate, another pocket-picking exercise.
The Hon. Member has done the Chamber a favour by raising the issue. I hope that the Chamber will have the will to pass Bill C-79 through second reading stage and get it into committee so that we can get on with the business of amending the Elections Act prior to the next election. A little cooperation would be very much appreciated.


TAXATION-NORTHERN DEDUCTIONS-ELIGIBILITY OF COMMUNITIES
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to rise again on the matter of the

April 12, 1988
Adjournment Debate
northern residents' tax deduction. This question arises from my dissatisfaction with the response given to me by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on March 4.
In his response to repeated questions concerning the tax deduction eligibility criteria for the northern residents' tax allowance, the Minister of Finance has only said that there will be a commission established and, frankly, that is not an answer that I or my constituents can be satisfied with.
As a result of regulations which have been introduced, the situation in my own riding-and I use it as an example, of course, because it is nearest and dearest to my heart-is that it has become absolutely checkerboarded by the application of 14 pages of regulations that were passed, apparently without any analysis having been done as to the relationship between the text of the regulations and the reality of the divisions created when those regulations were superimposed upon the map of northwestern Ontario. For example, there is a certain road in the Town of Fort Frances, and the people who live on one side of this road qualify for the northern residents' tax allowance while the people who live on the other side of this road and are within the town boundary do not qualify.
The point that I want to expand on more for the benefit of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary is that this leads to a distortion of the economics of the whole area. Even if the Government felt that it could set aside the issue of fairness and equity between people living on one side of the street and people living on the other side of the street, it surely could not set aside the question of the economic effects on the Town of Fort Frances of this situation.
Essentially, a family in the highest tax bracket will be offered a premium of something in the order of $50 per week to move out of Fort Frances into one of the neighbouring eligible townships. In the case I already mentioned, that family would sell its house on one side of the road and move to a house on the other side of the road where they would be $50-per-week better off by way of the tax allowance because of the way in which these regulations were written and the way in which they have been applied without any reference to the geographic, socio-economic or resource realities of northwestern Ontario.
I have another couple of reasons why a definite reply is required. I think we had a fairly good reply from the Minister but I would like to hear from the Government about retroactivity. If it is decided that communities should qualify, will it be retroactive to the start of the northern resident tax allowance? Another thing which caused me dissatisfaction was that the Hon. Minister said the commission to review the application of the allowance would be set up soon. My constituents would certainly want to know when. It is now over a month since the Minister said it would be "soon".
This issue has brought people together in my riding more than any other issue, certainly while I have been their representative. Many people have written more than one letter on this issue to me and the Minister. Very often we are talking about handwritten or typed original letters. Something over
2,000	people in the riding have signed petitions to the effect that they feel all northerners should be treated equally. Many have written outlining the particular peculiarities which have occurred in their own area. For instance, Mr. Murray Kelso of Fort Frances, in his second letter to me on this topic, and I know there will be more if the Minister does not respond, talks about a small town, a Mine Centre 35 miles east of Fort Frances which is not listed to receive the deduction.
A few miles further east is an even smaller community, Crelly which is on the list. A few miles further east of there is another very small community, Flanders, which is not on the list. There seems to be not only no rhyme nor reason in the imposition of this 14-page text on the realities of geography and economics, there also appears to have been errors made in the interpretation of the 14 pages of regulations.
The bottom line is, as my correspondent says: "I don't mind paying taxes but why as a pensioner should I pay much more than a working man in the paper mill who has the good fortune to select a residence west of the community of Fort Frances?"
The people in my riding would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary a commitment to fairness, an idea when the question will be decided, and some indication that the Minister is prepared to meet with municipal leaders who have requested a meeting with him on this question.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, this Government is committed to implement a fair and logical tax system in the case of people living in northern and isolated communities. Our eligibility criteria in that respect are basically the same as those which applied to the old remission orders and are in line with Treasury Board instructions concerning federal civil service eligibility for this benefit.
In addition to being readily identified with the concept of isolation, these criteria are based on such factors as population, remoteness from major urban centres, access to roads, as well as climatic and geographical conditions. They make it possible to determine whether a community can fund its own health, education, entertainment and retail sale facilities, or whether local residents must cover great distances to have access to them.
It has been suggested that all Tier 3 regions as defined by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion be eligible for isolated community benefits. This is unacceptable because a number of major Canadian centres would then become eligible-including one with 100,000 residents. Most of the criteria applicable to the tier system are based on employment
April 12, 1988

and income levels, two considerations which do not quite square with the notion of isolation.
The Treasury Board instructions and the remission orders have been with us for a number of years, and experience has shown that they have passed the test of time and are readily accepted by the residents involved. They also happen to be the best means to implement the new tax system in northern regions.
Madam Speaker, I received a number of communications from residents of communities which are uneligible for benefits and which are located close to eligible communities. This situation has nothing to do with existing instructions. This problem of borders would still be there regardless of criteria. My departmental assistants have considered a good many options but were unable to find an acceptable solution. The matter needs further consideration, and this is why the Minister suggested that a task force might review the relevancy of criteria and make appropriate recommendations.
Madam Speaker, we must not lose sight of the justification for this policy: a fairer tax system has been set up for northern regions because the old system did have serious drawbacks. It provided generous tax incentives for workers who were paid rather big housing allowances by their employers, but not for the self-employed, retired people, and workers who did not get such allowances.
Generally speaking, the new tax system for northern communities is much more generous and much more equitable. This policy is our response to the existing problems and high housing costs, and it contributes to the economic development of Canada's northern and isolated communities.
Satisfied though the majority of residents involved may be with this measure, the Minister remains fully prepared to listen to reservations expressed about the eligibility criteria. I am confident that we will find a satisfactory solution to this problem. We will give this matter top priority, and announcements should be made very soon, Madam Speaker.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House was very quick in dealing with Private Members' Hour today. There was unanimous consent to call it six o'clock somewhat earlier than usual.
Adjournment Debate
I think that created a problem for one Member who wanted to participate in the adjournment debate. He has not yet arrived in the House. Could we perhaps suspend the sitting for a few moments in order to give him an opportunity to arrive and participate in the debate which was agreed to earlier today?


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, yesterday I was in the same situation as the Hon. Member's colleague, whereby upon arriving at the House yesterday I observed the Mace leaving by the rear door. In fact, I was unable to participate in the adjournment debate.
I might offer as a suggestion, while I take up a little time in order for our hon. colleague to make it here, that perhaps instruction could be given that some assistant to the Clerk at the Table in future notify directly those Members who are slated to participate in the adjournment debate proceedings.
I realize that it would be ideal if Members were monitoring the proceedings of the House on a continuous basis. That had been my intention yesterday until I discovered that my television had broken down and was unable to observe Private Members' Hour, and therefore had not noted that it had drawn to a close earlier yesterday as it did today.
Given the circumstances, I would certainly be agreeable to the sitting being suspended, as my hon. friend suggested. In the long run, there are some administrative measures that might be taken to prevent a repetition.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thank both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Hon. Member for their comments. I must say that because Private Members' Hour was dealt with quickly, I decided not to look at the order in which Hon. Members were to be recognized in the adjournment debate. I would have recognized the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) had he arrived at any time. There was a tentative approach to reach Hon. Members and Parliamentary Secretaries to notify them that proceedings today would finish earlier than usual. Unfortunately, I guess no one could reach the Hon. Member. As he is someone who shows a lot of assiduity in the House, I am sure he will have the opportunity to raise this point again.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.45 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
37 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 24, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers