1989-12-04

Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege to bring to the Speaker's attention a matter which I consider to be a serious contempt of Parliament. On Thursday last, November 30, the Governor in Council appointed John Bassett as the new chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee and also appointed Stewart Mclnnes as a member of that committee. In making those two appointments, the government failed to comply with a direct command of Parliament, in contempt of the authority of Parliament.
Section 34(1) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act provides as follows:
There is hereby established a committee, to be known as the Security Intelligence Review Committee, consisting of a Chairman and not less than two and not more than four other members, all of whom shall be appointed by the Governor in Council from among members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who are not members of the Senate or the House of Commons, after consultation by the Prime Minister of Canada with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the leader in the House of Commons of each party having at least twelve members in that House.
There was no consultation with the then Leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Oshawa, and he was of course leader in the House of Commons of a party having at least 12 members in that House. The appointment, I submit was in direct contravention of Section 34 on the facts and evidence I have, a summary of which I will submit to you.
The only communication was a letter from the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Oshawa dated November 28, 1989.1 will read the full letter because it will not
take veiy long and I want to make sure that it is fully in the record. It reads:
Dear Ed,
I am writing concerning the composition of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, whose members' terms expire on November 29, 1989. As you know, section 34(1) of the Act provides that SIRC members shall be appointed by the Governor in Council "after consultation by the Prime Minister of Canada with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons of each party having at least twelve seats in that House".
The current Chairman of the Committee, the Honourable Ronald Atkey, has indicated that he wishes to leave the Committee at the end of the current term. I would propose, therefore, to recommend the appointment of Mr. John White Hughes Bassett, Q.C. as Chairman. He is an outstanding Canadian citizen with distinguished military service and a long career of public service to Canada. I would also propose to recommend the Honourable Stewart D. Mclnnes as member, replacing the Honourable Frank McGee, who is also retiring. Both Messrs. Bassett and Mclnnis would be appointed for a three-year term. I would propose to recommend the reappointment of existing members, the Honourable Jean-Jacques Blais, the Honourable Saul Chemiack and the Honourable Paule Gauthier, each for a further term of two years.
And I underline the following, Mr. Speaker:
I would like to know your views on these proposed appointments as I would propose to announce them shortly.
Yours sincerely,
Brian
There was no other communication with Mr. Broad-bent's office other than the delivery of this letter to his office at 3.15 in the afternoon of Thesday, November 28. Of course, as was well known to the government and to the Prime Minister's office, he had left for Winnipeg for the NDP convention. The timing of the debate on Bill C-43 was set with that in mind. The government and, as I say, the Prime Minister's Office were well aware of that.
The letter states at the end, and I repeat:
I would like to know your views on these proposed appointments as I would propose to announce them shortly.
There was no deadline put for a reply and quite properly the office of the member for Oshawa assumed that this would be dealt with on his return from Winnipeg. There was no effort made by the Prime Minister's Office to contact Mr. Broadbent by phone, no effort made to contact Mr. Broadbent in Winnipeg, and certainly there were no views provided by Mr. Broadbent,

Privilege
the member for Oshawa, in respect of the appointment before the appointment was made.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has put the situation very clearly. I also want to thank the hon. member for the fact that he has stuck strictly to the facts which are necessary for me to consider the matter on the basis of the letter and the alleged lack of response.
The hon. member has pointed out that this would seem to be, at least on the surface, inconsistent with the requirement of the act itself. It is a matter I will look at. I have heard the hon. member's point. It has been put very succinctly and I appreciate him for it. Does the hon. member have something further?


John F. Brewin: If I may, very succinctly, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize the relationship of Section 34 to Parliament. This is not a mere breach of the act.
The CSIS Act provided Section 34 in order that Parliament indirectly, through the leaders, could be consulted in this very sensitive appointment. I would add this element. This is not a mere breach of a section of the act by the government that may happen from time to time, but given the structure of SIRC established to oversee CSIS, established by Parliament after consultation with the committees, I say there is a very special relationship, and I would like the Speaker to take that into account.


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that the Speaker is very aware of the section, having had a lot to do with the section being there some years ago.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few remarks, if I may, to assist Your Honour in coming to a decision as to whether or not there has been a prima facie breach of privilege.
The first submission I would have is that a privilege has to be pertinent to a particular member and surely, if there is any privilege here, it would be the hon. member for Oshawa who would be the aggrieved member. One cannot have a New Democratic Party or an Official Opposition privilege. One can only have a privilege
pertinent to a particular member's privileges. Members can be aggrieved, I admit, in certain circumstances. I have not seen too many but have had lots of suggestions. Surely it has to be the hon. member for Oshawa who raises this point of privilege, if in fact there is one.
Second, the question here is: Was there any consultation? The letter is very clear. It was sent to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. A similar letter was sent to the Leader of the Liberal Party. I have a copy of that, too. The hon. member has read into the record parts of the letter, but the hon. member does not seem to place any emphasis on the fact that it states: "I would like to know your views on these proposed appointments as I would propose to announce them shortly". I point out that this was set up to include members from all political parties in order that there would be a balance there. There is no question that that has been met because there are members from other parties there. My hon. friend seems to claim that there was no consultation.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no question of privilege pertinent to the hon. member who has raised it because it does not contemplate consulting with the hon. member for Victoria. It contemplates consulting with the leader of his party. That is the person who would have a privilege if in fact there was one.
I suggest that the Prime Minister has made it very clear when he states: "I would like to know your views on these proposed appointments as I would propose to announce them shortly". I also would suggest that theirs is the only party that feels aggrieved by this. I do not know if the Official Opposition is going to become engaged in this debate or not. We have the proof that the letter was received in Mr. Broadbent's office at 3.15 on the day it was sent. I do not know whether my hon. friend is claiming that Mr. Broadbent did not try to get back to the Prime Minister or not, but clearly the Prime Minister asked for comments, did not get any, and made the announcement.
I suggest that the government and the Prime Minister especially have complied with the law. I suggest if my friend has any difficulty with it he can claim that the appointment is invalid because it does not meet the law,
December 4, 1989

but he would have to argue that in another court or in another forum.
I suggest that there is absolutely no breach of the hon. member's privileges. I suggest that the government has acted in accordance with the act and that Your Honour should find there is no prima facie case of privilege.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what the Minister of Justice has just said, I think there is in this case a breach of privilege and the hon. member for Victoria was quite correct in raising it.
I want to say at the outset that I do not think it is our place as members of this House, on this question of privilege, to comment on the appointment per se. It is to comment on whether or not the process has been followed as required by the act. I want to make clear that my comments are directed only to that aim.
The hon. member for Victoria quoted quite correctly Section 34 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. The act clearly requires that there be consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.
I want to say that the Minister of Justice has referred to the letter that was sent by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition. I understand he will now table those letters since he quoted from one of them in the course of his remarks. The letter that was sent to the Leader of the Opposition, although I do not have a copy, I understand was delivered at 3.30 on November 28 to his office and the appointment was made on November 30.
I was not in the House when this act was passed. However, a letter notifying of an intended appointment less than 48 hours before it is made can hardly be termed in my view consultation. It is certainly not within the spirit of the act, and I think the Minister of Justice is well aware of that. He is arguing from a position of weakness in this case trying to defend what in my view is the indefensible.
I could perhaps refer him to another act. There are two other instances of this which, in light of the minister's comments, I think I should draw to the attention of the House. On April 18 of this year in Question Period, in response to a question posed by me, the Deputy Prime
Privilege
Minister discussing the appointment of a commission to look into the electoral law gave the following answer. He said:
Mr. Speaker, indeed, we have been waiting for the report of the Chief Electoral Officer to look at some of the recommendations that he has brought forth. I have discussed some of the proposed terms of reference with him. We are in the process of defining those terms of reference, and I would hope that we will be in a position to discuss this with members opposite in the very near future.
That was the answer he gave. We heard the week before last that a commission had been appointed by the government to look into the electoral laws of Canada. There was no consultation with us as to the terms of reference or as to the members of the commission. The Leader of the Opposition was not consulted. I understand the Leader of the New Democratic Party was not consulted. Our deputy leader was not consulted, and I as electoral critic on our side was not consulted.
This is a strange way to indicate in an answer that you are going to have discussions. But there were in fact no such discussions in spite of repeated requests on my part by letter for information.
In another act, the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act, Section 7(1) provides for a board of directors of the centre, consisting of a chairman of the board, the president of the centre, and 11 other directors.
Subsection 7(2) provides that all appointments made pursuant to this section shall be made after consultation by the minister with the Leader of the Opposition and with the leader of every other recognized party in the House of Commons.
I know from rumours in the press that there may soon be an appointment of a board and a chairman to this body. Again, there has been no consultation to date with the Leader of the Opposition. There may have been with the other party; I do not know, but there has not been any with the Leader of the Opposition.
Again I hope that when consultation is undertaken, it is not this 48-hour notice by letter kind of thing. I would have expected the Prime Minister to place a telephone call to the Leader of the Opposition and to say: "I would like to discuss the matter".


Mr. McDermid:: Couldn't find him.

December 4, 1989
Privilege


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Leader of the Opposition was here last week. It is a well-known fact. The hon. Minister of State for Privatization is well aware of that fact. He was here in the House asking questions last week. A call could easily have been made and some discussion carried on. With respect, I think that is what is meant by consultation. If the Prime Minister chooses to do his consultation by letter, he has to give a reasonable time. In my submission 48 hours is totally unreasonable.
The question of whether or not the breach of privilege has been raised by the appropriate member, I submit, is not an argument that is relevant to the issue. Whether I raise it on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, or the hon. member for Victoria raises it on behalf of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, is beside the point.
The fact is that breaches have occurred of the privileges of certain members of this House and, because the consultation was not there, the privileges of all members have been breached by this government and I suggest that Your Honour should so rule.


Mr.   Maurice@: Mr. Speaker, when I heard the Hon. Member for Victoria and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who rose on a question of privilege, I thought it was rather odd. Unfortunately, I had no advance notice, so that I do not have the act with me. I understand that the act obliges the Prime Minister to consult, and according to the documents that were read and tabled, the Prime Minister has duly consulted.
I realize that all this was happening on what may seem relatively short notice. However, I still think it is distinctly odd that the two Members in question rose on behalf of their respective leaders, since although there is no evidence to that effect, the letters may have, and probably did follow conversations among the party leaders. I think if we could be logical and stop acting like outraged maiden aunts, it is quite likely that the former leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) discussed this appointment when he himself was discussing his future with the Prime Minister.


An Hon. Member:: He did not!


Mr. TVemblay (Lotbiniere):: Perhaps we can stop acting like those maiden aunts and consider that not only the letter but probably also the intent of the act was observed, unless we hear otherwise from the persons directly concerned.
On this point, I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister of Justice. If there is a question of privilege, it should be raised by the leaders of the two opposition parties, who should also let us know whether these letters came after previous private conversations.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the point made by the government House leader that a question of privilege was not raised by the member of the House whose privileges have allegedly been offended.
I want to suggest that it is not necessary for a question of privilege to be raised by someone who feels personally harmed by the alleged breach of privilege. After all, citation 16 of Beauchesne's states:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.
It quite often happens that members raise questions of privilege and the argument is accepted without any suggestion being made that the person raising the point of privilege has in some way been offended or harmed by the alleged breach.
An example I want to bring forward is the question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Official Opposition several months ago regarding the advertisements placed in newspapers by the government which conveyed the idea that this House had made a decision on the proposed goods and services tax when nothing of the sort had taken place.
Yes, there are occasions when a question of privilege is raised because of something that has happened or not happened with respect to the member of Parliament raising the point. In general I submit that this does not have to be done and, if the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Victoria is otherwise valid, the fact
December 4, 1989

that he raised it rather than the member for Oshawa does not undermine his case at all.
Second, I want to say something about the point raised by the Conservative member who has just spoken. As far as I am aware, there were no conversations between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister with respect to the appointments of members of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee. If he knows differently I would like him to tell the House, but I think that I am in a better position to inform the House on this score than the hon. member.
Where I see a problem is with the form of "consultation" in that the letter in question did not state clearly by which point in time a response had to be given. The letter, as I understand it, spoke only of getting back to the Prime Minister "shortly".
What is that supposed to mean? Is it supposed to mean a response in 24 hours, 48 hours, a week, two weeks, 10 minutes? What is it supposed to mean?
If the Prime Minister felt that he had to get a response within a certain point in time and if the Prime Minister intended to have meaningful consultation, that should have been clearly stated in the letter.
The heckling from the government side shows that they obviously think they have a weak case. They would not be prattling in this way if they thought they had a sound case. They obviously feel very ill at ease. I think they realize that the problem here is the way the government is ignoring not just the words but the spirit or intention of the law calling for consultation.
It may be that in a superficial technical way the sending of the letter with respect to the seeking of views on the appointment of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee may deal with or respond to what the act says.
I think we also have to look at its spirit, its intention. If the government really wanted to obey the law, it would have sent its letter in time to allow sufficient checking, reflection, and conversation, if necessary.
Furthermore, with respect to another aspect of this raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, a letter from the Prime Minister inviting views on the appointment to the new International Human Rights Institute should have gone out well before now. This has
Privilege
not been done. The government House leader has been unable to give an explanation for this.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I was not asked.
Mr. Speaker. I think that it is appropriate to confine the remarks to the point which the hon. member for Victoria has raised. It is a specific point. It is veiy clear. There may be other matters of discussion between the leader of the Official Opposition and the Minister of Justice, but that surely should be brought up at another time in another context.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I want to conclude my remarks by making a correction in one thing I just said.
I think it is true that the hon. government House leader did not have a chance to respond to the point I was repeating that had been raised originally by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, and to be fair I have to recognize that.
I want to sum up and conclude by saying that it is not necessary in this case for the point to be raised by the former Leader of the New Democratic Party. It is sufficient that it be raised in the way it was done by the member for Victoria.
Second, the real concern which underlies and supports the merits of the question of privilege is the lack of adherence not just to the superficial wording but to the spirit and intent of the legislation in question calling for consultation.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. Minister of Justice have any further remarks?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, during the commentary earlier it was suggested that I table a copy of the letter from the Prime Minister to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the letter in which it was stated that "I would like to know your views on these proposed appointments as I would propose to announce them shortly". I am naturally prepared to table a copy of that letter.
For the life of me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why, if the Leader of the New Democratic Party had any views, he did not get back to the Prime Minister and still has not got back to him.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Because he was in Winnipeg.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I appreciate that he was in Winnipeg.

December 4, 1989
Privilege
I would like very much when you render your judgment on this matter if you would spell out for the House whether or not this question of privilege should in fact have been raised by the hon. member for Oshawa. While I do not like to do it when he is not here, he is the hon. member who did not reply to the Prime Minister's letter.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Victoria quickly because I have the point.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two quick points. First, on the issue of whether I would be entitled to raise this, the government house leader has addressed that point as if he were dealing with the matter of a breach of the privileges of the member from Oshawa.
It is not a question of a breach of the particular privileges of the member for Oshawa that has been raised, but rather a question of contempt of Parliament and of the authority of Parliament. I submit that any member of Parliament can raise that question.
Second, and more particularly, the extent to which the member for Oshawa was given a particular role, he was given it in his capacity as leader in the House of Commons of our party. I am the spokesperson for our party on the issue of CSIS and in that capacity I raise it.
Third, on the question of conversations, I wish to repeat that the hon. member for Oshawa said to me personally that he received no personal communication, did not discuss this matter with the Prime Minister or anyone from his office. They did not have his views on the issue of Mr. Bassett. He was not aware that the Prime Minister had that in mind.
I would assume that the member for Lotbiniere as well as the government House leader would accept my assurances on that point, at least for purposes of making a decision on the prima facie case. You do not have to make a final finding of fact on that but you have my assurances and the government has not offered any challenge to my statement in that respect. There is no evidence raised by the government House leader that there were in fact any consultations or communication other than the deliverance of a letter to his office after he left for Winnipeg and having heard nothing further from the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have heard sufficient. The hon. member for Kamloops is rising; he may have something additional that I should hear.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I do have a very short intervention. We want to get on to the business of the House but this, of course, is an important matter.
As the other interveners have indicated, consultation is required on the legislation. I thought it would be useful just to remind ourselves what consultation means. Referring to the Collins' English Dictionary, it defines "consultation" as a process where you confer with someone. "Confer" means that you must hold or take part in a conference together.
Obviously, as has been made clear, the Leader of the New Democratic Party at that time did not enter into consultation. He did not reply. In other words, what the Prime Minister did was notify the Leader of the New Democratic Party of his intentions, which is fine, and as the legislation is very explicit, it would require then a dialogue between two people.
This dialogue has not taken place and as the hon. members speaking before me made aptly clear, 48 hours is hardly an adequate time to arrange an interchange on such an important matter. I simply want to make that intervention.


Maurice Tremblay: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. I do not challenge the right of the hon. member for Victoria to raise a question of privilege, and I think the Leader of the Official Opposition was absolutely right. But as Speaker of this august assembly, you have a duty to consider the letter, not the intent of the law, unless the letter is not clear. In this case, the letter of the law is very clear. The documents tabled raise the question whether there was any consultation. Perhaps there was not enough time to your taste, but the fact is that the letter of the law was respected.
If the intent of the law was not respected, in that case Mr. Speaker, we must hear it from those directly concerned and not from persons speaking on their behalf. As for the letter of the law, documents were tabled to the effect that Section 34 of the act was observed. That's it. Oh, come on!

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: Again, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere for his comments.

I have listened carefully to the discussions and I will consider the matter. I want to indicate that I see the distinction between privilege and contempt of the House and I will also accept the request of the hon. Minister of Justice to try to define if I can more particularly the question of what member, under certain circumstances, can raise a question of privilege.
I will consider the point and I shall return to the House. Again, in summary, this discussion has come about because the Prime Minister apparently sent letters to both the Leader of the Official Opposition and the then Leader of the New Democratic Party asking for views. For whatever reason, no views were sent back and the appointment was made several days later. That is the fact pattern. There is a statute that requires consultation. There has been some argument about what that means, but that is the issue I must decide.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to several petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings. [



DUTY REMISSION ORDERS


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table copies, in both official languages, of the report to Parliament on new duty remission orders approved in the six months ending September 30, 1989.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the 22nd annual meeting of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association, which was held from October 21 to 29, 1989 in Paris and the Languedoc- Roussillon region.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 and certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions from a number of petitioners from Kamloops, British Columbia. These petitioners point out a whole variety of reasons why they are opposed to the government's goods and services tax and are calling upon the Parliament of Canada to encourage the government to not proceed with the goods and services tax but in fact go back to the drawing board and attempt an effort at real tax reform.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to present petitions on behalf of Canadian citizens who are very concerned about the government proceeding with the cutting of VIA Rail services in this country. The constituents in my riding of Northumberland are particularly concerned because there are 400 to 500 trips out of my riding every day, mainly into Toronto, and on January 16 they will be left with only one possible trip into Toronto of a duration of four hours, which is totally inadequate for any of their purposes for going to Toronto.
They petition and ask this government to put a moratorium on the proposed cuts to VIA Rail.

December 4, 1989
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of producers from Saskatchewan. These are farmers from Melville, Waldron, Yorkton, Neudorf, Kamsack, the town of Grayson, Langenburg, Melville, Kenora, Preeceville, Grayson, Unity Norquay, Duff and Esterhazy. These farmers are concerned about the fact that this government has removed oats from the Canadian Wheat Board and they call upon this government to amend the Wheat Board Act to give oats and barley the same protection as wheat presently has under the Wheat Board so that this government cannot again unilaterally remove oats and further deteriorate the effectiveness of the Canadian Wheat Board.
[Translation\


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty today to present another petition on the goods and services tax proposed by this government.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that hundreds and thousands of people, in my riding and elsewhere, have signed these petitions to tell this government in no uncertain terms that they object to this unusual, exceptional form of taxation, which will hit Canadians with a new 9 per cent tax on all goods and services. These people maintain that this tax will be hidden in the selling price; that it will apply to practically everything Canadians buy; that imposing this new tax across the board on goods and services will cause serious, unfair hardships for Canadians on low and moderate incomes; that this tax will be a costly burden for small businesses. All these Canadians strongly oppose this new goods and services tax, which they say is an unprecedented assault on Canadians' pocketbooks and will not only force them to pay higher taxes but will bring them higher inflation, interest rates and unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, these people humbly ask Parliament to reject this new tax on goods and services.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty on behalf of citizens of Saskatchewan, from my home community of Domremy and surrounding communities as well as other places in Saskatchewan to call upon the government to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax, to reform the tax system so that it is an effective tax and does not penalize the ordinary Canadian.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition to this House from hundreds of people from southwestern Ontario who are calling on this government to rescind its action on cut-backs to VIA. They see it as an essential and necessary service, important to to this country and especially to southwestern Ontario.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present another petition on behalf of hundreds of people from southwestern Ontario asking this government to scuttle its proposed goods and services tax. As they describe it, it surely will be a gouging and screwing tax.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition duly complete and attested to as to content and form. The petition is another expression of alarm at this government's attempt to close rural Canada by closing down a good part of VIA Rail service. The petition comes from citizens in and around the London part of the province.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition signed by residents of Ontario who call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada not to cancel in whole or in part rail passenger services in Canada. They argue that the elimination of these routes will cost thousands of jobs in Canada. They argue that the rail mode is the safest and most environmentally friendly mode of travel and that rural communities which exclusively rely on rail passenger service will be denied adequate transportation facilities.

Routine Proceedings

This petition is certified correct as to form and content in accordance with Standing Order 36.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition signed by Canadians who are objecting to the government's 9 per cent GST. The Council of Canadians are picketing the constituency office of the Minister of Finance and they, together with other Canadians, have signed this petition asking this Parliament to urge the government to scrap the GST.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, stand here this morning to present petitions. The first petition is with regard to the goods and services tax and it is signed by members of the Ottawa and Nepean communities. Mostly it is signed by members beyond my community and riding: Manotick, Kars, North Gower, Richmond and Kemptville. These people are from the small towns and rural part of Canada. They are most concerned about the goods and services tax that is going to affect them very very seriously on just about everything that they will be buying.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind the proposal to implement this goods and services tax in Canada.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions signed by 95 petitioners from the city of London, Ontario. These petitioners are most concerned that the Government of Canada has decided to eliminate many of the VIA Rail routes. Rail service does not have disproportionate subsidies in comparison to highway and airport infrastructure subsidies. Yet this appears to be the reason that the Government of Canada wishes to cut back on rail service.
These petitioners also humbly pray and call upon Parliament not to cancel in full or in part the rail services in Canada.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of presenting a petition on behalf of a number of citizens in Carleton-Gloucester and the province of Ontario.
The petition is against the proposed goods and services tax. Your petitioners are radically opposed to the proposed tax on consumption. They are willing to pay their fair share of income tax but, Mr. Speaker, I believe this tax will be harmful to consumption and Canadian productivity.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is indeed my pleasure and privilege to present on behalf of petitioners from the Vernon and Armstrong area of British Columbia a petition in which they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will protect the life of the pre-bom child without distinction as to the stage of development.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many constituents from the Pembroke, Chalk River and Petawawa area who oppose the 9 per cent goods and services tax. They look at the #31 increases in taxes that have already taken place under this government and they are saying that enough is enough.
Mr. Speaker, I also have another one here signed by many people from places like Eganville, Kormak, Palmer Rapids, Renfrew, Cobden and Golden Lake. You would have no trouble getting these petitions out, Mr. Speaker, because requests are coming into my office for them regularly every day. There is a great demand for them because the people of Canada on these petitions wish to express their feelings to the Government of Canada that they are absolutely opposed to this 9 per cent goods and services tax. After 31 tax increases to date by this government, they are saying to this government, enough is enough. These petitions are coming from small communities and large communities alike from all over Canada. I think it is something to which the government has to pay serious attention.

December 4, 1989
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition from 100 of my constituents from Deep Bight, North West Brook, all of the southwest Durham, Sunnyside and Goobies. These constituents are very concerned. As Newfoundlanders they have the highest rate of income tax in the country, a provincial sales tax that is now 12 per cent and they are looking at another 9 per cent on top of that. They are looking at the dubious distinction of living in the only country in the world that will have a provincial and a federal sales tax, and are looking at all the other tax increases they have had to endure during the last four-plus years.
I think we can all agree that they have a problem. They do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject this goods and services tax.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36, it is my privilege to table in the House a petition on behalf of Canadians who are vigorously opposed to the government's proposed goods and services tax, because your petitioners believe the proposed legislation will encourage inflation. It is a regressive measure, and people on middle and low incomes will be particularly affected.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I also have another petition on behalf of Canadians who are also opposed to the cuts in VIA Rail as it pertains to jobs and the effect on the environment.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 11 pages of names from people who live in communities like Prince Albert, Shell Brook, Weyakwin, Denare Beach, Creighton and Flin Flon, Manitoba. These people are opposed to the goods and services tax. It is described as the grab and steal tax in that part of the country. They are particularly concerned with the effects on northern communities where the GST will have an even greater impact than it does on
the rest of Canada. They are calling on Parliament to reject this tax and instead to introduce a fair tax system.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 would like to present this petition on behalf of 129 constituents of Kenora-Rainy River. They ask the government to consider in further debating the abortion bill that the sanctity of human life should commence at conception. They believe that faith in our future can only be guaranteed by our willingness to respect life from the pre-bom to the aged.
I present this on behalf of the people of Kenora- Rainy River to enhance the debate on this very important issue.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 a petition from people in my riding who are opposed to the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which would allow the government to withdraw its contribution of some $2.9 billion to the unemployment insurance fund. Instead, they ask that the government look at the regional disparities in this country, put in place meaningful reforms and form a labour force development strategy instead of cutting programs which would not be of any benefit to the unemployed at all.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is signed by residents of London, Ontario concerning an issue that just will not go away. We have heard some petitions about it today, and that is the cuts to VTA Rail.
These petitioners fervently pray and ask Parliament to ensure that it not cancel, in whole or in part, rail passenger service in Canada. Of course, this petition reflects the views, not only of the petitioners in this petition, but many hundreds of thousands of Canadians.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Tom Hockin (for the President of the Privy Council) moved: that Bill C-34, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce Bill C-34, legislation for the establishment of the Canadian Centre for Management Development.
This bill embodies those principles stated by the Prime Minister in the announcement of the centre on April 14, 1988, and reflects the government's desire to build upon the tradition of excellence in management that characterizes the Canadian public service.
The centre's mission will be to strengthen the management capacity of the public sector, particularly the senior levels, with a view to improving the quality of government and to enhancing service to the people of Canada.
In accomplishing its mission the centre will co-operate fully with Canada's best in the public, private and academic sectors with a view to complementing, not competing with existing institutions. The centre will strive to become a national centre of excellence in public sector management, teaching and research while reflecting the strong traditions of the Canadian public service.
The objects of the centre, as stated in Bill C-34, focus on these issues critical to ensuring our public sector managers have the capabilities required to manage effectively today and in the future. These objects are: encouraging pride and excellence in the management of
Government Orders
the public service and fostering among public service managers a sense of the purposes, values and traditions of the public service; helping to ensure that managers in the public service have the analytical, creative, advisory, administrative and other managerial skills and knowledge necessary to develop policy, and respond to change and manage government programs and services efficiently and effectively.
Other objects are: attracting through its programs and studies persons of high calibre to the public service and supporting their growth and development as public service sector managers committed to the service of Canada; formulating and providing training, orientation and development programs for managers in the public sector and particularly for senior managers in the public service; studying and conducting research into the theory and practice of the public sector management; encouraging a greater awareness in Canada of issues related to public sector management and the role and functions of government; and involving a broad range of individuals and institutions in the centre's pursuit of excellence in the public administration.
The independence necessary for an institution of this kind is assured in the legislation by the establishment of the centre as a departmental corporation under the direction of a board of governors. The board will be comprised of outstanding representatives from inside and outside the public service with the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Secretary to the Cabinet as chairmen of the board.
It is envisioned that the Canadian Centre for Management Development will be a place where highly motivated senior managers will come together to create and exchange knowledge and to learn from each other from top-flight academics and from the most effective practitioners working in the public and private sectors. As befits a first-class educational institution, the management centre will have the authority to consult widely and develop programs and publish the results of its research and case development activity.
The centre's headquarters will be in the historic De La Salle Academy in downtown Ottawa with a second residential facility in Touraine, Quebec. As a truly national centre it will also offer its courses in existing federal facilities across Canada.

Government Orders
In the current environment of rapid technological change, globalization and fiscal restraint, it is critical that our public sector managers have the capabilities to adapt quickly to these changes while continuing to effectively manage public programs and services. The Centre for Management Development will be a key factor in ensuring that this takes place.
As many members are aware, under Order in Council and Treasury Board authorities granted in the summer of 1988, the management centre has been producing teaching cases, conducting research into important public service management issues and developing and delivering effective programming to numerous senior level groups including federal executives, Governor in Council appointees and Members of Parliament.
While the centre's activities to date have been impressive, there is a need in the longer term to enact legislation which will set out specific objectives against which the centre can be held accountable. There is a need as well for the management centre to be provided with the required intellectual independence as conferred by Bill C-34.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to introduce legislation which will have an important impact not only on the public sector but also on the quality of service provided to the people of Canada.
The Canadian public service has a long and distinguished tradition of dedicated and highly qualified service. Bill C-34 reflects the government's continued recognition and support of this tradition. I am confident that all members of this House recognize the need for a skilled public service and trust, therefore, that they will be able to support this most important legislation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-34, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to amend certains acts in consequence thereof. I am particularly pleased because the proposed legislation embodies a plan that has been on my mind ever since I first entered federal politics in 1972. First I want to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West for her kindness in letting me make the speech on second reading. Being the
official public service critic, she would normally have made the speech today, but she felt that I would appreciate this opportunity, and I must say that I appreciate this kindness on her part.
Mr. Speaker, in 1974, two years after I was first elected as the federal member for Ottawa-Vanier, I demonstrated my interest in a national administration school. I felt there was a need, and I have been reading the speeches that I made over the years. I quote:
to provide the public service with a staff that on the basis of its experience, knowledge and skills is able to take on management duties after a democratic recruitment process, resulting in an harmonious marriage of knowledge and experience".
At the time, the plan was that this school or institution would also be open to university graduates who wanted a career in the public service. After many hours of reflection and after consulting the various groups concerned, including unions, private citizens and retired public servants, I made this project the subject of an initial motion under Private Members' Business, tabled in the House on May 6, 1977. On October 31 that same year, I had the privilege of introducing Bill C-304, an act to establish a National Administration School in the National Capital Region, as well as a new motion on the same subject.
In January 1981, I decided to table another motion which was debated in the House. The purpose of this motion was to consider the feasibility of evaluating public service employee training and development programs in order to prepare a comprehensive policy in this respect.
Finally, in 1987 a motion was put on the order paper in my name, followed the year after by a government bill, Bill C-46. The House will recall that Bill C-46 was considered by the House of Commons, passed and subsequently considered by the Senate on second reading. However because of the election in November 1988, the bill died on the order paper, and that is why the government is trying a second time to pass the legislation required to establish this centre.
Mr. Speaker, for me, the bill before the House today represents the culmination of many years of hard work to ensure the development and growth of a public service of which Canada can be proud. Others before me were also aware of the importance of establishing an institution
December 4, 1989

that would provide for more effective management within the federal public service.
A number of commissions have examined this question. The Gordon Commission was asked to examine the administrative structure responsible for personnel; in 1954, the Heeney Commission was appointed to examine relations between the Public Service Commission and Treasury Board. In 1962, the Glassco Commission said it had to conclude that training and development had not, in general, received anything like appropriate attention in the public service.
During the past decade, Mr. Speaker, we had the Lambert report, the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Financial Management and Accountability, and the d'A-vignon Commission, a committee that examined the merit principle and its application and dealt with accountability, effectiveness and efficiency in the federal public service.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-34, an Act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, is merely a logical step, in line with previous attempts to improve the federal public service. The pressures on public servants are reflected in budget cut-backs, contracting out and reductions in government personnel, all of which have made it essential to improve management training and development and support management research and case studies.
Like the private sector, the public sector is going through rapid technological change to which it must learn to adjust.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the centre is to help federal public service managers and executives to acquire the skills they need to manage public programs effectively. Furthermore, it will expand their practical management skills and help them find solutions to current problems. We must help them develop motivation, principles, respect for tradition and a sense of responsibility. We must develop excellence by making Canadians aware of the problems of public administration and persuade various groups, including the private sector, to help improve management in the public sector.
We agree wholeheartedly with the objects of the centre which are to encourage pride and excellence in the management of the public service and to foster among public service managers a sense of the purposes,
Government Orders
values and traditions of the public service. Mr. Speaker, these definitions are contained in Section 4 of the bill, and I would urge Hon. Members to read this section, which lists the objects of the centre. Mr. Speaker, I also agree with the centre's object to encourage managers to hone their skills and update their techniques.
I think it would be appropriate to raise some of the points discussed in the course of previous debates, and since this is the second time the House will examine the principle of the bill, I think it would be interesting for hon. members, since we do not often have a chance to read comments and suggestions made by the senators, who, as I said earlier, had an opportunity to consider Bill C-48- This means we will have an opportunity to benefit from the expertise of the other place, as we say here, in its consideration of a bill that is somewhat similar to Bill C-34.
I may add that a number of questions will be raised in committee about the new administrative structure of the centre. Mr. Speaker, there has been a rather important change, and I was advised of this change by the Deputy Prime Minister in a letter dated July 19. In the third paragraph of his letter, the Minister says the bill retains the characteristics of the previous Bill C-148 but gives the centre the status of a public institution instead of a department. Hon. members will recall that Bill C-34 did the opposite. The minister went on to say that as a public institution, the centre will be administered by a board of directors consisting of directors of private corporations, senior members of the Canadian academic community and general administrators of federal departments.
Mr. Speaker, in committee we will ask about these changes. If they were made to guarantee the institution's independence in managing the intellectual aspects of its business, I think we would like to have this confirmed by the Deputy Prime Minister when the bill is examined in committee. Otherwise, I would like to know why the structure was changed.
Mr. Speaker, regarding accountability to Parliament, the bill contains a proposal that says that within four months after the end of each fiscal year, the centre shall submit a report to the minister responsible and that the report shall be tabled in the House. In committee I will ask about the centre's accountability in this respect. Will

December 4, 1989
Government Orders
Hon. Members have a chance in committee to examine the centre's work and its administration?
Mr. Speaker, we are also concerned about the mechanisms for consultation and involvement of Canadian universities in programs and courses. As you know, for many years here in the National Capital Region and elsewhere, the Public Service of Canada has negotiated course programs with certain universities. I am thinking of specific programs at the University of Ottawa in my riding and at Carleton University in Ottawa. I think that these programs benefited public servants, and perhaps the implication for all these previous programs of co-operation between Canadian universities and federal officials should be studied in committee.
There is the whole issue of equal access to the Centre's programs for all Canadians, with special emphasis on women, native people and the handicapped to ensure that they have an equal opportunity to take these courses and obtain scholarships to pursue their education.
My friend and colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mrs. Catterall), has several questions which she will raise at the appropriate time. Mr. Speaker, we are taking this opportunity on second reading to strengthen the bill because we are convinced that the time is ripe and that the Canadian Centre for Management Development will meet Canadians' expectations by strengthening the federal government's managerial abilities. Definitely, better management will give us better performance and all Canadians will benefit from it.

As far back as 1974, I first proposed in a speech the establishment of a national administrative school for public servants. The Public Service of Canada has undergone tremendous change since then, and I would like to cite a few figures for the record to make the point I am about to state.
From 1965 to 1975 the number of employees in the Public Service of Canada had gone from 140,000 to 273,000, and programs had been adopted by Parliament, it is true. It is also true, Mr. Speaker, that we had gone through a social and health revolution in this country of some sort. Pensions were improved, the Canada Pension Plan came in, a whole lot of administrative challenges
were to be met and the Public Service of Canada increased accordingly.
The Parliament of Canada, indeed this House, had endorsed these programs and expected an efficient public service to put into place these programs which the people of Canada wanted. Nevertheless, the fast growth of the public service combined with important organizational changes at management and staffing levels was followed by the inevitable restraint program of the late 1970s.
Staff reductions and cut-backs had a serious effect on careers in the public service. It also taxed the capacity of adaptation of public servants and it certainly raised justifiable fears. Management theories and practices had to change quickly to adjust to those new circumstances.
History has a tendency to repeat itself. Whereas we had appreciable growth in 1965 to 1975, I looked at the figures for the 1975 to 1985 period and found some growth. In 1975, there were 222,325 public servants, and in 1985 there were 223,173. That is little growth, an increase of less than 848.
I must tell the House that there were also some big changes. Canada Post came into being in 1981. That in itself took 60,000 jobs from the public service. These figures must be read in context. In 1981, when the Crown corporation of Canada Post was created, these public servants were taken out of the global figures of the public service. Therefore, there must be some adjustments made in interpreting these figures.
In 1985, we all know that the present Conservative government announced a 15,000 cut-back in the Public Service of Canada. Figures available today indicate that there were 224,026 public servants in 1984. Today, there are 214,253 public servants as of June, 1989, for a decrease of 9,773.
The effect of staff reductions, staff freezes, privatization, contracting out, a whole lot of new ways of administering the public affairs of this country, create difficult problems for career public servants, for those on whom this government, this Parliament, rely to do many things in terms of delivering the programs which we adopt.
There is a phenomenon called plateauing. I want to address that because I think it is pertinent to these discussions. In this new centre, studies must be undertaken to address the difficult problems faced by public
December 4, 1989

servants, the morale problems, the plateauing problem and others which may come to affect directly the efficiency of our public service.
The plateauing of careers has a serious impact on public servants who suffer tremendously from it. In a book entitled The Plateauing Trap which Judith Batwick published in 1986, she explains the phenomenon. As I understand it, there are two types of plateauing.
There is a structural plateauing. This refers to those whose careers are at a standstill because no further promotion is possible because of staff compressions or cut-backs. These people are cut off from promotions through no fault of their own. They are structurally unable to pursue promotions and greater careers.
The other type of plateauing is what is called the content plateauing. This refers to people who have been possibly long in the job who are looking for challenges. Most of them are bored because the work that they are doing offers no new challenge and they cannot find any stimuli in their professional careers.
This certainly addresses what we call professionals in the public service, those who have either a degree or who do specific work in a field such as medicine, veterinary science, engineering or research and development in terms of chemistry and physics. They find themselves doing monotonous jobs and experiencing no stimuli, no chance of doing something a little more demanding and challenging because there have been some compressions. The institution itself is unable to cope with the morale problems that these people experience.
That is why the centre will address not only the training and development of the public service but will address also some of the difficult problems public servants face when Parliaments and governments reduce or compress the public service and try to get from fewer people more efficiency and more effective programs for the same price.
In creating this new centre, I understand the idea is to integrate those programs presently offered in Touraine, Quebec, with programs at a new campus to be set up at De la Salle Academy on Sussex Drive in my riding. In passing, I must say that I am very proud that it is to be in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier, in the school that I
Government Orders
attended when I was a kid, namely, De la Salle Academy. The intention is to put a campus there which will dispense services not only to the National Capital Region, but to western Canada and to Atlantic Canada. There will be programs available to people residing in those areas, responding to the regional concerns that people have in training and development.
There will be an orientation program for all those appointed to managerial positions in the public service which will be available to them within six months of their appointment. These management skills will be centred around crisis management,
This country of ours, this federation, has particular problems in administration. Federal-provincial relations, dealing with vested interest groups, small and medium sized business management techniques are all things which we must address.
Contraiy to some remarks made in the other place, I do not think we should be competing with universities. I think we must rather expand the management training programs of the public service toward problem solving in the management of the federal Public Service of Canada.
We might see this through small seminars, symposia directed specifically to problems of our federation. I am thinking mostly of the federal-provincial problems arising within a decentralized state like ours.
The regional problems must be addressed and how do we address these problems? By co-ordinating with such established authorities as possibly the Conference Board of Canada and others which could give us advice and be important to the development of good managerial programs.
Language issues and how to improve and how to manage them within established government policies is something particular to the federal government. This is something which this House endorses. This is something on which last year, by adopting a new law, we asked public servants to show expertise, to show understanding, and tell us how to better administer this program, a will of this Parliament, but a job that must be done within the Public Service of Canada. How do we address it?
The private sector does not have that same challenge in dealing with regional requirements and official languages. The country has two official languages. There-

December 4, 1989
Government Orders
fore, we must address those problems on a managerial basis.
As I said before, the Centre for Management Studies will also do research in new management techniques in the public sector, to deal with the morale of our troops in the public service, if I might use that word, and the productivity and the efficiency of the public servants and their careers. They are entitled to want to make a career of serving Canada.
God knows we have had an efficient and very effective public service. We are very proud when we speak about the quality of public servants in Canada. From my experience, when I have spoken to foreigners who have come here to look at how we manage this country, they are always very impressed with the quality of public service that we have established.
There is also a need to give opportunities to senior managers and, I would say, those who want to bring forth new ideas and encourage diversity and initiatives that are stimulating to others. There will be a publishing centre in this new Canadian Centre for Management Studies. It will be an experience for public servants who will find themselves encouraged to present papers on their experience allowing, therefore, public service managers to get critical recognition in the field of public administration, not only by their peers, but maybe and more important, by the private sector which sometimes does not understand the challenges and difficulties faced by public administrators.
It is with pride and, I admit, with some sense of accomplishment that I thank the government for picking up on this idea, which has been with us for some time, to give the public servants of Canada access to a centre of excellence where, I would hope, we will develop these new techniques and new methods of public administration.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on access to the Canadian Centre for Management Development, access for all Canadians, not an elite club for friends of the system but a real Canadian management centre where representatives of all groups and regions of this country will be found, which will include women, native
people and the physically disabled so they can benefit from the experience.
Mr. Speaker, this Canadian Centre for Management Development must not become a centre for the Establishment. This country's Constitution states that English and French are the two official languages of Canada. Equal opportunity for training grants will have to be ensured so that all can have access to this high-quality training.
The centre will have to present programs of study, courses and symposiums in both official languages. I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that the centre will take this duty seriously.
Mr. Speaker, I do not need to go over the proportional representation of various groups within the Public Service. We all know the record. We know that women are under-represented. We know that we have a long way to go to represent native people and the disabled fairly. We know that employment equity is a challenge for us and, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we will come back to it in committee when we give the bill clause-by-clause consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I can only agree with the setting up of a Canadian Centre for Management Development. I think that it is a good idea, the time is right, as I was saying, and I call on my colleagues in the House to support this bill, as I will.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-34 which passed in almost exactly the same form in August 1988 as Bill C-148. We support the basic principles of the bill, but we have a few concerns about the process which we will be questioning when the bill comes before the legislative committee.
It is basically a sound idea, and we should give the member for Ottawa-Vanier a considerable amount of credit for the thinking behind this because he presented his original bill in 1977 which I believe suggested this kind of an institution.
The parliamentary secretary misled the public somewhat in his presentation of the bill because he indicated or seemed to indicate that this was a marginal start for an institution that is already a full-blown institution and has been in place for a considerable time already. It has
English]
i'Gbf'-'-'
December 4, 1989

within the PMO five people responsible to Mr. Manion plus approximately another 100 people who operate as part of the Crown corporation that is to be established as the Centre for Management Development. As an educator I recognize the need for training and the need for research, so we will support this particular approach.
It is very interesting, as was pointed out by the member for Ottawa-Vanier, that the history of the need for such an institution as this has been pointed to for many years. In 1962 the Glassco commission recommended a very specific statement: "Let managers manage". It suggested that there was a need to move away from the flat system that had developed in the federal civil service at that time.
In 1975 the then Auditor General warned in his report that parliamentarians had lost financial control of government expenditures. I can list a number of other items which could be registered as recognition of the need for management studies and a Centre for Management Development: the Lambert commission of 1979, the establishment of the PMS system under the government of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the 1980 value for money auditing which was a direct result of the need to be accountable for the kind of management that was going on.
In 1983 the Auditor General listed a number of constraints in the structure of government which were against good management in government and pointed out that there was a need for better recognition and better movement of managers through the system.
The Nielsen task force on government cut-backs makes this particular approach a bit suspect because we know that the aim of that task force was to a great extent the reduction of the civil service. That particular task force report suggested that some kind of a management structure be put into place.
Things have changed over the years. The complexity of government has increased and the need for understanding, study and research has increased along with that complexity.
It is kind of interesting to recognize that this particular management centre, as it is called, is being established pretty much against the basic philosophy of the Conservative Party because it has said on a number of occasions, and even stated categorically on occasion, that it does
Government Orders
not believe in the setting up of Crown corporations to do these kinds of things that the private sector should have the opportunity to do.
The U.S. model has been to allow the private sector to do it. In the United States republic managed education is conducted almost entirely by the private sector. The United States has set up a number of elaborate and up to date institutions, of which the most widely known and probably world recognized is Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Other countries have also over a period established the same kind of schools, mostly related to the governments themselves, that is under government control, as this particular bill suggests we are to do in Canada.
We have in Canada a large number of universities which have in place schools with public management programs that could contribute a considerable amount. They could in many cases provide the kind of training research outlined as an objective in this particular bill.
One of the questions which the committee should look into is why we are setting up extensive programs in certain areas when we could-and the bill gives the centre this alternative-contract a considerable amount of the program from universities which already have programs in place, thereby increasing the quality of those programs and also increasing the breadth of them.
There is no suggestion in the bill of the cost of this institution. As I pointed out, there are already 100 or so members listed under the Canadian Centre for Management Development. The principle has been in place since about June 1988. A considerable number of courses are in place that have been quite well and widely accepted. In fact they have received a certain amount of raves as far as their quality.
The bill does not state the direction which this centre will take or the size to which it will grow. I think it is something which the committee looking at it should delve into considerably more.
It would be very interesting to know what the cost of this institute has been to date because it grew from April 1988 when it was first announced to a fairly full-blown institution within the government right now, without, I point out, legislative authority to do so.

Government Orders
I guess that is probably an indication of the direction this government has taken in dealing with a number of its development projects. It proceeded without the legislative authority to do so and established the organization the same way as it did a couple of the departments which were set up before the government had the legislative authority to proceed.
We need to know-and these are the kinds of things which we should be asking within the committee-what the costs have been to date, how far the plans have been developed, and exactly what the plans are. Will those plans be available to the committee for study, since we have had a fairly large group in place working on it? Does Section 16 mean it can be done entirely by contract? Can all of the programs be developed by contract? Will that be a major portion of the expenditures?
Mr. Jim Armstrong, vice-principal of the Centre for Management Development, states in an article in Dialogue that we are building an institution and that it has in place a board of directors which I suppose will be authorized by this bill when it is passed. The board of directors includes leaders from universities, business and public service. It would be interesting to know how the board of directors is being paid since there is no legislative authority to do so as yet.
Although we will support this in principle, we want to look very closely at it. We do have a number of concerns, some of which I would like to go over at this time.
One of our concerns is that since we have not had the opportunity of having Mr. Manion or Mr. Armstrong or any of the officers before us, there seems to be no opportunity for the non-management level of the public service to make a contribution or have input into what happens with and what becomes part of this institution.
There seems to be a veiy great opportunity for elitism to develop if this kind of institution is made an integral part of getting into the service and of promotion within the service. Those things should be looked at and discussed as well. There is no doubt that there is a possibility that it will lead to differing treatment between management and the rank and file in the civil service.
I think that as parliamentarians we should look very closely at the possibility of input from public service employees and the professional institute; groups that should have specific and definite interests in the kind of institution which is used and in the process of promotion, although I know this is not necessarily the basic reason for the institute to be in place.
We must also have some concern about the curriculum, the kind of programs that are developed, because of the possibility of it being used as an elitism approach but also because of the possibility of proselytizing particular points of view. I think there is a danger in any school or institution of it being used to proselytize a particular point of view and make it the reason for the operation of that particular institution. I would hope that that is something we do not have to worry about, but it does have to be a concern.
Mind control by research institutions is not unknown in government and is used in parts of the world with which we would not want to be compared in any way.
There has been very little public recognition of the need for this institution, and we consequently know very little about public acceptance of this institution. Perhaps it would be worth while to have before the committee not only members of the public service but also members of the general public, of universities, academics, as well as people who might want to get into the public service.
Another concern I have is that when the Deputy Prime Minister made the announcement shortly after the Prime Minister made his announcement in April 1988, he said that he made the key role of this institution a matter of getting rid of bureaucracy. Mr. Jack Manion, when he was interviewed and discussed the matter, listed a number of concepts which he said we are dealing with and with which we want the manager level of the civil service to be able to deal.
It is very interesting to look at that list of concepts. They are decentralization, deregulation, deburdening and debureaucratization. The concern here is that all these are part of a right wing agenda to make the government less effective in the economy of the country and in the control and regulation of that economy.
December 4, 1989

We in Canada have used Crown corporations, which surprisingly this is, and regulation to a great extent to allow our economy to operate successfully in our particular economic climate. If we are putting in place a government institution which is dealing with this part of government law and structure, we are putting the concepts of a political decision into the process of management rather than allowing the managers to be administrators of organizations already in place that have been accepted by the people.
That is why, although as an educator I have a great deal of respect for the quality of public institutions and the quality of publicly regulated institutions, I am concerned that it might be possible to direct an institution such as this one in such a way that it would be detrimental to the development of the public service itself and to the direction that the country would go.
As much as I would be unlikely to say so, there is a certain amount of comfort in the idea that there is going to be a board of directors which will include academics as well as the private sector.
I have only a couple more remarks to make, Mr. Speaker. I have a continuing concern about a necessity that inputs into the total structure which determines the kind of research that is going to be carried out so that the direction this institution is going to go will not be entirely in the hands of the government of the day. As the member for Ottawa-Vanier suggested, by remaining a Crown corporation within the government we need to look at the accountability of this institution to this Parliament when we have the bill before us at committee.
To a great extent the discussion that has taken place from April 1988 until now has been internal discussion within the civil service, not even within this Parliament. There is a great need to expand this discussion to the public generally and to use it to develop a kind of institution that becomes open to the public much more than has happened in the year or so in which it has been in place.
Our party will support in principle the development of this institution. We have some concerns at which we will want to look while we are in committee.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this bill and to follow my
Government Orders
colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, who has been working on this subject for a long time. I also want to mention that I am following another colleague in this House who for nearly two decades represented Ottawa West and public service employees in this region, sometimes in office, sometimes out of office-the hon. Lloyd Francis, former Speaker of the House of Commons.
As critic for public service employment on this side of the House I examined the bill that provides for the legal mandate and the framework for the Canadian Centre for Management Development on the basis of my view of the role and importance of the Public Service in Canada in the building of the nation.
That is not usually the way people think of public bureaucracies. They are not generally regarded as nation builders. Next to politicians they are among the most maligned of species. They are the easy target of every taxpayer who thinks taxes are too high, the brunt of every politician who comes to Ottawa to clean up government. Many consider them malingerers, leeches on the public purse just putting in minimal hours with minimum effort until they can collect a fat pension.
These are not the public service employees I have known all my life-friends, neighbours and family who have worked for the people of Canada with pride, with commitment to the future of their country and with dedication to the concept of service to the public.
This is a young country, barely 122 years old. It is still a vast territory, largely unpopulated, with 80 per cent of its people concentrated in a narrow band along the border with the United States, a thin ribbon between Windsor and Quebec City so insignificant as hardly to be noticeable on the map. The country is still struggling with its identity, its sense of nationhood, and its place in the world.
It is a nation that has been created against all odds of climate and geography by a vision of piecing together and binding in common purpose a diversity of communities and a diversity of people.
Canada was and is not a natural nation but very much a creation of public policy. Its continued development as a nation has depended on a delicate and changing balance between the roles of the public and private sector and an understanding that has pervaded our 122 years of the role of government, the role of public policy, in building the nation. That is one of the reasons this country developed a public service that has been recognized

December 4, 1989
internationally for its excellence, its professionalism, and its impartiality.
There is nothing we do in the House or that the thousands of members who have preceded us in this House have done to set the direction for the future of society. None of that could have been accomplished without the support and commitment of the millions who have formed throughout those generations the Public Service of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I have to intervene. The hon. member will have 14 minutes left in her speech plus 10 minutes for questions and comments when the debate resumes after 3 p.m.
It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to offer my party's as well as my personal congratulations to the member for Yukon, the new leader-elect of the federal New Democratic Party.
This weekend every Canadian had reason to smile. For the first time in Canada's history a federal political party elected a woman as its leader. What this says about Canada is that the mores of the past and the walls of gender disparity are being chipped away.
I might also add that the hon. member is in very good company. All her opponents put up great fights, and all of them deserve hearty congratulations.
The hon. member is now receiving mountains of advice from the pundits and the gurus of the media and elsewhere. My hope is that in the midst of all this she manages to take a well-deserved break to prepare for the battles to come. Congratulations!


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWHliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Medical Association has added its name to the list of those calling for a moratorium on the Alberta-Pacific pulp mill project in northern Alberta.
The AMA, which speaks for 4,000 physicians, is concerned about the effect of pollution from the project on the health of the area's residents. A spokesperson for the AMA stated that not enough is known about the effects of the organochlorines which will be discharged as industry effluent into the Athabasca River.
The AMA is criticizing the Alberta government for acting irresponsibly, favouring economic growth and development at the expense of the environment and, ultimately, the health of Albertans.
The federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has stated that it supports a moratorium on development of these mills as demanded by the native bands who live in the area.
I ask the Minister of the Environment to immediately impose a moratorium on the Alberta-Pacific project until an assurance is given by the company that it will comply with the new federal regulations governing effluent from these pulp mills.


THE WORLD DOWNHILL SKI CUP
Mr. Charles  deB@: Mr. Speaker, over the past few days the riding of Montmorency-Orleans has been the site of a major international downhill ski competition for the championship in which the best skiers of the world took part, including a half dozen Canadians.
Rushing down the Montmorency slope, the White Circus champions were able to appreciate the quality of Mont Sainte-Anne Park facilities. The outstanding tourism promotion by management was highlighted last Friday during the great annual reception of Quebec's tourist industry.
I congratulate the organizers of this competition, especially Messrs. Raymond Dupont and Pierre Bour-geault of Sports intemationaux du Quebec as well as Mont Sainte-Anne Park Director Claude Beaudoin for the
December 4, 1989

tremendous work they have done with the financial support of several groups, including our government.
In conclusion, I invite Canadian skiers to discover the 50 downhill ski slopes and the 214 kilometres of crosscountry ski trails which make Mont Sainte-Anne the most beautiful ski centre in Canada.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy is alive and well. That was the message in a report released by the Organization for Economic Development and Co-operation.
In its review of the Canadian economy the European-based think tank praised our government for its initiatives on the Canada-U.S. trade deal, monetary restraint and the goods and services tax.
The report goes on to state that Canada's recent growth has been impressive in terms of creating growth and employment. The Canadian economy has been second only to Japan in terms of growth over the past 18 months and has created more jobs over the past two years than any of the other 24 OECD countries.
Though not always politically popular, the world agrees that this government is taking the tough measures necessary to ensure Canada's future economic well-being. This government should be commended for its leadership in attempting to bring continued prosperity to this country.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, despite its claim of being for sustainable development and a clean environment, the Government of Alberta is promoting the overcutting of forests and polluting of rivers. Despite the rhetoric here in Ottawa about sustainable development, Canada's environment minister is silent about the proposed devastation of Alberta's heritage.
It is up to a committed scientist, Dr. Jack Vallentyne, Canadian Chairman of the International Joint Commission's Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, to say that not only should the proposed mill on the Athabasca River be scrapped but a moratorium be imposed on the construction of bleached-kraft pulp mills until more is known about the effects of toxic chemicals found in mill waste water.
If Canada's environment minister wants to live up to his own words, he should urge the Alberta government to scrap the proposed $1.3 billion pulp mill on the Athabasca River. It is an abuse of precious natural resources, and it is not sustainable development.


FISCAL COMPENSATION GRANTED TO ISOLATED AND NORTHERN AREAS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I just came back from northern Quebec where I held meetings with the economic spokesmen for the municipalities of Mata-gami, Joutel and Lebel-sur-Quevillon to talk about the Report of the Task Force on Thx Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas. Task Force Chairman Rene Brunelle attended every meeting. The residents of these communities were not consulted before the report was handed to the Minister of Finance last October 27. Should the Canadian government endorse the recommendations of this report which has raised great concerns in these communities, the situation can only get worse.
Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Matagami, Joutel, Lebel-sur-Quevillon, Chapais and Chibougamau are in the best position in Quebec to define the tax benefits granted for northern isolation. Are the Government of Canada and the Minister of Finance aware of the fact that Canada's economy needs these courageous and permanent northern residents?


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERSHIP
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Yukon on her election as leader at the

December 4, 1989
New Democratic Party leadership convention held in Winnipeg this past weekend.
This election is of particular note both to the New Democratic Party and to all Canadians as the hon. member is the first woman in history to become the leader of a Canadian national political party.
It is with regret that we must say goodbye to the hon. member for Oshawa as Leader of the NDP, but I am pleased to welcome the hon. member for Yukon in her new capacity as party leader. So, Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to both the past and the present Leaders of the New Democratic Party and thank them for their personal contributions to the democratic process.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, talks between the PSAC and Treasury Board broke down again last Saturday. This means that over 2,000 Coast Guard workers are still on strike. Included in this group are federal ships crews who provide fisheries patrols for the lobster industry and others who provide ice-breaking services to ports in Atlantic Canada.
The Port of Summerside enjoys the busiest part of its season in the fall and winter months because of potato shipments after the fall harvest. The Chamber of Commerce is quite concerned that a prolonged strike would allow a harbour freeze-up which could result in foreign market loss as well as a further decrease in economic activity. This, in addition to the problems that have already occurred, is something that Summerside can ill afford.
The most contentious issue in this strike is the wage disparity between workers on the east coast and workers on the west coast. It is a flagrant case of discrimination when our east coast workers earn up to $2,500 less for doing the same job.
The government should go back to the bargaining table and negotiate a fair collective agreement to resolve this wage disparity problem, bring this strike to an end, and keep our ports open. It should not be sitting back waiting until it becomes a real crisis situation and then using this as an excuse for introducing back-to-work legislation.


NORTHERN TAX ALLOWANCE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, as residents in northern Alberta communities are well aware, the task force on northern benefits has released a report recommending the boundary for the northern tax benefit be changed from the 55th parallel to the 57th parallel and 30 degrees.
The proposed change will exclude thousands of Canadians who live in northern and remote areas from a northern tax benefit. This recommendation will remove approximately $16 million from the northern Alberta economy. The boundary change will pit one community benefiting from the tax break against another community barred from it.
I have proposed an alternative to the task force recommendations. I suggest a scaled-down benefit of one-half for communities north of the 55th parallel and south of the 57th and 30 degrees. I urge the Minister of Finance to accept this proposal.


DANGEROUS GOODS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian people were surprised to find out last Friday that the Balmet Corporation in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu had shipped hazardous waste from Montreal harbour to Brazil and that a second shipment is expected to leave for France in the next few days. We know that these dangerous goods have caused poisoning in about 20 children as well as contamination of many lands and homes in the Saint-Jean region. As in the case of the PCB shipments which sailed around the world last summer, this government would seem unable to keep hazardous waste produced in Canada from becoming a threat to the environment.
This government keeps promising to make the environment a priority but when it comes to taking real action to ensure a clean environment, nothing is done. Immediate action should be taken to stop the second shipment of Balmet Corporation expected to leave for
December 4, 1989

France in the next few days. We need concrete action now.


NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, since the days of Edward Cornwallis in 1749 Nova Scotia has had many distinguished Lieutenant-Governors.
It has never been an uncommon practice for friends of the government of the day to be appointed to the prestigious vice-regal office. However, as party politics developed during the 19th century, so also did the practice that those who left the partisan wars to represent the Crown at Government House took on with the office a posture and practice of non-partisanship. So the tradition has remained, and rightly so.
Thus the decision recently announced by former Lieutenant Governor Alan Abraham to return to partisan politics as Liberal Party organizer for Halifax is regrettable. It is a decision frowned upon, I am sure, by members on all sides of this House. I urge Mr. Abraham who served with such distinction in the office not to demean the office but to reconsider his decision.
I also call upon the leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada and of Nova Scotia to join me in this request.


ETHIOPIA
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984 Canada and the world witnessed the most devastating of famines ever in Ethiopia. Over a million people perished during that particular famine.
Ethiopia is now facing another severe drought and, again, more than one million people are at risk, particularly in the northern areas of Tigray and Eritrea where the government has expelled relief workers as a result of armed conflict with opposition forces.
Canada must work at ensuring that emergency food aid reaches these people. We ask that the Canadian government use our representative at the UN to influence other governments, including those of the Soviet Union and Israel, to pressure the Ethiopian government
to set up safe transportation corridors to facilitate the transport of emergency aid.
We would also like to see our own diplomatic resources in Ethiopia work out an agreement between the government and opposition forces to form these corridors of tranquillity for international relief organizations.


SENATE REFORM
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago at the federal-provincial First Ministers' Conference I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister and the premiers discussing reform of the Senate. In his new-found forum with the premiers, the Prime Minister has found himself a new title as chairman of the board. In this extra-parliamentary forum only one of the 11 parties is elected to represent the federal interest. So I was shocked to hear the 10 non-federal premiers speaking of undertaking to reform the Senate.
The Senate is a federal institution and not a provincial one. Our premiers are elected to look after provincial institutions and not federal. They have absolutely no business or mandate pre-setting an agenda for reform of our Parliament. If a premier wants to reform a senate, let him create his own in his own province.
This Parliament must be made aware of the dangers in letting provincial politicians pre-set the agenda and attitudes for federal reforms.
In the meantime, I call upon the Prime Minister to place Senate reform on the agenda of this Parliament, this House and the other place, and abandon his predisposition for carrying out reforms in his private club of 11 and stealing from the jurisdiction of this Parliament and from members on both sides of the House.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, one week from today the National Agri-food Policy Conference begins in Ottawa. This conference will provide the first public forum for all partners in Canada's food production and marketing areas to discuss policies and programs.

Oral Questions
Agriculture's share of the domestic product is between 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent and employs 4 per cent of the labour force. That proportion rises almost 15 per cent when related machinery, processing, food retailing and service industries are included.
The perception that large scale agri-business is taking over family farms is not a reality according to Statistics Canada figures. Most farm businesses are family oriented. Less than 1 per cent of farms are operated by non-family corporations.
Working closely with provincial agriculture ministers, farm organizations, commodity and consumer groups is an essential part of developing a comprehensive national framework for agri-food policies. This conference is an opportunity for each facet of agriculture to have input into the decisions affecting their industry as we meet the changing markets and challenging opportunities of the 1990s.


JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw to the attention of the House, and in particular to the Minister of Justice, a very serious injustice being done to a young native student who is a law student here at the University of Ottawa.
Mr. Rock Matte had applied for funding under the Department of Justice's Native Program, but was turned down because he did not have a favourable recommendation from the Law Preparation Course for native students in Saskatoon. The problem is that that course is offered in English and Mr. Matte speaks French.
Mr. Matte is saying now: "I am praying a lot and eating little". The minister's representative in the Department of Justice said: "It is unfortunate that the turn of events were just not in Rock's favour. He is in a rough and tough spot". Indeed, he is.
I appeal to the minister to reconsider this matter and to recognize that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has pointed out that our treatment of natives is a national scandal and that a young native person in Canada today has a better chance of going to prison than of going to university.
I call upon the Minister of Justice to look into this matter seriously and to provide the funding that this young native law student so badly needs.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for someone representing the government, the acting prime minister of Canada, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the last few days thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs to the United States. How does the acting prime minister explain that Gerber Baby Foods is closing its Canadian operation, and that from now on all Gerber baby foods for Canadian families will be produced in Michigan? How does he explain that Burlington Carpets has just closed its entire Canadian operation, and from now on all Burlington carpets for Canadian homes will be produced in North Carolina? How does he explain that the Whirlpool Corporation has closed its Canadian operations, and from now on all Whirlpool appliances for Canadian homes and apartments will be produced in Ohio? How does he explain that in the last week some of the largest and best known American multinationals no longer have a single employee in Canada?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that all of us in this House are in agreement that it is unfortunate these people are losing their jobs at a time like this.
We have to realize that we have a dynamic economy. There are jobs that are being created every day and there are jobs that are being lost every day. It is important for us to realize that, first, the bottom line is that there have been a considerable number of new jobs created over the course of the past five years and that will continue on into the future.
Second, my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, has a number of programs in place to assist those people in order to help them find new opportunities, new jobs to continue on from where they are now, to support the type of programs that these companies have put in place to assist these people to move from one job to the next.


Mr.   Dimer@Vancouver Quadra: Mr. Speaker, I could suggest to the Minister of Finance what the dynamics are. They are the dynamics we predicted in the last federal election. When there is rationalization of North American business, what is going to be done and is being
December 4, 1989

done now is at the expense of Canadian workers in favour of American plants. That is what has happened.

Mr. Speaker, Pittsburgh Paints and Glass is putting Canadians out of work.
The Ford Company is closing its V-8 engine manufacturing plant, from now on all V-8 engines will be produced in Michigan.
General Electric is closing its specialized equipment plant in Montreal, in the Saint-Denis riding, so that Canadians will have to buy their supplies in the United States.
General Motors is transferring its van production facilities from Canada to the United States.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us why, every time choices have to be made between saving American and Canadian jobs, multinational firms protect American workers? And now Ford, General Electric, Burlington Carpets, General Motors, Whirlpool and Gerber Baby Foods have decided in favour of the United States at the expense of Canadian workers.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as his former finance critic has said: "Every sparrow that falls from a tree will be blamed on the free trade agreement".
He mentioned the Ford engine plant. Let me quote from The Financial Post of December 1 which states: "The plant is old, CAW President Bob White said, and we were able to work together to give it a longer life than we had expected". Bob White did not blame it on the free trade agreement, and he feels about the free trade agreement the same as the Leader of the Opposition does.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about General Motors. On the same day that General Motors mentioned that in a couple of years "perhaps" its Scarborough plant will no longer be producing vans, Freightliner, a truck manufacturer, said it was starting up a Greenfield plant in southern Ontario. It has an existing facility in North Carolina. Contrary to the predictions of the opposition, it is not going to expand that plant. It is
Oral Questions
opening up a Greenfield plant in southern Ontario employing some 1,200 new people.
The economy is in a dynamic phase. New investments are coming in. Yes, there are mergers occurring and other things happening. That is what happens in a dynamic economy. It is because we have adapted to a dynamic economy that we have had the tremendous economic performance for which the OECD praised Canada just yesterday.


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has yielded to the Minister of Industry. I want to tell him what the dynamics are. The fact is that when choices are made that have to be made between saving Canadian and American jobs multinational firms sacrifice Canadian jobs every time because they know that for the first time in history they are dealing with a government that has not got the guts to stand up to the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Industry: Where is that adjustment program to help the thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs because of the trade deal? Where is that adjustment program to help the thousands of Canadian workers who have lost their employment because this government has sold out to the United States? Where is that massive program of adjustment and retraining that the Prime Minister promised the day after he signed the trade deal, that adjustment program in favour of Canadian workers who would lose their jobs because of the trade deal? Where is that adjustment program?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition should again be a little more careful with the facts. He neglected to acknowledge, for example, that General Motors Diesel is phasing out its Illinois plant and moving it to London, Ontario.
He neglected to mention that because of the drop off in car sales Chrysler is laying off 4,000 employees in the United States-none of their Canadian employees are being laid off. This reduction in work force is occurring in the United States.
Perhaps the hon. Leader of the Opposition should listen to his colleague, the member for LaSalle-Emard, who said on February 14,1989, as reported in The Toronto Star "It makes no sense for us as a party to blame the free trade agreement for every piece of economic up-

December 4, 1989
Oral Questions
heaval that occurs". He should listen to that advice and heed it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. He talks about the facts. It is a fact that the work that is going to be transferred from the Ford Motor Company engine plant No. 2 in Windsor is going to be transferred to the United States. When he talks about a dynamic phase, it is a phasing out of Canadian jobs from this country to the United States.
I want to ask the minister this. Will he make a commitment right now to get the Ford Motor Company to place in Windsor some of the new production of engines and components it is working on so that at the end of 1990 the 900 jobs will be preserved and the benefit of this will continue to be there for the Windsor and Canadian economies? Will he make the commitment today, right now?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, when Ford opened its new engine plants it indicated that the V-8 plant which was old and obsolete would be phased out some time in the future. The union leaders, Bob White and the union local president, Frank McAnally, said: "Quite frankly, we've been pushing the company to make the announcement for the past few months". They have expected it for a few months. It is part of the national evolution of things.
The fact is any reasonable person looking at how Canada has fared vis-a-vis the United States in this current downturn in the automobile industry will recognize, as the Americans surely do and the auto workers do, that in fact we fare very well and that Canadian automobile workers are more productive than those in the United States. Therefore we have not suffered the lay-offs. In fact, we are getting new investment in Canada which they are not getting in the United States.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The president of the Canadian Automobile Workers also said that he wanted to see new production placed in that plant by the end of 1990.
Is the minister going to make a commitment today to get that new production there to preserve those jobs or is he and the Conservative government simply telling the
workers in Windsor and across Canada that they don't give a damn? That is not good enough.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member used the word "preserving". We are interested in making sure that Canada can compete in the next century. We are interested in making sure that Canada still remains the best place in North America for manufacturing jobs.
He talks about the free trade agreement. Perhaps he did not see in today's paper the comments by Ted Newell, president of Dupont Canada, who stated that the $28 million expansion of its chemical plant in Maitland is evidence that free trade is working and that more jobs will be generated at Dupont plants across Ontario over the next two years. That is happening in all kinds of industry.
It is good news, so it does not get the front page feature that some of these plant closings get, but it is happening everywhere. The fact of the matter is there are more Canadian jobs being won as a result of the free trade agreement than are being lost.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries. We have learned that immunity from prosecution has been granted to certain large corporations and individuals by the minister and his department. There is an important principle involved here. Canadians expect fisheries officers and the minister to enforce the laws that are passed by this Parliament.
We know now that that is not the case. Let me quote from a November 15, 1989 federal document from the head of habitat management which states: "The habitat destruction that has taken place has been ignored to a significant degree. We have determined that DFO friendly corporations or parties with provincial permits will enjoy relative immunity from the Fisheries Act while the small guy gets prosecuted".
Will the minister tell this House why he is allowing certain friends of the government to break the law and remain immune from charges?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member use the phrase "immunity from prosecution". He knows, as do
December 4, 1989

all those who work in co-operation with officials of my department, that no one is immune from prosecution under the Fisheries Act of offences in regard to environmental pollution, water quality or degradation of the habitat.
The member also knows because he and his party and all hon. members, I believe, support the policy for fish habitat management which I introduced three years ago in this House. That policy reads in part as follows: "The department prefers to prevent damage to habitat and avoid losses to the fisheries resource rather than to take court action against offenders after the fact. However, when voluntary compliance fails to produce the desired objective and the Fisheries Act is contravened and the habitat supporting fisheries resources are altered, destroyed or degraded, enforcement officers of the department will carry out effective enforcement action."
Mr. Speaker, I can provide the hon. member with a long list of cases as to instances where this has happened.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Fisheries is about to learn that what we are talking about here is somewhat more serious than he took the first question.
We have learned that some large corporations are being granted immunity from prosecution for serious violations of the Fisheries Act.
Let me quote again from the minister's own departmental documents: "Despite obvious and very significant violations legitimate cases are in jeopardy or have been stifled". The example, one of many used in the document, is: "Alcan and their contractors, without any approvals, largely destroyed a salmon stream at Kema-no". That is in British Columbia. They largely destroyed a salmon stream. One would think that is the sort of thing about which the Minister of Fisheries would be interested.
Is the minister suggesting to this House that the stifling of what his officials describe as very significant violations is acceptable? If he does not, is he planning to speak to the Solicitor General or to the head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to see whether the commercial crime squad of the RCMP or perhaps the
Oral Questions
head of the RCM Police himself, might want to look into the the minister's department because I suggest that there is, at the very least, criminal activity going on in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Mr. Speaker That is not an acceptable allegation to make in Question Period, and as a consequence I am going to move on to the next speaker.


FORESTRY
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, Abitibi Price shocked the people of Newfoundland by announcing the closure of a portion of its pulp and paper mill in Grand Falls, putting 250 people out of work inside the mill, and hundreds of people out of work permanently outside the mill, the loggers in central Newfoundland. But the company says it is going to build a new pulp and paper mill in Alabama.
Will the Minister of Forestry look into this matter and find out whether or not the company, in announcing the closure of a portion of its plant, has violated the terms and conditions of millions of dollars it has received from this government over the past three or four years, or is this just another benefit of free trade-take all you can get from the Canadian Government and invest the profits in Alabama?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated the question because I share with my hon. friend the concern of the untimely announcement of a partial closure of an important facility in an area where other economic prospects are more limited than they would be in other parts of the country.
The decision by Abitibi Price is a commercial decision. It is made in line with the necessary rationalization adjustments that have to be made from time to time in accordance with a number of criteria, including international market conditions, the availability of adequate quantities and qualities of fibre, labour markets and those kinds of things.
The fact is that the particular line that has been closed which will reduce the workforce in this particular mill by roughly one-third was built in 1926 and is hardly state of the art, which is required in today's changing international market-places.

December 4, 1989
Oral Questions


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, in a public statement made Friday, the company said: "The future viability of pulp and paper mills in Canada rests on their ability to compete in the offshore market".
The company has become the offshore competition. It is building a new pulp and paper mill in the United Kingdom and in Venezuela using the wood from the rain forests of the Amazon, whereas in this country under this government it is closing down operations.
I want to ask the minister, will he now demand a meeting with the board of directors-it should not be too difficult with the number of prominent Conservatives on the board-and say to them: "Look, you have built a world class company here on the backs of Canadian workers and now you are going to sell them down the river, the Amazon River".
Is the government going to stand idly by and watch every pulp and paper company close in this country? You will be beaten to a pulp in the next election if you do.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, reference was made earlier, at least peripherally, to this particular closure being related to the free trade deal. The company did not announce the building of a new mill in Alabama.
It is another one of these instances where the sparrows are falling out of the sky, except in this particular instance it would almost sound like a whole flock of thunderbirds has crashed. But that is not the case.
The fact is that the Canadian pulp and paper industry, just like every other major industry in this country, does have to be very sensitive to the conditions in the market-places of the world. While my friend and his supporters may think that we can build a wall around our country and ignore the dynamic changes, we have to be competitive and we have to build the very best in facilities in those areas where we have our natural strength and that is obviously what this company is intending to do.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment
and Immigration. Last week, General Electric announced that it was closing its Montreal plant and that 200 jobs, mostly held by women, would be lost. This company has been making a range of electric lights in Montreal for 30 years, and now most of this production will be transferred to Fairfield, Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, what will the government do to prevent this transfer of jobs and why did the government hide these consequences of free trade with the United States?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if there is any area under this government that is going to do well under free trade, it is Quebec and the region of Montreal.
We are seeing an expansion of jobs in Montreal as we are in other parts of Quebec where the unemployment rate has been improving considerably. The business people there are going to be taking advantage of free trade to continue to build new jobs in Quebec.
In addition, with the labour force strategy, whereby we are going to be in a position to train people better for these new jobs, we are going to see a lot more economic development in Montreal.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not up to date on the figures. Every week, there is another plant closure in Montreal. Last week it was General Electric with 200 jobs lost. The week before it was Canadian Steel Foundries with 250 jobs lost. Since the beginning of this year, we have had over 80 notices of lay-offs in Montreal involving approximately 7,000 lost jobs, and most were solid full-time jobs.
What is the government going to do about this serious situation? The people of Montreal want action, not rhetoric.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the people of Montreal recognize that there is a dynamic economy in Montreal right now that is getting better and with free trade it will continue to get better.
If the hon. member would check the numbers on unemployment, he would see, as I do, that the changes in Montreal are very positive ones.
December 4, 1989


FISHERIES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a very serious issue. Reading from a departmental document, it states: "We have determined that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with friendly corporations will enjoy relative immunity from the Fisheries Act". This is in addition to the years of immunity we have given those mills that have been fortunate to have a continuous discharge and can negotiate and promise while they continue to pollute.
My question to the minister is very straightforward. Was the minister aware that this policy of immunity to certain corporations was policy in his department?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am not only unaware of that, I categorically reject any such insinuation.
In fact, the document to which the hon. member is referring was prepared by a lower level official in my department, widely copied, but not advanced through the system. I did not learn about it until Friday afternoon. While these are the opinions of one official responsible for one region in British Columbia reporting to his area director, the director general, the deputy minister, and the assistant deputy minister, they do not reflect the policy of this government or this department.
In fact, in the period 1986 to 1988, we have laid well over 100 charges with 47 successful prosecutions for offences under the Fisheries Act and fines up to $35,000. It is absolutely improper to suggest any irregularity or unfairness in prosecution and the application of the Fisheries Act.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this is most serious in terms of what the minister is telling us because, again, it is very clear that the minister has to accept responsibility for practices of his department. For example, when the document goes on and states: "Alcan and their contractors, without any approval, largely destroyed a salmon stream at Kemano due to our special relationship with Alcan."
It also states: "Due to authorization and unworkable enforcement arrangements, near total immunity has been given to Yukon placer miners to harmfully alter and pollute Yukon streams. Even when the miners
Oral Questions
cannot meet extremely lax standards no enforcement has taken place in 1988 or 1989, despite numerous violations."
Considering that these are factual statements, that there have been numerous lax standards applied and no enforcement in terms of where that law has been broken, will the minister do the appropriate thing and offer his resignation?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I have already pointed out that it is the policy of the department to seek remedies to environmental offences. But when there is clear evidence of intent, on the recommendation of the Department of Justice, my officials and the Department of Justice and those of the Department of the Environment bring appropriate charges.
It is absolutely improper, in fact it is probably one person within the department who has frustrations with the system and technical and legal constraints, to draw these conclusions.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: Order! I am pleased to call the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Andre Billardon, Deputy Speaker of the French National Assembly.

I also wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Ahmed Ali Al-Mohanni, Minister of Oil and Mineral Resources of the Yemen Arab Republic.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISCAL COMPENSATION GRANTED TO ISOLATED AND NORTHERN AREAS
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The task force on fiscal compensation for isolated and northern areas tabled its report on October 27. Its recommendations are unacceptable for workers in northern Quebec and northern Canada. It is in Canada's

December 4, 1989
Oral Questions
interest to help workers in the north and near north, not only the developing countries.
My question is this: Can the Minister confirm in the House that at the meeting of provincial finance ministers in Ottawa this week, fiscal compensation for isolated and northern communities and a permanent tax policy for the near north will be on the agenda? Yes or no?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member that the matter will be discussed. I have been having some discussions already with one or two of my colleagues who have indicated an interest to have some discussion on this.
I would like to remind my friend that this commission task force worked for 18 months to produce these proposals at the request of the Government of Canada because of the great inequities that were in this tax system between people who lived in the same part of the country but happened to live a few miles farther away than others and therefore got the benefit whereas others did not. These are difficulties that we asked the task force to address.


John Napier Turner: Say yes or no to your member. Give him a decent answer!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am sure that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition would be quite pleased to-


John Napier Turner: Give your member a clear answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to respond to a question in face of the bluster from the other side of the House.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with the conflict of interest code.
As the minister is no doubt aware, Mr. Robert Jarvis, a former Conservative Member of Parliament and the chairman of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the past five years, has lobbied on behalf of a private developer to the Ontario Minister of Housing.
Can the Acting Prime Minister justify, in any way, the activities of the Tory-appointed boss of Canada's national housing agency, when he is also lobbying the Ontario Minister of Housing for the benefit of a private developer to obtain money for housing which is partially funded by the federal government?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, the first public report of this appeared in the paper today. We are currently looking into the matter, trying to ascertain all of the facts that are involved in the situation. As soon as we do, we will certainly advise the hon. member.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, let me see if I can be a little helpful to the minister. It is quite clear on this issue in Sections 4(d), 7(a), 7(b), and 7(f) of the code. I quote: "Public office holders shall not step out of their official roles to assist private entities or persons in their dealings with the government where this would result in preferential treatment to any person."
What action will this government take to address what most Canadians would call a conflict of interest, and will this government re-evaluate the position of this chairman of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is a fair member, as are all members of this House, and will want to make sure that all of the facts are known and that everyone has an opportunity to fully set out those facts. I know that he would want to wait until all the facts are in before he draws any conclusions from the situation himself. Certainly that is my position and that of the government.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this government's blatant disregard for the Speaker's recent ruling is indicated by the announcement that on December 27 this year Revenue Canada intends to start mailing application forms for the credits on the proposed goods and services tax.
My question for the Acting Prime Minister is the following: Why is the Minister of National Revenue sending Canadians application forms for the proposed
December 4, 1989

goods and services tax credit when no legislation on this has been presented to Parliament, let alone approved?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would listen to the Auditor General's last report, for example, he stated quite categorically that it was the duty of this government, as it is indeed of any other government, that when there is proposed legislation the government begins to prepare for the legislation to come forward and be implemented. This is why the government is moving ahead, consistent with parliamentary precedents, and within the rules and regulations of Treasury Board.
I hear Liberal members saying that we are arrogant. Well, of course, when I say that we are abiding by parliamentary precedents, we are looking at some of the former Liberal precedents that have been set out, such as the hired 4,000 employees prior to the legislation even being tabled. So we are just following what the Auditor General has said and what the rights and obligations of this government are.
I will let you know one other thing, Mr. Speaker, that if we did not prepare for a smooth launch we would be doing a disservice to Canadians and we would then be irresponsible.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has more influence with the government than the Speaker does.
Since the Minister of National Revenue takes Parliament's approval for granted, although no bill has yet been tabled in this House, he is obviously admitting to us that his proposed schedule for implementing the GST is totally unrealistic.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Has he asked for advice from the Department of Revenue on the lead time required for the implementation of the GST? If not, why not?
Is it not true that his department has been told by Revenue Canada that the GST should not be put in place on January 1, 1991 because of administrative difficulties?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer to that question is, yes, we have had considerable discussion between the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue. The implementation date of January 1, 1991 has been agreed upon between the two.
That is the proposal being put before the House of Commons, and that is the proposal which I believe can be met. It does require, as my colleague has said, a degree of information, a degree of planning, a degree of working with Canadian taxpayers to ensure that we have a smooth launch of this proposed legislation.


FISHERIES
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Minister of Fisheries.
He just told this House that decisions on prosecutions are made by the Department of Justice. I would like to quote from a departmental document regarding the Swift River case where it states: "The Department of Justice says we should charge the Minister of Forests, the officer issuing the cash sale as well as the loggers. The director general of fisheries has ruled that we will not charge the Minister of Forests, so the Department of Justice will not charge the logger. Consequently, we are locked in the embarrassing situation and immunity has been extended to those responsible for the violation."
I would like the minister to explain this situation.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to explain the detail of any particular situation today.
I have asked the deputy minister of fisheries to inquire into these opinions of one lower level official in the Department of Fisheries-


James Ross Fulton: The head of Habitat.


Thomas Edward Siddon: He is not the head of Habitat, he is a head of the Fraser River unit.
I would like to determine the extent to which these allegations are based on fact before I draw any conclusions about the very serious, and if not factual, improper allegations that have been made.

December 4, 1989
Oral Questions


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote again from the document which states that "Alcan and their contractors, without any approval, largely destroyed a salmon stream at Kemano. Due to our special relationship with Alcan, it has been determined that the violation will probably not be prosecuted".
What is this special relationship that provides for immunity from prosecution? Is it political? Is it financial? What is the nature of this special relationship?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would note the two words, "probably not," showing that there is no specific component to that allegation in terms of actions that may or may not have been taken. There is no special relationship with Alcan. As you and members of this House know there is an agreement between this government, the government of the province and Alcan with respect to the Nechako River and reservoir which has already produced great dividends to the natives of the Cheslatta Band and will produce a number of other benefits to all the people of British Columbia.


FINANCE
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The OECD report notes the efforts by the Bank of Canada to reduce inflation through high interest rates has been appropriate.
As indicated, however, this course of action may lead to a corresponding increase in unemployment levels. Given the fact that a high interest policy traditionally hits harder in the regions of this country which are less able to adjust to economic slowdowns, my question for the Minister of Finance is this: Given that these measures are implemented primarily to cool the over-heated economy of central Canada, what assurances can the minister give to the people of Atlantic Canada that the government is prepared to act to offset the negative impact of this policy in the regions of the country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is a report that has been put out by one of the premier international organizations in the world that looks into the performance of economies and government policies.
I want to quote briefly: "In summary, recent Canadian performance with respect to the output growth and employment creation has been impressive and has brought the economy back to full capacity utilization". It goes on to say that "given the importance of preventing a re-acceleration of inflation, the policy action of the Bank of Canada was appropriate".
It is important to realize that wage and price pressures have been developing in all parts of the country. As an example, in the member's own province, the inflation rate, excluding food and energy, has gone from 4.5 per cent to 5.6 per cent over the course of this year. So we do have pressures in all provinces of the country, both in inflation and in wage settlements.
What we have to do is to continue this policy, because if we do not get inflation under control it will be the weaker parts of the country that will suffer the most.
Having said that, we are still very much committed to the operations of organizations like ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, to provide for some offset to the impact of higher interest rates in order to support regional development in these parts of the country.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance some questions relating to the response he just made dealing with high interest rates. As the minister knows, in the last two years Canadian exports have lost close to $18 billion worth of sales because of the rise of the dollar which is directly related to the interest rate charges by the bank. The current account deficit with the United States has gone from a surplus of $3.4 billion to a deficit of $2.3 billion. That hurts the resource industries of the very regions about which the member just spoke.
I want to ask the minister specifically, if the high interest rate policy forcing up the dollar is destroying the export markets of this country, is he going to sit down with the Governor of the Bank of Canada and ask him to start bringing down the interest rates and the exchange rate so Canadians can start trading again?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have expected a question like this from the Liberal Party of Canada which simply does not understand the operations of the economy. It is precisely a question like that which demonstrates that the hon. member does not understand
December 4, 1989

what this international organization has been saying about policy in Canada.
We have had broad support and encouragement from this organization, from the International Monetary Fund and from other international observers that if we do not get inflation under control, interest rates will end up being an awful lot higher than they are today.
That is precisely what happened in the 1970s when the Liberal Party was in power and ignored the problem of inflation. The Liberals swept the problem under the carpet. We saw inflation going from about 5.5 per cent in 1976 to 13 per cent in 1981 and interest rates going to 20 or 21 per cent. That led to the worst recession we have had in years in this country.
We on this side of the House are not going to ignore the lessons of the past. We are going to deal with these problems as they occur and avoid the mess that the Liberals got us into in 1981.


Lloyd Axworthy: This lecture on inflation comes from a minister of finance who is bringing in a tax that is going to force the inflation rate up to 7 per cent. He has no business telling us how to deal with inflation when he is going to bring in a tax that is going to drive Canadian prices out of sight.
I want to ask the minister when is he going to stop listening to international organizations and start listening to Canadians? For example, the furniture makers say that this year alone imports from the United States are up 29 per cent while exports are down 3 per cent.
When is he going to listen to the foundry association which says that it has lost 1,500 jobs in the last eight months alone? It says that it cannot take the trade deal and an 85-cent dollar at the same time. When is he going to start listening to Canadians who are losing their jobs, their incomes, their livelihoods? When will he start listening to what really makes sense?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I listen to people who are in business and who tell me these things. I say to them right back that we are at a position now, as this report from the OECD has said, where we are at full capacity. We have seen the effects of this in
Tributes
price inflation, in wage inflation, and we are seeing it in monetary aggregates. The bank loans are growing at 12 per cent per annum and have been for some time now.
These are all signs that this country's economy must slow down some. If it does not slow down, if we do not see a control of inflation, we are going to get back to the 13 per cent inflation rate we had back in 1981. If the hon. member wants to get back to that-


Lloyd Axworthy: Cancel your tax.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -why does he not start standing up and saying that he supports the policies of the 1970s and early 1980s of the Liberal Party of Canada that got this country into the worst mess we have seen in 50 years?


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will know that a few days ago we had to accept the unhappy news of the passing of one of our former colleagues and by arrangement with all parties tributes will be paid.


THE LATE JAMES KENNETH JEPSON
Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute on behalf of the friends and colleagues of Jim Jepson who was the member of Parliament for London East. He was my friend and my colleague, as he was a friend and colleague of almost everyone who served in the former Parliament.
There were few members of that Parliament who made a more vivid impression than the member for London East. His buoyant good humour, his great one liners, his love of attention, his pride-he did not hide it being a successful businessman-his happy warrior approach to defending God, country and family, his belief that each individual was sacred, were familiar to all those who knew him.
For those of you who did not know him, you may have thought those beliefs might have been just politically convenient. That was not the case. Jim Jepson did not inherit these beliefs from comfortable middle-class London, Ontario. In fact he represented a riding which was as much working class as middle class. It has many new

December 4, 1989
Tributes
Canadians. It is now represented by the Liberal Premier of Ontario.
He did not inherit the beliefs either. He was, 20 years ago, a skeptic and an agnostic about all things spiritual. When he would see an evangelical preacher on TV, he used to say to his dear wife Bev in his own inimitable way: "I think the elevator doesn't always go to the top two floors for those people". But he became converted and he became a very strong defender of his faith and of his country.
Jim, as all of us know, preferred to learn not from books. Although, by the way, he read five psalms every day and a chapter from the book of Proverbs, he liked to learn from people because he loved people. Although I do not think he probably ever read Dostoevsky, he believed with Dostoevsky that a person cannot live without worshipping something. He said to me one day that if you do not worship God, you must worship something else.
Just two weeks ago we were talking about that something else: ideologies, groups, leaders who received sort of divine honours in their time but were later rejected. The object of his worship was of course God. Jim really did follow the Gospels.
This brings me to the point I wanted to make in this House. It is often said that a member of Parliament, when he retires or when he passes away, loved Parliament. Well, I want to share with this House a little secret. Jim achingly missed this place. He loved it because he was gregarious. He loved it-I do not apologize for this-because he was competitive. He loved the competition here. He loved it too because he believed that in this most imperfect of places there was potential for helping Canada to be renewed politically and spiritually.
I believe this is why thousands were at his funeral on Saturday. Our hearts are with him and his family as he is interred today. I believe that all who knew him will treasure his example and his memory.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I wish to convey our heartfelt sorrow and sense of loss to Mr. Jepson's family: Bev, his wife and Jane, Craig, and Susan, his children.
Jim Jepson was a proud Canadian. He loved his country and its people passionately. As a member of
Parliament between 1984 and 1988 he passionately spoke of this country, its values and its potential. He was a man with deeply held convictions and for that he was respected by members on both sides of the House. He was a man of honesty, integrity and principles, and that is why he fought for the things that he believed in. He believed in the family, in high moral standards and in people.
Just to give an example of the kind of man he was, in a speech that he gave on November 25 he said:
All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men and women
to do nothing.
He was always an optimist and optimistic about this country. That is why we pay tribute to a former parliamentarian. Canada has lost a good son, and London a fine citizen.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, God has taken from us one of his most favourite and faithful children with Jim Jepson's passing. He was a man who lived his faith. Those of us who had the good fortune to work with Jim were saddened when we heard the news of his passing. In many ways he contributed much to this place.
Although we disagreed on many items, he was always a man who was willing to sit down, have a cup of coffee and discuss our differences and explain at some length the position that he took on various issues and reasons for them.
He was a very humble man in many respects. He appreciated that we all held different views and yet respected those views. I say he was a very decent man, a very friendly man. One of the first people I encountered after the last election was Jim Jepson, as he walked around introducing himself to various people, looking forward to establishing strong and close working relationships with members from all sides of the House.
We express our deepest sympathy to his wife Bev and his children. We will miss Jim Jepson deeply and for a long time.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned Jim Jepson was elected in 1984. I remember prior to his election speaking to him about his candidacy. One of his concerns was how this place would affect his family. I think for a lot of us those are the kinds of questions we privately ponder as we look at public life.
December 4, 1989

Jim as has been mentioned here was gregarious. Possibly he is enjoying the scene right now as we are speaking about him, not in a partisan way but in the friendly way that he greeted people and met with them so easily.
He was concerned about the public purse and public issues well beyond the ones that he profiled in this House. He had very strong moral views, as has been mentioned. He was convinced that the nation had prosperity and stability if it relied on the roots on which it had been established, primarily in the concepts that were incorporated in our coat of arms. It is from Psalm 72:
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river to
the ends of the earth.
We will miss his smile and we will miss his friendship. I as an individual will miss the fact that I think he was the only one who was not daunted by anyone who might have certain positions around here. He would pop in at any time no matter who was in the office and drive the staff around the bend because he had to talk to me. That was the kind of person he was, no airs and I appreciated that.
I remember we would go by this place when the buildings of Parliament Hill would be darkened and the flag would be lit up late at night, and he would express what many of us believe. He once said: "Jake, I still do not know how I got here". He was probably expressing that view for a lot of us. And then he would say: "Every time I see that flag on the Peace Tower I still get goose bumps, and I still get goose bumps from the fact that I have been asked to serve here".
Lastly, in respect to Jim, Jim has finished his race and he probably is best reflected in this House by what the writer to the Hebrews said in Chapter 11, in the modem transliteration which says: "And we have a crowd of witnesses who stand here in the grandstands cheering us on". Jim would cheer us on today, to love righteousness, to respect God's word, and to follow the precepts that are written in the cabinet room on the wall: "Love justice, you who are the rulers of the earth".
On behalf of all of us I am sure we want to convey to Bev, to Jane, to Susan, to Craig, and to his former constituents our sorrow and our thanks for his life.
Tributes


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Thmer (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, Jim Jepson was one of the most popular members of this House of Commons. He was liked by all of us on this side of the House. We appreciated his forthrightness and his candour. He was a fine gentleman. He had a radiant and buoyant personality that lit up a room.
I used to tease him about his being a bom again Christian, with the convictions that that meant, the fact that he was not afraid to stand up or express his views, either his theological views or his political views. I must say I was closer to his religion than I was to his politics, but in any event he was a man who demanded and received instant respect.
I want to add the condolences of our party. Jim Jepson was an exemplary member of Parliament, a man who always wanted to get here and when he got here served well. When he lost, he took it with distinction and understanding that in a democracy that is the price one pays for public office.
I saw him once or twice after the election. His defeat had not phased him a bit. I want to say to his wife, Beverly, and his family, and to the constituents that he represented, that he was a fine member of Parliament, a credit to this House, a credit to the city of London, the constituency he represented. He is the type of person we need to elect to this House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I want to join other members in the House in saying a word of commendation about Jim Jepson.
Jim and I were put together rather early in his political career because of the seating arrangement in the House. I was sitting in the second row of our caucus over here, and he was sitting in the seat right across the aisle from me in the second Conservative row. As a result we became very good friends. We used to sit here and discuss how Question Period should and should not be run, and so on.
I join others who have talked about his deep commitment to his faith. There was no question that Jim Jepson was one of the finest when it came to keeping his religious faith. He was a good father and a good husband. He always talked very lovingly of his wife, Bev. They obviously had a very good relationship together. I can

December 4, 1989
Privilege
also recall being in Washington with him as one of the delegation to the prayer breakfast meeting there. I was shocked the other night when I saw on the television that he had passed away at the age of 47.
I want to join with our colleague from London East who has spoken very well today and others in this House to convey my personal sympathy to Bev, to the members of the family and to his dear mother.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, Jim Jepson and I sat on the justice committee and on a number of other committees together. I suppose we probably had our differences of opinion from time to time on a number of issues.
I want to join with my colleagues in the House in paying tribute to Jim. While we did have some very fundamental differences of opinion on issues, he was always a fair and honest man who treated people with dignity and respect.
I want to join in extending condolences to his wife, Bev and to their children. I had the privilege of meeting them as well at a skiing holiday at Sunshine Village when Jim Jepson and Alex Kindy joined me on a couple of runs.
I was shocked and saddened, as were all members of this House who worked with Jim. Again, to his wife and family our deep condolences and respect.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take but a minute of the House to add my words of condolences to Beverly Jepson. As some members may know, I was a pretty good friend of Jim Jepson. He once told me of his daughter who had been very ill at one time, and how he considered it a miracle that she had come back to life from the state where most experts were considering that she would not live.
Similarly when I heard that he had become gravely ill I sent a message to Beverly hoping that that same kind of miracle would happen again but this time of course to save Jim Jepson's own life.
I was very much an admirer of his religious convictions. I did not share his views on every topic, but I did share his view very profoundly on one topic. Most members will recognize that as being the topic of abortion. As a
matter of fact, when I took the somewhat controversial position I do have, I suppose, I thanked two members of the House for their support and assistance. One of them was the member for York South-Weston and the other one whom I thanked publicly at that time was the then member for London East, Jim Jepson.
I want his family to know how much I appreciated having Jim Jepson around the House of Commons and how much we will all miss him in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask hon. members to rise for one minute.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the House stood in silence.]


PRIVILEGE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning a question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Victoria with respect to the appointment of the CSIS committee.
I have now had an opportunity to obtain further information on the matter. I thought it might be helpful if I were to point out briefly what had happened at a previous time when these appointments were made. I did not have that information available to me at the time.
The act that was quoted this morning contemplates receiving names from the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party as to appointments to the committee. On October 2, 1984 the Prime Minister wrote to the Leader of the Opposition and to Mr. Broadbent and sought their views with respect to possible candidates for appointment to a certain committee. I will read it if I may and then table the letter:
Mr. Broadbent,
I am ready to seek your views with respect to possible candidates for appointment to the Security Intelligence Review Committee established by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. As you know, Section 34(1) of the act provides for the establishment of the SIRC whose members shall be appointed by the Governor in Council after consultation with the Prime Minister of Canada, with the Leader

of the Opposition in the House of Commons, and the Leader in the House of Commons of each party having at least 12 seats in the House.
The members of the review committee are to be selected from among members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who are not members of the Senate or House of Commons. A list of Privy Council members effective June 30, 1984 is attached for ease of reference.
I would like the review committee to be constituted in the near future and also I would like to receive your suggestions as soon as possible. I am also writing along these lines to Mr. Turner.
It is our understanding that there were no further discussions between the date of that letter and November 29, 1984. On November 29, 1984 the Prime Minister wrote to Mr. Broadbent:
As you will recall, I wrote on October 2, 1984, requesting your views regarding possible candidates for appointment to the Security Review Committee. I understand that you have suggested Mr. Saul Cherniak. I am pleased to accept this suggestion and wish to inform you that the planned members of the review committee will be, in addition to Mr. Cherniak, Mr. Ronald Atkey, Chairman; Frank McGee, Jean-Jacques Blais, and Mile. P. Gauthier.
I expect the committee will be constituted on November 30, 1984.
I thank you for your co-operation in this matter.
The announcement was then made the next day.
I think that my hon. friend has inadvertently misunderstood the reasons for the section in the act, that is to make sure that when nominations come forward from the opposition parties they are in fact satisfactory to the opposition party and that it is not by way of a veto that the constitution process goes through but by way of confirming that the name of that person is satisfactoiy.
This time both Mr. Jean-Jacques Blais and Mr. Cherniak were reappointed and therefore the Prime Minister wrote the letter that was referred to and tabled earlier, in which he had the closing paragraph:
I would like to know your views on these proposed appointments as I would propose to announce them shortly.
I submit that the section is there because this is a very important committee. When it was originally constituted representation was wanted from all three parties. It is by way of confirmation in the name of the party in question, not by way of veto that the clause is there.
Privilege
I submit that the letter was written and it was received in ample time to find out if the hon. Leader of the NDP and the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition were in agreement with the names of the former appointees going forward. I am prepared to table the two letters that I have now referred to.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the following comments on the question of privilege. First of all, I am not aware of the details of what happened in 1984.1 was not here or a party to them. I will seek further information on that and, if I have anything to add to what the minister said, I will so advise Your Honour of these you before you make your ruling.
However, I would certainly say that whatever happened in practice in 1984 does not provide you with any assistance as to the legal requirements of the act and in particular on the question of consultation.
The act says that the appointments must be made "in consultation with" the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Leader of the Official Opposition. There may or may not have been any reply back in 1984. There was no consultation in 1989. There was no communication, either implied or direct, from Mr. Broadbent's office of his views on this appointment. Therefore, the point that I made this morning seems to me unaffected by the additional information provided by the minister.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's intervention, but I think he has misunderstood the point of the remarks that I made this morning and the remarks that the hon. member for Victoria made.
We were not arguing that the opposition has a right of veto of the appointment to be made by the government in this matter. The act does not provide for the consent of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party in the House of Commons. It provides for consultation only. It does not say consent. If it said consent, I would suggest that we have a veto. The minister spoke of a veto and I am not suggesting that, nor did I this morning.
The minister may have misunderstood me. I did not suggest that we in fact had a veto. What I suggested was that the government had an obligation to consult. What I

December 4, 1989
Government Orders
suggest in the strongest possible terms is that sending a letter less than 48 hours before you make the appointment and inviting comments is not consultation. It is not a reasonable time if a letter is to be the chosen method of the government.
The Minister of Justice is a lawyer, as you are, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour knows the rules of the law of contract in terms of making contracts. If the offerer chooses the method of communication he is stuck with that method and he has to give a reasonable time for a reply. The minister knows that a reasonable time for a reply to an offer in contract made on the telephone will be a shorter time than the time required if the offerer chooses to write by letter.
I suggest that the analogy is one that could properly be adopted in dealing with this question of consultation. The requirement here was for consultation with the opposition. The letter was sent at 3.30 on the afternoon of the 28th and on the morning of the 30th the announcement was made that this gentleman had been appointed to the position. I say that is too soon. There was not sufficient time.
The Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party had fair reason to expect the courtesy of a reasonable time to furnish their opinion to the government. I suggest that reasonable time was not given, and that was the thrust of my remarks. The failure to give that time amounted to a contempt of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there was extensive argument this morning.
The Minister of Justice came into the House and has given further information for my consideration. I have heard from both the hon. member for Victoria on behalf of the New Democratic Party and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on behalf of the Official Opposition in reply.
I will, of course, consider the matter further and report back to the House.


ADVERTISING
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to draw to the attention of the Chair an advertisement that I received this morning
which I think is clearly in violation of House rules and does affect the privileges of members of Parliament.
This particular ad calls for people throughout the House of Commons to purchase Christmas wreaths and to make cheques payable to a private company. Unfortunately, the ad is placed on an individual member's personal stationery. The office phone number that is published is the phone number of that particular member. Very much, Mr. Speaker, I think it is an abuse of the system in that it does use House of Commons stationery and House of Commons phones and I think deserves to be examined. I am quite happy to forward to the Speaker a copy of this particular ad.


Mr. Speaker:: I of course will accept the ad. I suggest, though, before I close off this matter-I know that the Parliamentary Secretary would be most prepared to do this-he might discuss with the other side whether any comment is requested or is necessary and perhaps I could be given some indication of those discussions at least by tomorrow.
There is no need to pursue the matter now. I do not know who the member is and it may be that the parliamentary secretary could discuss it with the other side. I will hear further discussion later.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-13, an act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Limited, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker:: There are four motions in amendment in the name of the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke set down on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-13, an act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Limited. I have doubts with regard to the admissibility of Motion No. 1. The intent of the hon. member is to have Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics pay a royalty to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited based on
December 4, 1989

profits exceeding $10,000 each calendar year. The percentage of royalty would be increased as profits increased.
As I understand the bill, the principle is to authorize the divestiture by the government of these two companies. The argument can be made that the hon. member is introducing a new concept but it can be equally argued that he is setting out a term or a condition must be met in the sale. This, for example, is what is being done in subclause (1) of Clause 4.
I will therefore give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and allow Motion No. 1. It will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are in order. They will be grouped together for debate and the vote on motion No. 2 will also apply to Motions Nos. 3 and 4.1 will now open debate on Motion No. 1.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding immediately after line 19 at
page 2 the following new clause:
"5. There shall be paid to the Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited by Nordion and Theratronics an annual royalty on any profits of these corporations that exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars during any calendar year, and Nordion and Theratronics shall pay the Crown corporation an annual royalty as follows:
(a)	on annual profits in excess of ten thousand dollars and up to one million dollars, three per cent;
(b)	on the excess above one million dollars up to five million dollars, five per cent;
(c)	on the excess above five million dollars up to ten million dollars, six per cent; and
(d)	on the excess above ten million dollars, a proportional increase of one per cent for each additional five million dollars."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your comments and your fairness.
I want to say at the outset that Bill C-13 which deals with the Nordion and Theratronics divestiture authorization act is a short piece of legislation that authorizes the Canadian Development Investment Corporation to sell any or all of the shares of Nordion International Inc. and
Government Orders
Theratronics International Limited. The provisions of the bill are probably similar to those of other statutes authorizing the sale or privatization of Crown-owned corporations such as the 1988 legislation regarding Eldorado Nuclear Limited, for example.
The reason for Motion No. 1 is that both these companies had been developing within Atomic Energy of Canada's structure since 1952 up until they became Crown corporations just a short time ago and then handed over to the Canadian Development Investment Corporation for sale. For a while prior to 1952 they were part of Eldorado Mining and Refining, so it is fair to say that 45 years of research and development have gone into what we have in these two Crown corporations today.
Nordion really has done a tremendous job in the field of nuclear medicine for the treatment of cancer. Nordion produces isotope products and also deals with industrial irradiation. The isotope products can be found in radio-pharmaceuticals for medical diagnosis and therapy. Isotopes in bulk are used by other companies for radio-pharmaceutical production and, of course, industrial irradiation, cobalt 60 sources for industrial research purposes and irradiators are used to sterilize medical and consumer products.
This type of research has gone a long way, and these two companies are very important in the scheme of things. What can be more important today as we look around us than the years and the public funds that have gone into companies that deal to a very large degree with the treatment of cancer at a time when the public is donating money for research? The country has spent 45 years putting money into Atomic Energy of Canada and Eldorado Mining and Refining Corporation to bring this research in this field to where it is today.
Today, we are selling cobalt therapy units all around the world and are competing very well. Canada produces something like 80 per cent of the world's supply of radioisotopes. I think that is a tremendous accomplishment.
I feel very strongly that Motion No. 1 is an absolute necessity because the government has been telling Atomic Energy of Canada Limited since the finance minister's budget back in 1985 to either make money and pay your way or we are going to close you down. After all

Government Orders
this tremendously productive work in the field of medicine has been done, it is a very cruel way to go.
These two companies are finally profitable. Nordion has been profitable for a long time. Theratronics has done very well. It is in the profit area now and it was making a profit before Theratronics became a Crown corporation. That was proven in the committee stage hearing of this bill.
Elow can we tell Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which has spent all those years since 1952 supporting this kind of research for both these Crown corporations, that we are going to sell them off and say good day and then turn around and tell the company to finance itself or else?
The reason for my amendment becomes very clear. Why should a royalty not be paid back to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited since over the years the taxpayers' money has gone into this research and brought these two companies to where they are today? That is why I have provided in this amendment that on annual profits in excess of $10,000 and up to $1 million, a 3 per cent royalty would be paid to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and on the excess above $1 million up to $5 million, the companies would pay 5 per cent of their profit to AECL. On the excess above $5 million up to $10 million, there would be a 6 per cent levy for royalties to the parent company. On the excess above $10 million, there would be a proportional increase of 1 per cent for each additional $5 million.
This is a very, very small part of the companies' profits, and if a Crown corporation such as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is going to continue doing this kind of research, build out of that parent company very healthy financial corporations of their own and go out and be privatized by government legislation, then surely there is something owing to the people of Canada back through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited so that that research and development can continue.
Who would ever deny that royalties from a profit-making company that makes the cobalt therapy treatment units and related cancer equipment and medical radioisotopes for the treatment of cancer and other refined purposes in the medical field should not be paid to a
parent company instead of setting these companies up and having them make profits on the things that have actually been done by research money produced by the people of Canada over a period of 45 years?
If the parent company is going to continue its operations, how can it do it without help from those profitmaking parts of the company? How can you say to AECL: "Now, you guys pay your bills but we are going to take all your profits away from you"? That is not the way to go.
Here is a tremendous success story in the field of medicine which has unfolded over the years. It has been a tremendous success. I believe the first cobalt therapy unit was first tested in the Royal Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario. Today they are in hospitals all around the world.
My strong feeling on this is that not only should there be a flow of money back into Atomic Energy of Canada Limited today from these companies, but certainly from any other companies that have been given public funds over the years to become successful operations and to contribute to the treatment of very serious diseases. Surely this Canada of ours deserves something back in return.
This is nothing new. You have royalties on books, on publications and on companies. There is absolutely no reason why this motion cannot be accepted.
I can only say that we are asking the people of Canada to pull out their pocketbooks and donate to cancer campaigns across this country to support research and development and then the government is turning around and selling off two profitable Crown corporations that have developed equipment for the treatment of cancer and medical radioisotopes for the treatment of cancer. We are going to say to the companies that buy them: "They are all yours. Now go ahead and make a profit".
The markets are already there in the world. In fact, there is going to be a tremendous increase in the profits of Nordion in the immediate years ahead. These companies are going to make great profits on it. We have set them up with public funds, they are going to pay a price for that company, but nothing beyond that. They have the research done up to date and from now on, I hope, they will do that themselves in a very effective way. We are all looking for that kind of leadership.
December 4, 1989

But there has got to be something left for those scientists and researchers in the parent Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited so that they can go ahead and produce some more dynamic discoveries for the treatment of this horrible disease cancer that is taking so many loved ones away from our society today.
I ask the House to support this amendment very strongly. I hope the government will consider it. It is not asking for a great deal of the profits. They are very small percentages. Certainly the government has had a team trying to put a financial plan together for Atomic Energy of Canada for about the last four months or more. What would be better than to give AECL an income from what it and the Canadian taxpayers have produced over the years?
I would hope that the government would look at this amendment very seriously. It is one that has been tossed around among the science community for a long time. I think that its principle does a lot to really support the argument.
I believe my time is about up. I thank you for your patience, and I would ask the House and the government to give very serious consideration to this very important amendment which I am sure will be very well received, not only by the science community of this country, but also by those who are extremely interested in seeing continued the kind of top level, top drawer research and development that has been done and as a result has produced these two very fine Crown corporations.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the motion of the hon. member for Renfrew.
Clearly, the two Crown corporations, Nordion and Theratronics, are not well known to Canadians, although the parent company, Atomic Energy of Canada, is very well known and has given us some of the most outstanding research this country has ever produced. The development of the Candu reactor is the most well known portion of it, although the issue of nuclear energy is sometimes controversial.
The kind of work that is done by these two Crown corporations, Nordion and Theratronics, which really were spawned by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, is not controversial. There is no controversy with regard to
Government Orders
the tremendous research and value they have given to medical treatment in this country with the cobalt bomb, the radioisotopes that are used in medical treatment and so on.
It is of interest that such a large number of establishments have been built around the world by Nordion, processing plants for sterilization of equipment and so on. I am told that there have been 145 radiation processing plants established in the world, 90 of which were built by Nordion and 75 of which Nordion sells cobalt to.
Clearly these companies are very important to Canada. Nordion sells some $90 million worth of sterilization systems a year and Theratronics some $40 million of cobalt therapy machines. Between them, they employ over 700 people.
I think there are two issues at stake here. One is the importance of AECL as an ongoing entity to our country. Clearly, with the greenhouse effect we are going to need more and more nuclear energy in this country to generate electricity. We are expecting a report in the next week or two which will probably catalogue that some eight new nuclear generating plants will have to be built in Ontario during the next 10 or 12 years or less. AECL should be able to have the benefits of these two Crown corporations which it has developed.
The hon. member for Renfrew has put forward, I believe, a very ingenious way in which these companies could be privatized. Some of the millions of dollars that have gone into the research and development could flow back to AECL for the ongoing research which it is doing in nuclear energy and waste management systems for the country. This ongoing problem will require a great deal more research and development in the years ahead.
It does not seem to make sense to sell off all the money-making portions of Crown corporations in a privatization activity. The hon. member has put forward in Motion No. 1 a procedure for royalties to flow back to the Crown corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which will give to the Crown some return on the tremendous amount of investment that has taken place to pay tribute to the genius of those researchers who have developed this outstanding research and medical technology.

December 4, 1989
Government Orders
I support the hon. member for Renfrew. I think he has hit upon a very useful way in which the medical profession and medical services units around the world using radioisotopes and sterilization equipment will be able to make those funds available to the parent Crown corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada.
We not only have an ongoing need for Atomic Energy of Canada for developing nuclear energy in our country but also for the disposal of nuclear waste and all that complicated research which will take place. It does not make sense that we just sell off all the money-making portions of a company like AECL and leave the less profitable portions.
Clearly Nordion and Theratronics have been the money-makers and have been successful. The idea the hon. member put forward that we try to retain the ownership in Canada is a good idea. The cobalt bomb for the treatment of cancer is synonymous with Canada and Canadian technology and medical research. That idea is one worth considering as well when we move on to those other motions farther down the page with regard to Bill C-13.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that on the other side of the House we will get support for these several amendments which I think will strengthen the bill and will serve our country well. It will serve AECL well and will give back to the country some of the investment which the taxpayers have put in to this Crown corporation which has developed modem, new, advanced medical technology. Thus, we will be paying back to the Crown some of the funds which have gone into the establishment of this important and worth-while technology.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to stand here in the House today to speak on the amendments put forward by my colleague, the member for Pembroke with regard to Bill C-13, an act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Limited.
I know my colleagues have already mentioned the history of both Nordion and Theratronics but I would like to mention it as well. They have been part of a Crown corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, for a good number of years.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited was formed in 1952. The history of these two companies began in the early post-war years and they were connected at that time to Eldorado Mining. In the late 1970s, a reorganization of AECL led to the commercial products division being reformed as the Radio Chemical Company and Medical Products Company. In 1987 both companies were profitmaking and in 1988 ownership was transferred to the control of CDIC which, of course, is the Canadian Development Investment Corporation.
Now we have Bill C-13, which is to authorize privatization of these two companies. This is what concerns me. Theratronics is essentially a manufacturing company and Nordion is a high-tech company dealing largely with nuclear materials and, therefore, Canadian control is highly desirable. They are a leading international supplier of nuclear-based products, serving the world's health care industry. The industrial radiation division produces over half of the world's cobalt 60 radiation processing equipment.
Mr. Speaker, you may be wondering why I am briefly giving you this background information on these two companies, but I wish to reaffirm the importance to Canada and to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited of these two companies located in the nearby riding of Lanark-Carleton in the city of Kanata.
Nowhere can I find out the real reason why these companies are being privatized, although it does give reasons as to why they wish to privatize these two profit-making-and I have to stress profit-making-companies. It does give the reason that they will be better able to compete on the international market and will, therefore, make more profit than they are already making, but I guess this is where I have the difficulty with it.
The companies will obviously then be making profit for a private industry rather than for Canada and Canada has invested millions of dollars into these two companies and into AECL. I guess I am bothered about why we should be bothered to sell them in the first place.
Are we really hanging AECL out to dry on this one? It relies to a certain degree on the profits coming from these companies to subsist or to aid AECL in its operations because it is a research and development company.
December 4, 1989

How is it going to be put up for sale? It is said that it will be put out to the public tender process and it will be fair and square. Will these be invited bids or will they be selective? I think there are too many questions that beg answers.
Who is going to sit on the board? Is there a possible conflict? Who are these people? Is there going to be public accountability? These companies were formed with money from the Canadian taxpayers, millions and millions of dollars.
I know the minister responsible for privatization has said that it will provide these companies with the impetus for growth and development and the freedom to pursue new market opportunities. Those are wonderful words. Does this mean that just because a government appears to be committed to privatization, it must move in that direction come hell or high water, without any regard to who it is going to hurt?
I am a partner in a family business that has been fairly successful over the years. We always sell the losers and keep the winners, we do not sell the winners and keep the losers. This is what is being done here, the government is selling the winners, for goodness sake. I think the losers will be the Canadian people and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, as per the amendment proposed by my colleague, should share in the profits of these companies. It needs to share in order to allow it to continue.
I look at other Crown corporations that are slowly being sold off. I think of de Havilland and, of course, the DASH-8 aircraft and of how fortunate an American company was to receive this Canadian company that was finally making profits. Look at the profit-making part of VIA Rail which is causing people in Amtrak to wring their hands with glee. I wonder whose buddies are going to benefit from these two companies.
Twenty-five per cent of Nordion cannot be out-ofcountry owned and I think that is a wise move, but what assurance do we have that that same thing will hold true with regard to Theratronics? We are saying that it will be held by the employees. What guarantee do we have that this will always take place?
Government Orders
I support the amendments of my colleague from Pembroke. I hope that the government side of this House will see merit in what he is trying to do. I think we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure Canadians that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has a share in the profit-making of these companies and we have a responsibility to ensure that Theratronics remains a Canadian-owned company.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to say a few very brief words on Bill C-13, an act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Limited. I want, in particular, to pay tribute to my distinguished colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke who has fought very hard in the interests of Canadians, both at the legislative committee and now by proposing these very thoughtful amendments which he is bringing forward in relation to this bill.
The minister across the way, who is sitting very patiently listening to the opposition's contributions to this debate, says that this bill is in the interests of Nordion and Theratronics. Assuming this is accurate, why then did the minister and his colleagues want this bill to be in and out of committee so quickly? What did they have to hide? Why was the committee not given the opportunity to listen to witnesses, experts who wanted to testify?
My colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke tells me that he wanted people like representatives of the Canadian Cancer Society and others to be able to come to the committee and make a contribution, to explain their views, how they felt about the divestiture. Did they feel that the bill was adequate? Did they feel that the minister should have provided better assurances such as the ones mentioned now in Motion No. 1? What did the Tory majority do? They did what they are known to do best. They rammed the bill through with no witnesses.
The member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke is quite justly upset about this. I am glad and thankful that our member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke is standing up for Canadians on issues like this.
What does the government want to do? It wants to divest itself of these two Crown corporations which are profit-making. My colleague from Nepean has spoken very eloquently about how this government has its priorities all messed up, how it wants to sell those things

December 4, 1989
Government Orders
that are running well and keep those things that are not, which, even using Tory definitions of how to do things- heaven forbid that anyone should ever use those-does not work.
What are the Tories going to do afterwards? We have AECL, of course, which is the parent company, and now they are removing the paying component. What is going to happen to AECL afterwards? I ask that question and I want the minister to stand in this House and express very clearly and in a tangible way in legislation the long-term survival of AECL. That is what my colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke is concerned with. That is why he wants this amendment passed and that is why he wants a number of other amendments passed. That is why some of us on this side of the House are standing up in the interests of the taxpayers of Canada, of the residents of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, who work at AECL, and several others involved with these industries in Kanata and elsewhere.
I know that the minister is in a rush to get this bill through. He may have committed himself to the Prime Minister or the House Leader, or to whomever, that he did not need much House time and this would go smoothly. I am sorry to disappoint him. Well, on second thoughts, I am not really that sony, but I do want to tell the minister that he is just not going to get it quite that quickly.
I am not known to make long speeches-


Some Hon. Members:: No, never.


Don Boudria: -and I would not want to take the time of the House, but if I have to I could be convinced that it is necessary to speak on all of these amendments and to encourage colleagues to do so. Perhaps the minister across the way could save a lot of the time of the House and he could encourage his colleagues to vote in favour of good, worthwhile, thoughtful amendments such as the ones proposed by my distinguished colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.


John Horton McDermid: Can we get a second opinion?


Don Boudria: A member across the way asks if we can get a second opinion. Well, we have had four opinions in a row here from this side of the House on this amendment, but this is not sufficient for the member across the way, so I will have to encourage my colleagues to provide more constructive opinions in favour of this amendment.
Perhaps if 15 or 20 colleagues spoke in favour of this amendment, all of us seconding the very worth while proposition of my colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke, members across the way would consider that to be sufficient opinion.
We have only had four speakers so far speaking in favour of that amendment. The member across the way has invited us to get more opinions to further confirm the fact that this amendment is worthwhile and we are not going to disappoint him. I promise that we are going to have a number of other colleagues provide meaningful and equally constructive comment in favour of the amendment that has been offered to us as Motion No. 1 by my distinguished colleague, the hon. member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.
I would not want to take too much time of the House because I know so many other members want to speak in favour of Motion No. 1 to amend Bill C-13, but I thought that it was absolutely necessary to express to the minister across the way that we on this side of the House do not think much of the strategy of allowing this bill to go to committee for one or two meetings and then to refuse the opportunity to hear any witnesses, save and except two I think, and to pretend that this is a sufficient amount of debate before the Government of Canada divests itself of these paying propositions which are subsidiaries of AECL.
We do not think this is adequate. We think the bill should at least be amended. Preferably, it should go back to committee. Witnesses should be listened to and allowed to provide the contribution that they would have gladly made had we given them the opportunity to do so. But the government was in a rush to get this bill back in to the House at report stage and third reading thinking that perhaps after a few moments of discussion in the House the bill would be completed. Well, it may take a little longer than that.
The next time the government brings the bill forward it should consider allowing a proper number of witnesses to express their views. As a matter of fact, I invite the minister to stand in his place right now and refer the bill back to the committee and have the witnesses make the contributions that they would have made. If he does not want to do that, I guess some of us will have to speak on behalf of the witnesses who could not appear. As much as we hate to do so, we will have to work ourselves up to making that contribution. We hope that it does not take
December 4, 1989

too, too long, perhaps just a bit longer, but things need to be restated and my colleagues and I intend to do so.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Ottawa West, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Southwest Nova-Fisheries; the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception-Canadian Armed Forces; the hon. member for Kenora- Rainy River-VIA Rail.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-13, an act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Limited, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, today's debate has been a fine example of the schizophrenia of this government when it comes to the role and the responsibility of government.
We started this morning with debate on a bill, the stated purpose of which is to build excellence and pride in the public sector. To do that we are prepared to set up a national centre for management development with a budget of $11.7 million a year while we are closing down the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, or at least telling that centre it has no more public role to play, and we are quite prepared to turn over the concerns for
Government Orders
the health and safety of Canadians in the workplace to a corporation that can turn a profit, or at least pay its own way.
This bill takes some of the finest examples of excellence, pride, productivity and innovation in the public sector and wants to sell them. We want to sell these things without gaining for Canadians any return on the investment they have made for over 47 years in the success of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the various corporations that have been part of its structure, part of its excellent research history and part of its development of products that are serving the health needs, not only of Canadians but of people around the world.
The last annual report of NSERC identified that one of the most significant things that Canadians have to do for the good of the economy and for the long term prosperity of the country is to seek out those areas in which, by natural attributes of the nation, we have the opportunity to innovate, to create products that not only meet the needs of the world in areas such as the environment, biotechnology, cold regions living and cold regions research but also to create new economic opportunities for Canada.
I cannot think of another area of endeavour that more closely meets that description than the whole area of radiation technology. We have excelled in this area for decades. We have excelled in the development of new products. We have met a crucial human need around the world with our research and with our products in the area of atomic energy. Now we want to divest ourselves of a superb foundation we have built and with which we can create new technologies and new products and continue prospering.
Not only that, but we want to get rid of companies that Canadians working for their government-albeit perhaps somewhat indirectly but working with public funds-have built to a state where they are in fact very attractive to the private sector, companies that, for a number of years now have been funding further research, the development of further technology and products at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. We want to get rid of something that is doing well, making a profit and assisting us in further establishing a strong, economic niche which, when I hear the dogma from the other side of the House, is what we want to do, we want to

December 4, 1989
Government Orders
invest in those things which are going to let our economy prosper.
What is the sense of getting rid of two companies that are doing exactly that? How are we supporting research and development and laying a strong foundation for further technology, further products and further export markets by divesting ourselves of companies that are producing the revenue to continue that research? At the same time this government has cut the budget of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited by $100 million it is divesting Atomic Energy Canada Limited of being able to fund, with the companies it has developed, its own ongoing research without further draws on the public purse.
If there is ever a place for public policy it is in the area of the development of nuclear technology and nuclear products. As a member of the environment committee I am constantly faced, at hearings we have every week, with the damage the garbage we have dumped into the environment, sometimes decades ago, is now doing to the world that we live in. I am faced with the need to go back and start undoing the damage we have done.
Nuclear technology is one of those newer technologies which we know produces a dangerous by-product from which we do not yet know quite how to protect the world. It is an area in which the need for public policy and public control is very evident. We simply cannot go ahead and produce harmful by-products as we have done in the past only to have them surface in the future for our children and our grandchildren to take care of.
As Canadians we have invested in this and we are now at a point where we are profiting from our investment and reinvesting that profit into the future of our country. It seems to me that a good conservative approach to this, in fact, would be to keep reinvesting those dollars rather than getting rid of something that is producing benefit for all of us and will continue to produce and benefit rather than allow someone else to profit from the risks we have taken and from the dollars we have invested.
I do want to speak for a moment on the process of the bill. This is the third time in a couple of months that I have seen successful attempts by government members to thwart the democratic process, to cut off debate, to cut off a thorough and careful examination of the public interest in matters. This happened with Bill C-16 on which we were hardly into committee when the government members of the committee were moving to limit debate to a matter of only hours on something as important as the establishment of a $3 trillion project, the Canadian space program.
On Bill C-21, a multi-billion dollar program, debate was limited, and now again on Bill C-13 we have the immediate chop. The people who have some expertise, some knowledge, some insight to contribute to our debate on public issues, are not able to come forward. We are not willing, as a House, or certainly as a government, to profit from that expertise and that knowledge.
Just the two matters that have been in the House today show the contradictory nature of this government's approach. The government talks about excellence and pride and innovation in the public sector and then immediately that happens slaps in the face people who have been responsible for that innovation and that excellence, saying, "We are selling off what you have created. We will no longer allow your current work to profit from what you created; and to see your investment reinvested in the future of this country."
Well that is foolish. That is short-sighted and it is wrong. I hope the members on the other side of the House will take the amendments proposed by my hon. colleague seriously and look at how in fact those amendments will be to the benefit of Canada and the benefit of research and development technology in this country and not simply dismiss them out of hand.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to participate in this debate but I came into the House this afternoon and read the amendment we are now discussing in the name of the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.
I thought that surely the government is agreeing to this amendment. Then I was informed that it was not and I thought this must be a simple error on the part of the Minister of State for Privatization. Because the amendment seems such a sensible one I could not imagine that the minister would disagree with it. The question of the sale of these companies is one that I would have thought the minister would regard as self-evident. He has decided, in his wisdom, to sell the companies. We may have
December 4, 1989

a disagreement, perhaps an ideological one, on this side of the House with that.
But even accepting that it was a sensible decision to sell, the Minister of State for Privatization is a businessman. I assumed that he was an experienced businessman who would have some considerable knowledge of the stock markets and the way they work in Canada. In fact I think it has been suggested that he was a tycoon, Mr. Speaker. I do not know. In any event, he knows that when you are going to sell stocks you wait until a propitious moment. You wait until your company is at its greatest value, when, in the eyes of the investing public, it will have the greatest worth because it is then that the investing public will pay the highest possible price for the shares.
Here we have two companies that the minister wants to sell on the market immediately. He is in a great rush. He wants to get this bill quickly through Parliament so that he can proceed with this public offering. Yet there is some evidence that these companies are now profitable and they are going to become much more profitable in the years ahead.
Surely if the minister had the best interests of Canadians at stake he would wait until the companies had achieved some considerable degree of profitability and then launch them out in a public offering so that he would maximize the dollar return for the Canadian owners of this company, all of us as Canadians. Surely he would want to sell these companies at a moment in then-existence when they would fetch the highest possible dollar return on the investment.
Yet that does not appear to be the minister's attitude. He says, "I really don't care about how much I get for these companies, I want them sold now". I am amazed to hear that kind of argument from the minister because he is the one who is always harping in this House about the deficit.
To hear him complain as we have day after day, month after month, literally whining in this House about how dreadful the deficit is and how it has to be brought down, and for him to now want to sell one of our assets for less than it might fetch in another year when it could do more good in reducing the deficit, is absolutely astounding for me. Yet that seems to be the attitude of the minister.
Government Orders
The Minister of Finance bleats and whines day after day in this House that he never gets any suggestions from the Opposition on how to reduce the deficit. Well, I will give him one right now, free. Hang on to these companies and sell them when they are worth more. Sell them when the value has gone up in the eyes of the investing public, I say to the Minister of State for Privatization. I hope he will convey the message to the Minister of Finance. He is the one who is always whining that we do not make any suggestions on how to lower the deficit. Yet here I am making a suggestion. Why does he not come running down here and say he agrees with me and accept to either postpone the sale or accept this amendment which provides for a return for the taxpayers of Canada?
We have heard from the previous speakers in this debate on this side of the House about how much money the government has invested in these corporations over the years. That money has come from the public Treasury of Canada. These companies are owned by us as taxpayers of Canada. Surely if we have an obligation as Members of Parliament, and I suggest that the obligation is even higher for the ministers of the Crown, to account for the public moneys of Canada and the way they are spent, surely we should be using our very best efforts to get the highest possible return on the investment for Canadians.
Surely one of the ways to do that is to accept this amendment which will provide that on this very significant investment Canadians have made in these companies there will be return in the years to come of moneys that they have put in by way of these royalty payments on the developed patents and so on that these companies have worked out.
Surely that is a reasonable approach to this. I do not understand the minister's reluctance. Does he think it is going to lower the value of the shares, and if so, by how much? Apparently he will not produce any evidence of this. He did not want to have it discussed in committee. The committee hearings were cut short.
I have read some of the transcript. I have it right here on my desk. There was a motion moved in early October by the Conservative members on the committee that the whole matter be reported to the House by October 26.1 have it right here at page 21 of the proceedings of the committee on October 19. If the minister was not there, he had somebody there on his behalf. He knows what

December 4, 1989
Government Orders
went on in the committee. Eie knows that what I am saying is correct. The discussion was cut short so that these embarrassing facts, these possible explanations, could not come to light.
Surely if they had come to light and the Canadian public became aware that by holding on to the shares of these companies for another year, or by agreeing to an amendment such as the one that we are discussing today, the Canadian public would get a greater return on the sale of these assets, the public would have agreed with us that this amendment is entirely suitable and entirely proper.
I say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, reconsider your decision, Mr. Minister, to reject this amendment. Look at it in a more favourable light. This is doing something for the people of Canada who put their dollars into these corporations over the years. This is getting the money back on these dollars that are being forgone by the immediate sale. If that money can be recovered in this way, surely it is a reasonable way for us as the House of Commons to deal with this bill and say, look, the people of Canada deserve better than a quick fire sale of these corporations. Surely they deserve to get something for the substantial investment that they have put in and that will be coming back over the next few years in sales of the products that these companies manufacture, increase and improve.
That is the evidence we have before us. On the limited evidence that we have that would seem to be the view of the people who are running these corporations. Surely the Minister of State for Privatization has an obligation to speak for these companies, not just to speak for the potential investors who want to snap these shares up at bargain prices, but that seems to be his aim.
This government has rushed headlong into this privatization nonsense. It has sold off assets that belong to the Canadian taxpayers, sold them to a select few of those taxpayers at fire sale prices, I suggest. We should discontinue this practice at once. These companies have significant assets. These companies have invested a great deal of money in developing certain patents and procedures that can be marketed. Surely Canadians should get a return on those developments, those patents and those procedures.
The royalty scheme that is suggested in the amendment by my distinguished colleague from Renfrew-Ni-pissing-Pembroke deserves the consideration of the minister instead of this apparent rejection, disinterest and lack of concern. Surely the minister has an obligation to the people of Canada to speak up and support this amendment, and I invite him to do so.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the member for Renfrew- Nipissing-Pembroke for his effort to introduce an amendment to this House on a subject that is very dear to my heart. As someone who has been involved in research and development, as well as someone who worked in the private sector for a number of years, I know too well the importance of research and development for our country and for the well-being of our economy.
The amendment put before the House is nothing more than an assurance that the government and Canadians can rely on. Asking an ambassador or someone who is interested in purchasing a company, or a group of people who are planning to purchase a company, to pay a part of the profit to Atomic Energy so that it can be used in research and development is not asking a lot. If anything this money could be put to a proper use. It will be put to proper use by Atomic Energy, a corporation that has over the past decades done a tremendous amount of work in the area of research and development in the advancement of technology in Canada.
I have looked over the four different amendments and to me they make a lot of sense. I would say: why not? Normally when people sell an item it is because they are not satisfied with it. It is a white elephant, an item that is not generating any kind of revenue. They sell something because it is not serving the purpose.
My God, we have two world-class corporations about which every Canadian can be proud-those on the local scene and those on the international scene. We are planning to put them on the market so that we can sell them and so that we can get the funds.
I would say that if the government had been up front and indicated that all of the revenues from the sale of these corporations would go toward research and development, probably I would not have stood up in order to speak on this issue. But in the absence of any kind of
December 4, 1989

assurances that the proceeds from the sale of these two corporations, if and when they are sold, will go toward research and development, I find it alarming for a great many reasons.
First, the Prime Minister himself day after day at every possible opportunity has spoken on the issue of research and development. I have a lot of admiration for everything that he has said so far on this issue. He has spoken on the issue of education. He has spoken on the importance of Canada being competitive in the international market. I appreciate that very much. But now I have seen the government proceeding with the sale of two of the finest corporations owned by Canadians without giving any kind of assurances that the proceeds will go toward research and development. It is quite alarming.
I would suggest to the minister and to the government that it is not too late. We still have some time. I would suggest that the government take these recommendations to heart, look at them, and if for whatever reason it finds out that the sale is not going to be beneficial, then we will talk about it at a later stage. In my view it is time for us to make this issue as important as it should be.
We have to elevate the issue of research and development to the point where it deserves to be. We have to tackle it with a little more aggressiveness than we have been doing in the past.
In my view this is nothing but the beginning. I would say putting Crown corporations on the table and putting them on the market to sell is a decision that this government has proceeded with, and I am not going to argue the pros or cons of it. But the subject before us deals with a matter of great importance. It needs the attention and the concern of members on all sides of the House.
Without going further into the debate, I know the minister is listening and I have a lot of respect for him. I know he understands the issue too well to let it go by without any serious consideration. I hope that the government will look at the amendments of the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and act upon them.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank the House for this
Government Orders
opportunity to speak on Bill C-13 and the amendments to it presented by my learned colleague from Renfrew.
First, I think it would be important to talk about the theory and the importance of the Tory ideology as it relates to the selling off of Crown corporations before we get involved in the bill itself. I think it would be important for the people of Canada to understand what we are doing here today as members of Parliament.
It is not so much the fact that we are selling off Crown corporations which is very difficult to stomach; it is the fact that we spend millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to improve on a particular area that is deficient in our country, for example, research and development related to atomic energy. We get involved in that particular process at the taxpayers' expense. Once we get to a certain point in its evolution and its history, this particular government has decided that it is time to give it back to private enterprise. In itself that is not so bad. The situation that is really intolerable is the way it has been done.
First, lengthy debate did not take place before it happened. In reality there has been no debate at all. If the people of Canada knew just what is being given away and what is being put out there on the block and the fact that there is not going to be a lot of benefit to Canadians once it is sold, then I think there would be a large outcry by Canadians as it relates to that issue.
What really makes me nervous about this whole particular ideology is that there are other Crown corporations out there that have not been sold yet which the minister would love to get his hands on to give back to private enterprise. An example of this would be Canada Post. It will not happen just yet since it has not started to create enough of a profit.
That is a perfect example of an issue that in this particular term of this particular government could become a bit of a national debate in the sense that once it becomes a profitable corporation it would be much easier to sell. Therefore, when that takes place, we will be looking at the same type of philosophy that we are seeing now. It is simply this-there is no debate. It is being pushed through as quickly as possible so that Canadians will not realize what is happening. They have so much on their plate now.
We have the GST that is keeping everybody busy. We have the abortion bill about which everybody is in an uproar. Everybody is in such a disturbing state as it relates to the direction this particular government is taking that these lesser areas of emphasis, these smaller

December 4, 1989
Government Orders
areas of change, may not be as visible and can go through without extensive debate. That in itself is a shame for a country that considers itself to be by far one of the most democratic countries in the world.
If the minister responsible for this bill was assured that this is the direction Canadians want to take, then why should there not be a debate? Why should this not be an issue for people to stand up and toss around their own ideas on, whether it be on the socialist side, the Liberal side, or the Conservative side?
Let us take a look at another area of major concern as it relates to this bill. I refer to the number of dollars that were pumped into these particular companies. The people of Canada felt that it was a responsible situation for past governments to get involved in. Now they are going to lose that feeling for that particular company because it is going to be put back in the private sector.
That is not so bad if there is a rationale behind it, but the minister and the government are bullying their way through the privatization of many Crown corporations, and we have no understanding as to why. The rationale behind this particular privatization is simply this: these companies will be more competitive in the international market.
I ask this simple question through you, Mr. Speaker, of the minister: If there are problems with marketing on the international scene, why not give that company the opportunity to allow for that change to take place? Therefore we would resolve that situation. Instead of selling off a very competitive company that is paying dividends to the taxpayers of Canada, after so many years of we taxpayers paying into it, here was a perfect opportunity for us to get some money back for a change, but once it becomes profitable this government wants to give it away. I have difficulty understanding the rationale for that.
What is really scary about all this is when we consider what may happen when CN becomes profitable. That should not be too long once it starts selling off everything and once it becomes a little bit more profitable. That may not be in this mandate, but it could be in a few mandates down the road. Maybe it will even make it in
the next three or four years and this particular government will have the opportunity to give it away.
If we take a look at the number of dollars the taxpayers pumped into CN and the roadbeds that go with it, we see that we are talking about billions and billions of dollars. You will never get that back if you sell that company. But, then, does that matter to this particular government?
It is not so much the fact that we sell something that bothers us. It is how it is done and why it is done. That is the issue here. That is what we are debating here. My hon. colleague has put some amendments forward. They are good amendments because they protect the investment of the taxpayers of this country who have invested dearly in these companies.
I would like to ask the minister to stand up in his place and give us his rationale as to why we do not give the taxpayers of Canada some incentive to continue to buy these shares once these companies go on the open market, knowing that the taxpayers of Canada will receive some return.
Who is to say that the people who buy these shares will be Canadians? Who is to say it will not be some foreign investors who come in and buy the shares of this particular company? What will happen is that we will have companies operating in Canada that are owned in part by foreigners.
It is important for Canadians to understand that it is not so bad that a foreigner might buy a few shares of particular Crown corporations. What is drastically disgusting-and I think members opposite should look at this very seriously-is that more and more of the companies in this country are not owned by Canadians but by multinationals or subsidiaries of those multinationals. I think that is something of major importance in this debate. It is something we should look at seriously.
If the minister were serious in enhancing the debate on the privatization of Crown corporations in a more equitable and fulfilling manner for the members in this House, he would allow the committee to review and to ask to hear from a lot more witnesses than have been asked to come forward. They have their own feelings and ideas as to what the intent of these particular Crown corporations have been and will be in the future. They should decide whether we want to sell them off, as my colleague has said, for bargain basement prices or for
December 4, 1989

nothing which is even worse. If that is the case and if it is acceptable to Canadians, we will agree with the government that that is the way to go.
In reality we know that Canadians do not want that. That is why the government is trying to ram this through. It is inappropriate. That is why the government wants this debate to be so short. I suggest we will continue on with this because it is a very important topic to Canadians.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I too am delighted to take part in the debate on Bill C-13 this afternoon. I have had an opportunity to review the bill. I note at the very beginning that it is an act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Limited.
"Divestiture" is an interesting word. It could simply have said sale or sell out or give away. But, no, the government has to go to the dictionary and come up with a $64 word for a 64-cent idea. They are going to divest themselves of two companies. Who is "they"? It is the people of Canada who ultimately are divesting themselves of these two corporations. We know that the government has a fix on divesting itself, in effect a fix on divestiture.
In order to feed the habit it continues to bring bills before this House concerning more corporations that it believes should be sold to private enterprise, forgetting of course that Canadians have a history of being sold out to foreign ownership. In the short time that I have to discuss Bill C-13 I would like to concentrate on and in effect restrict my remarks to the aspects of non-resident ownership.
I would like to talk first about Nordion International Inc. Nordion International is responsible for the production and marketing of radiating isotopes used for medical and industrial purposes. How many of us know that? It happens to be one of the world leaders in this field. Here we are selling or about to sell-


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify something.
Government Orders
Are we discussing and debating all the amendments now or just the first amendment of my colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke? We seem to be getting way off base here as to the topic.
I understand that what we should be debating now is the first amendment, Motion No. 1 put forward by my colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. We seem to be debating the philosophy of privatization. We seem to be debating ownership, and so on and so forth. I think the amendment we are debating now concerns royalties payable to AECL as I understand it.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this point of order as well.
Of course my colleague was referring to exactly the point that the minister raised himself in his point of order. The minister, in his point of order, asked why we were discussing privatization in general, the philosophy of privatization, and so on. Veiy specifically, Motion No. 1 refers to that philosophy of privatization and offers a formula in which this privatization could offer a better return to the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the hon. member who has been in this chamber now for a while realizes what Motion No. 1 is. I know he is going to get to it. The hon. member on debate.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted that the minister was listening.


John Horton McDermid: This minister is always listening.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: We need a minister who will listen to members of this House once in a while and to the views of Canadians, other than the views that he thinks are the only views.
You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. I am going to be dealing with Motion No. 1.
Why in heaven's name would we be concerned about royalties if we were not concerned about ownership? One of the ways in which the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has decided to try to help this minister to protect Canadians and protect then-investments is in fact by way of Motion No. 1. His suggestion is a very reasonable one. It is that we have royalties.
What is wrong with that? Why is that some sort of an improper suggestion? I have not heard the minister come back and explain to us why it is inappropriate for the people of Canada to expect that once they have paid money into a corporation and helped it to become strong

December 4, 1989
Government Orders
and competitive that we the Canadian people should not expect a little bit of return for our money. No, we are going to go ahead and sell this corporation. We have heard it from other members, it is to be sold at bargain basement prices. For goodness sake, if we are going to do that, if we are going to hand it out on a silver platter, surely the least that we could suggest to ourselves is: "Why do we not get some royalties"?
We know that when an inventor sells an invention it is almost de rigueur to request royalties in addition to a sale. We have built this corporation into a world-wide leader. When I say "we", I mean Canadians. We are all Canadians on both sides of the chamber. What we simply ask is a little return on our investment. The Conservatives should understand that philosophy. It is called business, return on investment. You do not sell a profitable corporation at bargain basement prices, first. If you do, at the very least let us get some royalties from it.
Let us examine the motion. The motion calls for royalties if any of the profits of either corporation exceed the sum of $10,000 in any calendar year.
First, what is the operative word? The operative word is "profit". Obviously if we do not have any profit in the corporation, we are not going to get any royalties. Surely we have enough faith in these corporations, since we are selling them and since we are going to be trying, we hope, to get the best price for them, that they are going to produce a profit. If they do produce a profit, why should we not get royalties? Ten thousand dollars is as good a figure as any other that we can pick. It seems to me that this is an eminently reasonable amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Renfrew- Nipissing-Pembroke. I do not see any reason why we should not support it.
But, no, the government wants to railroad, ramrod, push through, in any way it can a bill for which there is no hurry. What is the problem? Let us relax. Let us take our time. Let us make sure that what we are going to do is the appropriate thing to do. There is absolutely no reason to do it. Do we have five or six buyers waiting there with cheques in hand, but only if the company is
sold tomorrow, not the next day or in January or in March? Of course we do not. There is no reason why we cannot wait or, if we are going to sell, get the best price possible.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands made another reasonable suggestion. He said: "Let's wait, let's wait a year". If you are intent on selling, let us wait until there is further and better corporate profits. Then we will get a better price and still get royalties.
I suggest that there are very few people in this country who would think that the idea of selling a Crown corporation, a profitable and world renowned corporation, and getting from that sale something more than some excess baggage cash to throw into this huge miasma of swamp land that we call the debt, not to have any effect but to get a yearly royalty in perpetuity or for as long as we can, is perfectly reasonable.
But, no. This government does not want to have anything to do with any reasonable suggestions. However, when we make a reasonable suggestion, when we put forward an amendment, what is the first thing that happens? It is immediately opposed. On the other hand, members of the government are constantly calling on us in these history lessons in every debate that we get involved in: "What would you do? Make a suggestion. Give us an idea". Then when we do, it is pooh-poohed.
I am afraid that what we should do is consider these amendments. Instead of browbeating, instead of heckling, instead of discussing the matter in an offhand and flippant manner, we should say that these are Canadian corporations and we will try to keep them Canadian. We will say that we will make sure that when we sell them we will get the best price possible, and even after we sell them we will get royalties. There is nothing wrong with that.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated to rise because I fully thought that the minister had stirred himself. I had heard some utterings a few minutes ago and I was fully expecting him to give the House some of his wisdom.


John Horton McDermid: We want to hear all the arguments first.
December 4, 1989


Roger Simmons: There is a pleasant change, Mr. Speaker. The minister now wants to hear some arguments.
We have given him several arguments already. Of course the one that was so eloquently put by the gentleman from Scarborough West and the others who preceded him was the argument that the Canadian people who over the years have made possible the successful enterprises of Nordion and Theratronics initially through AECL, the same people who funded the research and who provided, if you like, the seed money are the ones who ought to be the benefactors. That is the burden of the resolution put down in Motion No. 1 by my friend for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke who sits here now beside me.
He has put down a number of good motions, including Motion No. 1 which gives an idea to the government as to how it can handle this situation and handle it to the benefit of the Canadian people. It is by ensuring that through a royalty process, an eminently sensible proposal I say to the minister, some funds will find their way back to AECL and de facto to the Canadian people to whose benefit they will be.
I wish that we had more time, but it will run out today in about four minutes. We have a number of other speakers and a number of other ideas. Let us be clear on what it is we are doing here.


Mr. Thatcher:: Filibustering.


Roger Simmons: The member for Lethbridge is not only with us; he is awake. While we have his undivided attention and the attention of other members opposite, let me say why it is we are standing here one after the other and talking about this issue. We are doing in the House of Commons what the Tory majority prevented us from doing in committee. We are going to continue to do it until somebody over there gets the message.
The message is fairly simple. It is that if you are going to privatize-and we are not now at this stage discussing the principle of the bill-if you and your majority are going to have your way on that particular issue, at the very least do it in a way that is palatable and rebounds to the benefit of the Canadian people.
We have had a number of proposals. My friend for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and I represented this caucus in the committee. We had a number of proposals as to how this bill could be improved. As you know, Mr. Private Members' Business
Speaker, none is so deaf as he who will not hear. In that committee we had only two hours to address an issue that has raised health and safety concerns among Canadians from coast to coast.
They wrote us, phoned us, faxed us and said: "Can we appear before the committee?" The Canadian Cancer Society would dearly have liked to appear. A number of other eminent experts in the fields that relate to these bills would have liked to appear before the committee, but they were cut off at the knees. They were not given an opportunity. Only the president of Theratronics, the president of Nordion and the two union heads-only four people-were called to appear before the committee.
My friend from Renfrew and I put down a number of suggestions as to others who could be called. We had the permission to have them called. They were enthusiastic and willing to be called. Our colleagues in the NDP as well put down suggestions as to a number of organizations and individuals who and which ought to have been called before this committee, and far whom permission they had also been obtained.
What did the Tory majority do? Blindly it came in and applied a vote after only two hours and after hearing only four witnesses. We would hear nothing about the concern of Canadians, about health issues, issues relating to food irradiation, issues related to nuclear medicine. If that is the expanded process that the Prime Minister talked about in-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGNS DISCLOSURE OF FUNDS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: moved:

Private Members' Business
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider
establishing spending limits and strict rules of disclosure listing all
campaign contributions by source and amount for all Canadian
political party leadership races.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we tried to put this resolution forward as far back as April 4, 1989, which is the date of the resolution. I must say that it is only a matter of coincidence that the resolution is now being debated, just after the NDP leadership contest.
However, it is probably instructive and supports the resolution to say that the NDP is probably the only political party in Canada that really has clearly defined rules with respect to campaign donations and disclosure of donations for leadership contests. In fact, these rules are set up and modelled after the Canada Elections Act.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, please accept my apologies to the hon. member who was speaking. I do regret that I have to interrupt my hon. friend and I hope that he will accept my apology.
I rise to designate tomorrow as an allotted day officially-


Robert Evans Skelly: The rules that we set up for the NDP leadership contest with respect to maximum spending limits, campaign donations, maximum donations are modelled along the lines of the Canada Elections Act.
The reason that the New Democratic Party sets up these rules is so that leadership contests can be conducted on a fair and equal basis between party members who are contesting for leadership, but also so that the people of Canada who are electing probably the most important offices in the House of Commons can have absolute certainty and absolute assurance that these offices are not purchased by people seeking political favours and seeking the right to influence leaders, but people who are governed by the same kind of strict rules that apply to the election of all members under the Canada Elections Act.
We feel that the rules that we have adopted and the rules that apply to Members of Parliament should also apply to members seeking the leadership of their parties. Others would say that political parties are groups that are independent of the House of Commons and that we have absolutely no right to interfere in their operations. As I say, the people who are selected as leaders of these parties will be sitting in the House of Commons leading their parties and also will have the opportunity at some time in the future to lead governments in this country. We should be absolutely clear and certain, and we should
make sure that the people of Canada are absolutely clear and certain that their leaders have not been purchased as a result of people who are able to make large donations, influencing the outcome of leadership conventions.
I recall a national convention a few years back that attracted a lot of play in the media and on television. A lot of stories circulated around that convention about derelicts being purchased off the streets and given convention credentials. You may remember these stories, Mr. Speaker. As a result those derelicts who were not even members of the Conservative Party-I was not going to mention the party-ended up going to the convention with credentials and supporting a particular leader, and they will be available for the next convention to come.
If we have clear and well defined instructions laid down under the Canada Elections Act to restrict the amount of money that is spent by leadership candidates and to require disclosure as to who makes those donations, and also have limits on individual donations, then Canadians can be certain that their leadership is not purchased, but that it is won by democratic means within the existing political parties.
Therefore, I hope that all Members of the House of Commons will support this private member's motion and would back it to the hilt.
As a result of the disclosure requirements at the NDP convention in Winnipeg last week, there was a limit established for our leadership candidates of $150,000. Only one of the leadership candidates spent more than half of that sum. I think the maximum sum spent was $80,000. Most of the front-runners in that leadership campaign spent $30,000 to $40,000, a third of the limit. This is money that they expended in travelling back and forth across Canada to speak to hundreds of constituents and at public meetings across Canada and dealing with the media across Canada, in addition to all the expenses they had in the convention itself.
I have seen other examples of conventions. I will mention one in British Columbia so no one in this House will take offence. The convention in British Columbia was held in a facility owned by a close friend of the front-running leadership candidate. During the convention, that close friend of the front-running leadership candidate also paid the full campaign expenses of the candidates as they dropped off the ballot in order to assure that their votes would go to the front-runner and assure his leadership. That person became the premier of the province without even holding an elected seat in the legislature of British Columbia. His name was Bill
$H|i
December 4, 1989

Vander Zalm. He is still the premier but he is elected now.
The people of British Columbia got the idea as a result of that convention that the premiership of the province was up for sale and could be purchased by the candidate who had the wealthiest friends, and that is precisely what happened. That kind of thing should not be permitted to happen in Canada. This Parliament should be concerned that we have rules governing the election of leaders in political parties and that those rules are as strictly enforced as are the rules for all members under the Canada Elections Act so that we can be assured as well that the leadership of political parties is not up for sale and is conducted on a free, democratic and fair basis. Basically, all we are asking Parliament to do in this resolution is to make sure that leaderships are free and democratic within the major political parties in Canada.
I was reading the newspapers recently and saw that one candidate for the Liberal leadership was talking about raising $1 million in order to finance her leadership campaign. I will not mention her name, of course. She is not here today, but she was talking about raising $1 million to conduct a leadership campaign.
As I said, the person who spent the most in the NDP leadership campaign spent $80,000 out of a total expenditure limit of $150,000. She used that money to travel across Canada. She used that money to have her campaign workers make phone calls to all of the membership. She used that money to present herself and rent halls at public meetings. She used that money to buy all the necessary signs and trappings of a leadership campaign when it finally gets into the convention, and she only spent $80,000. What is a million dollars going to do? What is a million dollars going to buy that only required $80,000 in the case I just mentioned?
All we are asking is that that money be disclosed as to its source and that money be disclosed as to who donated it and what it was paid out for. We would not like to see money in leadership campaigns used as it has been in the past, to pay derelicts to come off the street and vote for people who may ultimately be the Prime Minister of
Private Members' Business
Canada, or to pay members of youth groups to suddenly become members of a political party and end up on the floor of the convention voting for leaders.
We want to see this process be as fair, honest, and as straight up as possible. We want to see the people of Canada feel that their leaders have been elected democratically and not purchased by people who have big money and as a result those leaders are beholden to the highest bidders, to the highest donors. That is the reason for this motion. All members recognize that there are deficiencies in the Elections Act and in the expenditure provisions under the Elections Act. It does not cover that period prior to a nomination being obtained when a large amount of money can change hands and there is no real control over how that money changes hands in order to secure nominations.
The same is true of the way money changes hands at leadership conventions in order to purchase the votes of people who will vote at that convention. We want to make sure that it is as honest, as open and as up-front as possible. I hope that all members will support this very well advised private member's motion.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I of course rise to support the motion that has been proposed by my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi.
I know that he has laboured long in getting this motion before the House. I wish, frankly, that he had spent a little more time. One of the disappointments in having motions presented is that there is no concrete proposal on which we can vote. While I am happy to support this motion, it will not do anything. I wish he had worked and produced a private member's bill that we could send on to a committee. I know that my friends on the other side of the House would be glad to support such a motion because I know they have had difficulties with leadership conventions in the past where they have run into spending controls.
I wanted to talk about those briefly in proffering my support to the hon. member.

December 4, 1989
Private Members' Business
In 1983, as I recall, the Progressive Conservative Party had a leadership campaign and they announced certain disclosure rules in advance of that campaign. In fact, on July 16, 1975 it had certain rules for that particular campaign and they had the candidates all declare what it was they had spent. During the 1983 campaign, it has said there were no disclosure guidelines or spending restrictions, but certainly the press was able to give some estimates of the amount of money that was spent by each of the candidates during the course of the campaign.
It appears that they ranged from about $350,000 to about $750,000 which gives some indication of the profligacy shown by the hon. members opposite which, of course, has continued since they took office.
It amused me to see that the members opposite spent a lot of money making up songs. I was looking back to some old clippings in 1983. Perhaps some hon. members would like to hear some of them. The Prime Minister was alleged to have shelled out $3,000 for an original tune that was called Brian's Song. They used to sing this at the convention. I don't know the tune because I wasn't at that convention, I'm sorry to say. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could sing it for us.
The song had words in it as follows:
We will win together, together we will win.
With Brian as our leader, our future will begin.
We will win with Mulroney, with Mulroney we will win.
We will win together-
I suggest hon. members opposite take a look at their position in the polls today and see if that song is still true. I suggest it is not.
Let's look at some of the others. Mr. Clark also had a song. We don't know how much this one cost, but it was:
Clark for Canada, Canada for Joe.
Clark for Canada, we're behind him, don't you know-
Well, they weren't. Then we had another one. Mr. Crosbie had a song:
Come on John, come on John, come on John -
Oh clap with me, I'll clap with you and we will win together-
They didn't all win together on that one either, Mr. Speaker, and it doesn't say how much that one cost.
The Minister of Finance had one by a group called The Travellers which sang a song called Join the Movement to Mike. Well, that one didn't work either. He should tiy that one now with the GST. Perhaps he would get more support.
On a more serious note, I think that the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi is sensible, but I have one difficulty with it in respect of what the New Democratic Party proposes. As we all know, it has just been through a leadership convention. It was one of the most lack-lustre leadership conventions I think we have ever had for a political party in this country. I know they are all excited today, because after all the voting did take place just two days ago. The fact remains that until Friday evening no one was paying the remotest bit of attention to what was proposed to go on in Winnipeg. Part of the reason for that is the New Democratic Party was doing its best to make it appear that it was spending less than any of the other parties.
We have heard figures bandied about here this afternoon by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi. The NDP was busy trying to downplay its leadership convention. I can understand why it would. When you are a national party you really have to spend. We know that is why the limits would have to be higher for our party than for the New Democratic Party.
The member for Comox-Albemi suggested that somehow people joined the Liberal or Conservative party in order to vote for the leader. I am sure that is true. I am sure they joined in droves. The hon. member knows that. He knows that we will probably have twice as many delegates as they had in Winnipeg at our Calgary convention next June. I think he is aware that we will have a large number of youth delegates, unlike the New Democratic Party which had less than 100 youth delegates at its convention. There are millions of young people in Canada who were unrepresented, as such, at that convention.
He also knows that there were less than 100 delegates from Quebec, which is Canada's second largest province by far. They just were not there. The imbalances on a regional basis, the imbalances in terms of our population in general and demographics were marked at the New Democratic Party convention. I suggest, that when you are a western ramp, you do not need to spend a lot of money running for the leadership. Your travel is restricted to a smaller area, you do not have to generate a
December 4, 1989

national campaign. The hon. member for Comox-Al-bemi knows that to run for the leadership of the Liberal Party-and I will concede also for the Progressive Conservative Party-a national campaign is what is required.


Ms. Black:: You only have one from B.C.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member says we only have one from B.C.. But look at the quality of the person we have from B.C., and he happens to be the leader of the party.
Hon. members know that running a national campaign is a costly process. What I think the hon. member must do if he presents a bill on this subject at a future date, and I certainly hope he will, is recognize that the limit has to be realistic, not from the point of view of the New Democratic Party, but from the point of view of a national party in Canada. If he comes up with a figure that a national party can regard as reasonable and that the Canadian public would regard as reasonable from that perspective, he would come up with a bill that we would be happy to support and that we would find helpful.
I congratulate the New Democratic Party members for filing their donations. I think that is important. If we go back to the Conservative experience, it is that they are not making public the dollar amounts that have been put into these conventions. We know the difficulty it has led to.
We have all heard the allegations that have been made about the private dinner parties and the money that has come in from various sources. I asked a question of the Deputy Prime Minister just the other day about revealing the lists of persons who had received federal government contracts. It appears that there may be a list of this kind at the PC fund headquarters.
I invited the Deputy Prime Minister to tell the House, to take us into his confidence and let us know if in fact such a list is prepared and if it is sent over to PC fund headquarters in Ottawa or Toronto or wherever it happens to be. I do not know where it is. He declined to answer my question. He waffled, and we all know how he can waffle. The Deputy Prime Minister is a master at the art. He would not answer my question.
I asked a supplementary question. I said: "Would the Deputy Prime Minister instruct his bagmen to go to the commission that he has appointed and tell them all"? He
Private Members' Business
would not answer that either. He suggested if I had ideas that I go to the commission and tell them what I thought they should hear. Well, I am happy to do that. I know the Hon. Member for Comox-Albemi would go with me to the commission. Perhaps we could make a joint presentation and ask the commission to investigate the sources of Toiy fund raising for leadership purposes, among others.
Certainly it would be interesting to know who was on the list of donors who paid for the Prime Minister's leadership bid. He will not tell us about it. He would not even tell his friends in the Conservative Party about it. I do not know why he would not. All the other party candidates for that leadership campaign apparently revealed some of the information they had but the Prime Minister would not. I think had he done so, he would have allayed a lot of suspicion that I know the hon. member for Comox-Albemi feels and expressed in his speech. It would have allayed the suspicion we had in asking questions of the Deputy Prime Minister in this House the other day.
It is important that we bear in mind there is a commission established to look into these matters. I am hoping that the commission will make some firm recommendations to this House. In the meantime, if the hon. member who has proposed the motion would bring forward a bill, I would be happy to look at it and if it is satisfactory, support the bill. Certainly, the principles he has enunciated today would be helpful.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the motion of my colleague, the member for Comox-Alberni, proposes that the government should consider establishing spending limits and rules of disclosure listing all campaign contributions by source and amount for all Canadian political party leadership races.
Hon. members may recall that the government in its Speech from the Throne on April 3, 1989 announced its intention to appoint a commission of inquiry to make recommendations for needed changes and reforms to the electoral laws. On November 15, 1989 the Prime Minister in fact announced the establishment of such a commission of inquiry to be chaired by Mr. Pierre Lortie. Hon. members will be pleased to note that the terms of reference of the commission extend beyond the principles and process that should govern the election of

December 4, 1989
Private Members' Business
members of the House of Commons to the question of financing of political parties.
The commission will be examining the means by which political parties should be funded, as well as the provision of funds to political parties from any source, the limits of such funding and the uses to which such funds ought to be or ought not to be put.
It is clear, therefore, that the government agrees that the whole area of the financing of political parties should be examined and that the government should consider whether it is appropriate to modify existing rules and to introduce new regulations, as well as any other changes which may be appropriate.
The matter of the laws concerning election of members of the House of Commons and the rules regulating political parties and candidates is, of course, of fundamental concern to members of this House and to the Canadian public.
The importance that the government places on this subject is reflected in the government's decision to establish the commission of inquiry. Referring the matter of electoral reform and party financing to a commission of inquiry is both appropriate and consistent with past practice. In fact, the blueprint for federal election expenses legislation was the 1966 report of the Committee on Election Expenses, better known as the Barbeau committee.
The chief electoral officer in his annual report tabled April 17, 1989 stated: "I believe that the conduct of a study of the type undertaken by the Barbeau committee would be very useful now in charting future courses of action and that such a study would be best conducted before major amendments are considered to the election expenses provision of our legislation".
The government is committed to changes being made to Canada's electoral laws, to make improvements to those laws, to maintain the integrity of our political system and to make voting easier and more accessible to Canadians. The commission which has been established will be reviewing the existing system and suggesting improvements which can be made.
I thank the hon. member for his interest in this area and I close by indicating that the government looks forward to receiving the recommendations of the Lortie commission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is agreement on this motion, is there not? Does the House agree with the motion? I do not see any disagreement.
Is there a contribution that the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell would like to make?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in favour of the motion that has been proposed to us today by our colleague from Comox-Albemi.
It is, of course, an opportune time in a way to be discussing this issue, a rather academic one if you happen to be a New Democrat and you are speaking with regard to your own party. However, that is more coincidental than anything else because we all recognize of course that the member had this motion on the floor of the House as early as April 4, 1989.
We know that there has been a royal commission set up to look at the whole issue of electoral contributions in Canada. The party to which I belong is also in the process of getting organized for a future leadership campaign to take place during the second last week-end of June 1990.
We know of course that leadership campaigns are very costly. When some people start talking to me about running a national leadership campaign for $80,000, and when I look at the travel expenditures of individual MPs in the Public Accounts listed at the end of the year a number of whom have airline ticket expenditures which exceed $80,000, then I begin to ask myself just how logical is it for any one candidate to pretend that he or she could travel the whole country and not spend any more than $80,000 when for only one Member of Parliament, travelling with no staff or anything during a year that is the amount that one spends?
Obviously a leadership campaign that lasts half a year, assuming that the candidate was going no further than he or she normally goes during a regular off year, if I can put it that way, a year in which there is not a leadership campaign, well half of that amount would be spent anyway just on travelling. Obviously it costs a lot more
December 4, 1989

than $80,000 if you happen to be a member of a national party with seats ranging from Newfoundland to Vancouver Quadra. It is indeed a very expensive proposition.
That being said, I am in favour of looking at this issue in the way that our colleague has suggested. I find it ironic for instance and perhaps sad to see that the laws at the present time are set up in such a way that contributions made to individual candidates for the leadership are not always fully disclosed. We all know of course that a party mechanism can be set up in order to ask various candidates to provide that information at the present time. Will it in fact happen remains to be seen in any political party. One has to remember that if funds are given to a political party, there is no way of knowing how much money actual riding associations collect at the present time.
For instance, if I or any other member is holding a fund raiser for our own constituency association of our political party, and we do that right now, sending the money to the central party for the purposes of receipting and then those funds going back to a riding association, which is the proper way of receiving those contributions, there is no way that the average person can find out which riding association benefited from these funds.
In my previous incarnation as a legislator in the Ontario legislature, the electoral laws in the province of Ontario provided .that each riding association had to make an annual declaration of funds that it received. When I was a provincial member it was easy for any citizen to find out what contributions my association had received during the year. Now that I am a federal member, there is no structure other than asking the riding association if it will volunteer that information, which we do of course in my association. There is no obligation to do that at the present time.
It would be a good idea for us to look at the implications of setting up systems like those so that we know how much not only leadership candidates are getting, but how much riding associations have in the bank, each constituency association of each party in Canada. I think that that should be public information. Right now it is not.
I think we should be able to find out that information in order to modernize the electoral financing laws that we have now. I suspect that most, hopefully all, of us are in a position where there is nothing that we want to hide
Private Members' Business
and that being the case I hope we look at all of those issues, including the one of disclosure of campaign contributions for political party leadership races, amounts in the bank, amounts collected, amounts and sources of contributions held by constituency associations, in addition to the disclosure which we already have in terms of political parties.
Finally, it is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time constituency associations, or at least candidates' official agents during an election year are forced to disclose the funds that they generate or collect for the purposes of an election. But if it is outside of an election year the only information that is made available is to that political party for which the constituency association funds were destined.
In other words, we have a rather unusual situation right now in which we are being very careful, and appropriately so, during election years in terms of the amount of disclosure that is asked, but outside of election years the laws as I suggest need to be improved as well.

So I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to support this initiative of our colleague from Comox-Albemi and I would hope that the House and maybe even the commission which has already been established to look into election campaign contributions will deal not only with the suggestion which the Hon. Member for Comox-Albemi has made to us but also with the suggesiton I made in the debate this afternoon.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I had not originally intended to take part in the debate but I think after hearing a point that my colleague from Comox-Albemi made earlier in his initial presentation, I wanted the opportunity to rise briefly to embellish what I think is a very critical argument in support of my colleague's motion here today in the House.
We did have some humorous moments earlier as our friend from Kingston and the Islands related some rather humorous songs that have been purchased at great expense according to the other side in terms of leadership campaigns and I was just going to say to the member that he can rest assured that we will be researching the history of his party, the Liberal Party, to assure ourselves that there are probably also some rather

December 4, 1989
Adjournment Debate
interesting little anecdotes and songs that were presented in the Liberals, leadership contest.
I want to call this the "kingmaker" factor, or the "queenmaker" factor. There does seem to be in some leadership contests a critical need for a full disclosure of political contributions to those leadership campaigns. I want to go back to the point that my colleague had made earlier in his presentation when he discussed the leadership campaign of the Social Credit Party in 1986 in British Columbia.
To refresh everyone's memory, at that time then Premier Bill Bennett had stepped down from the leadership while he was still premier and had opened up the opportunity for a leadership contest for the party which essentially was paramount to the premiership of the province.
During that time there was a number of very influential business persons in British Columbia who got together and formed what was called the "Golden Twenty" club, a very influential corporate elite of B.C., getting together to basically hold court, and to call before them the corporate elite of British Columbia all the leadership hopefuls of the Social Credit Party to listen to their presentations as to why they should be anointed with not only the leadership of the party but the premiership of the province of British Columbia. Those 20 individuals, essentially, held the power in determining the outcome of that leadership convention that was held later on that year. Those 20 veiy influential individuals basically made the decision for the people of British Columbia, if you can believe it, as to who would be their next premier and which horse they would financially back in that leadership contest.
The concept of democracy, I suggest, went right out the window with that. The premier was anointed. The premier of British Columbia was anointed clearly by that inner sanctum of corporate elite. I suggest that this situation that happened in B.C. a few years ago would never have happened and could never have happened if the regulations had been entrenched in legislation that would force political parties to make public the corporation donations, financial donations, to the various leadership campaigns. There is simply no reason, no
rationale, and certainly no argument in terms of democratic process, that this be allowed to take place.
Going back again, it was very clear that the premiership of the province of British Columbia was up for sale during 1986 and was clearly influenced by a very small handful of very influential, very powerful individuals who made the decision as to which horse they would back financially. I do not think that that is in the interests of any province and certainly not in the interests of Canada as a whole, or, in fact, any democracy when that kind of activity takes place. I think the legislation that is proposed through the motion would avert that kind of situation from happening in the future and that is why I am going to be supporting this motion today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is unanimous consent to approve the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
I believe we will have to suspend the sitting until six o'clock because I do not see all the members in here for the late show. Therefore, I suspend the sitting until six o'clock.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.38 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38(1) deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, on November 30, the U.S. Congress passed amendments to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act that impose re-
December 4, 1989

strictions on the size of lobsters that can be sold in the United States. Specifically, no lobsters smaller than the designated U.S. body size of 8.1 centimetres will be allowed for sale. They call this conservation in the States.
We in Canada have had a size limit for lobsters for years. As long as I can remember, there has been a one pound lobster. In Canada there are seasons. It is only open for six months in South West Nova.
There are no limits on traps, no limits on entry in the United States, or on who can catch lobster. We in Canada have had a good conservation policy that has worked well. There have been plenty of one pound lobsters.
If and when President Bush signs this legislation into law, about 10 per cent of Nova Scotia's $130 million live lobster business may be seriously harmed. As Ron Bulmer, president of the Fisheries Council of Canada put it: "If you can't send $30 million worth of live lobster into the United States, where are you going to find a home for it"?
I first raised this issue in the House on October 18.1 asked the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans what specific actions his government had in mind to prevent these regulations from coming into effect. We know now that whatever actions the government did undertake were of no avail.
Last week, on the eve of his trip to Washington to visit President Bush, I raised this issue with the Prime Minister. I asked him then to assure the House that he would ask the President to veto the new legislation.
Neither the minister nor the Prime Minister have seen fit to let us know exactly what impact Canadian protests are having on the Americans. At least the only clear evidence is that Congress passed the law anyway.
Since the Prime Minister has clearly failed to use his friendship with the President to any positive advantage on this issue, I think we deserve to know precisely when the government will take more concrete action, specifically through the free trade agreement, to eliminate this offensive, trade restricting law.
Canadians are especially interested to know the government's plan in light of the recent free trade panel decision on our salmon and herring conservation pro-
Adjoumment Debate
gram on the west coast. If that program were a restrictive trade practice then surely the dispute settlement panel would look upon the new lobster size regulations the same way.
This government has failed the fishery, both on the west coast and on the east coast. The Minister of Fisheries has been failing it as far as groundfish management and is now doing it in the very lucrative fishery of the lobster. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did say that he felt the new regulations "would violate the principle of the free trade agreement". If he is being sincere, and if the government is serious about making sure that the free trade agreement is applied equitably, then we want to see action to back up these words.
It is a weak defence to say that we must wait and see what the President does before taking action since we know that the lobster regulations were attached as a rider to a large piece of legislation which the President cannot veto without throwing out the whole law. So it is unlikely that the President will do anything. Yet we have seen no action nor protest whatever from this government as to the lobster regulations in the States that were in that bill. We must be moving more quickly for a quick reference to the dispute settlement panel because the livelihood of some 6,700 Nova Scotia lobstermen and more from other Atlantic provinces is in jeopardy. If left unchallenged, the new regulations would seriously affect and continue to drive down lobster prices.
If there is anything we need in the Atlantic fishery, it is price stability. Fish prices have been fluctuating wildly this fall. The price of cod on the Portland auction, for example, fell from $1 a pound to 40 cents a pound in the space of one week in October, and that was our cod being caught off the Georges Bank by American fishermen, not Canadian fishermen.
If only as a bid to maintain price stability, we should work strongly to roll back these new regulations, not only for price stability, but because this is offensive legislation. It violates the free trade agreement. It shows that a senator from Maine was able to bring in, without any compassion at all a piece of legislation that will affect the lobster industry, in southern Nova Scotia and all of Nova Scotia without the Prime Minister knowing, having been assured by the President on Labour Day weekend that he would be told that there would be discussions. There have been no discussions with officials.

December 4, 1989
Adjournment Debate
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is another example of the Minister of Fisheries' lack of attention to the east coast. It is another example of how the free trade agreement is affecting one small area in the fishery. I do not want to talk about farm stabilization boards or anything like that at this time.
You will have to admit that this legislation in the United States is offensive, Mr. Speaker. The government opposite has done nothing to oppose it. We are going to be faced with a lowering of prices that will be very hard to take.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: I am tempted, Mr. Speaker, I am tempted. As a result of Canada's acceptance of the GATT panel decision on processing requirements for Pacific salmon and herring, it became apparent that there was a need for measures which would ensure the conservation and management concerns. Following acceptance of the GATT panel decision and extensive consultations with the province of British Columbia and the fishing industry, Canada announced a proposed landing system which would ensure that essential conservation and management concerns are met and the fishery remains viable into the future.
panel provided some useful suggestions for maintaining a landing requirement but permitting 10 to 20 per cent of certain fisheries to be exported at sea without compromising our conservation and management goals.
The situation respecting east coast lobsters is very different from that on the west coast where Canada implemented measures to ensure that conservation and management concerns were not compromised. The lobster measure passed by the United States Congress is a trade restriction inconsistent with either the GATT or the FTA which has been disguised as a conservation measure.
The United States has been advised that we will proceed to a dispute settlement panel under the Cana-da-U.S. Free Trade Agreement or under the General Agreement on Thrifts and Trade if Canadian lobster are restricted from the United States market.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, my address this evening pertains to a question I asked the Minister of National Defence on September 29. The question essentially was with respect to the socioeconomic and the military impact studies that were done in relation to the announced closing of Canadian Forces Base Summerside.

The United States expressed concern over the scope of the new landing regime and we undertook to discuss the new measures with it prior to implementation. During discussions with the United States, we explained the operation of our proposed landing system and that our view was that the system was GATT and FTA consistent.
The United States disagreed with our analysis and claimed that our landing requirement was trade-restrictive. Following further consultations, both parties agreed to submit the dispute to a free trade agreement chapter 18 panel.
The panel proceedings occurred during the summer months and its final report was received on October 16. The panel upheld Canada's sovereign right to conserve and manage the salmon and herring stocks on the west coast. The panel agreed that Canada could establish a landing requirement for salmon and herring but that the present requirements suffered from "overbreadth" in that it applied to 100 per cent of the stocks. However, the
The minister's response was limited by time. The Speaker had to move on, away from Question Period. I thought that I would like to examine some of the factors that were involved, looking at the military impact first. I want you to bear in mind, Sir, that it is not my purpose this evening to do anything with respect to the decision, other than to look at the impact study that I believe should have been done and some of the factors that certainly come to my mind with respect to this decision.
To begin with, looking at the military impact, I would remind the House that in Summerside, there are essentially a couple of main functions, one of which is 413 Search and Rescue Squadron consisting of three Buffalo helicopters and three Labrador aircraft.
Also there are two squadrons, MR-880 Squadron which essentially is a tracker or reconnaissance squadron, and 420 Air Reserve Squadron. The Air Reserve Squadron in fact is twin with the MRR Squadron and



consists of air reservists who fly on their own time to contribute to the defence of the country.
Looking at the decision itself, the impact on the expenditure for the military was almost minuscule. It was one-half of 1 per cent. One wonders really what savings were achieved through that. I understand the difficulty of trying to match infrastructure and national defence with the present size of the force. There is a problem there.
Specifically I am zeroing in on the military impact in Summerside. These tracker aircraft were designed for operation strictly at sea. They were aircraft that flew off an aircraft carrier so that the whole construction of the aircraft is such that they are well suited to do operations at sea.
Their air frame itself, I am told, will be good until the year 2015. What we were looking at was the decision to re-engine them. The decision was made that they would not be re-engined. Therefore there will be no tracker. What we have lost is a capability gap. This is a capability gap of a medium range patrol aircraft in Canada that is organized, manned, controlled and run by the military.
The impact of that was such that a comment was made by the commander of the maritime air group, the change of command, on August 11, 1989. He said that he needed 48 to 60 medium range patrol aircraft to give Canada the ability to patrol its coastal waters. In his view he said that the medium range patrol aircraft was of the highest priority today in the maritime air group.
I would like to talk about this loss of capability added to the relocation of the search and rescue squadron 413 from Summerside to Greenwood. It is a fact that Summerside is strategically located, and I am making reference now to the Cross report of 1982 which was done as a result of a serious search and rescue incident off the east coast of Newfoundland, in Gabriela in 1976, and another serious and tragic incident off Prince Rupert on Christmas Day, 1979.
DND did a study and the Cross report among many other things indicated that Summerside was the most optimum location for search and rescue in the search and rescue region on the Atlantic coast. I am now talking
Adjournment Debate
about an area that is about two million square miles. The strategic location for a search and rescue squadron on which lives are dependent is a very important aspect.
Members who have been close to this in the House are very familiar with the study that was done by Major Gary Naylor and Lieutenant-Colonel Hopping. Major Naylor worked for me directly as a major when I was chief of staff of operations in maritime command. I can certainly attest to his professionalism and his total expertise in search and rescue. Therefore, if Major Naylor indicates that there is a problem and the location in Greenwood is not as optimum or as many lives would not be saved as would be if this were in Summerside, surely it is a serious military impact. I believe this should have been brought forth more to the Canadian public.
As far as the socioeconomic impact is concerned, I do not have to remind this House that we are looking at 1,300 jobs on the base, around 1,300 jobs in the community. The community size is 8,000 people. I am told by the experts in the business that this has the impact of 100,000 jobs in the metropolitan Toronto area. Were that to happen, I can assure you that there would be many members on both sides of this House asking for a military impact study, a socioeconomic impact study and every other kind of an impact study which has not yet been fully disclosed to the House.
I am going to close by mentioning the wind up of the Minister of National Defence in response to my question. I know the Minister of National Defence, probably because he ran out of time, did not mean what he said and would have liked to have added to it if he had not run out of time.
In reference to the devastating socioeconomic impact on the Summerside area, the minister said that we did not identify replacement opportunities or replacement economic activity and that. This is not the responsibility of the Department of National Defence. Well, no question, this may not be the responsibility of the Department of National Defence. But I believe it is very safe to say that it is the responsibility of the government to find something to replace that tremendous gap that is going to be there in 1991, 1992 or 1993, whenever that base is closed.

December 4, 1989
Adjournment Debate
I believe the Canadian public, certainly the people of Summerside, the people of Atlantic Canada, the people on both sides of the House and everybody else needs to know what the impact of this is going to be.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, while no specific study was undertaken on the impact of the reductions and closures, a costing methodology was used to determine the projected savings of the base reduction and closure. This methodology examined such items as the impact of the reduction or closure of bases in the past on operational support, personnel and major equipment and facilities. In addition, experience gained through Cadin-Pinetree closures made it possible to keep any likely impact to a minimum.
To this end, DND and Employment and Immigration Canada are co-operating closely and, as the hon. member knows, local committees have been established to provide assistance to affected employees.
The hon. member should also be aware, and I am sure he is, that DND is co-operating fully with other agencies of the federal and provincial governments in their endeavours to identify suitable re-use for any facilities on bases to be closed or any surplus facilities on bases being reduced.
With regard to specific studies on the impact on military effectiveness as a result of closures or reductions, I am surprised that the hon. member would ask such a question. Indeed, the hon. member had a long and distinguished naval career and I am certain that he knows that every decision taken by the Department of National Defence is based on this very essential consideration.
For some time, Canada has maintained military installations in excess of the requirement of the current size of the Canadian Forces. The aim, therefore, is to achieve more efficient use of resources through the reduction or elimination of sites which no longer fill an operational need. I would add that this will not reduce our military effectiveness.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to again get involved in the question that I asked of the Minister of Transport on Monday, November 21, as it relates to VIA Rail and, more
specifically, the elimination of the VIA Rail passenger route called The Canadian.
On that particular day, the question I raised was basically a question as it related to the figures I had been given by the VIA people in Winnipeg. Those particular figures that I suggested to the minister showed some very interesting and puzzling scenarios for the people of northwestern Ontario and, more important, for the people who ride on The Canadian.
Again I would like to relate those numbers to the government opposite and to the people of Canada to show that there seems to be some difficulty in the rationale put forward by the government which is, as the Prime Minister has said: "Use it or lose it".
I explained to the minister on that particular day that eight months is not a short period of time. The minister at the time said: "Well, if you want to put two weeks together or a month together, anybody can play with numbers". Eight months is a long period of time on a particular VIA run which, in essence, shows whether someone is using a particular route or not.
Just for the record, I would like to state the figures. The over-all ridership on The Canadian for that period of time was 93 per cent which is in all estimates pretty well full capacity. It has also been told to us by the people in VIA that it is considered that by 1993 they will be over capacity and will have to do something about that particular run and in essence put on more cars.
The Montreal to Vancouver train carried over 34,800 passengers, a load factor of 98.8 per cent. Travelling from the west to Montreal, the Vancouver train carried over
33,000	passengers, with a load factor of 98 per cent. In northwestern Ontario, the Toronto to Sudbury train which connects with the Montreal train carried over 8,580 passengers which is 85 per cent capacity while the Sudbury to Toronto train carried over 8,890 passengers which is 93.3 per cent capacity.
The reason I raised the question in the House of Commons was because of the scenario that the government has put forward on numerous occasions, that the reason these particular runs were eliminated was that nobody was riding them. As an ex-railroader I had a little difficulty with that particular scenario because I happen to know a lot about trains just in common practice. I went and did a little checking and found out from people
December 4, 1989

who I know in the industry that lo and behold, this particular run is the most efficient run in all of Canada.
I was a little bit at a loss for words to understand what the scenario was. Then I found out something very interesting that happened during the cuts to VIA. Under the revamped network, VIA trains will travel on CN tracks 96 per cent of the time and on Canadian Pacific routes 4 per cent of the time in comparison to the 77 per cent and 23 per cent under the previous arrangements.
There has been a switch to running on CP tracks which happen to be the ones that are the majority of the track that The Canadian runs on in the southern routes to the northern CN route which also has a lack of people riding on these trains for one particular reason. It is not that people do not want to. It is just that in the northern route, fewer people live there. It makes me wonder what the scenario really is.
There are two reasons obviously. One is that if fewer people use the 50 per cent that is left, then they can justify getting rid of it and the other factor is that if they take a look at the amount of money that is paid to CN as far as rental of track per year, and if they took that away, CN would be in the hole. It would not be making a profit so there are two reasons why Mr. Lawless decided that this would be the best scenario for VIA.
I brought this matter up today because I wanted to give the government the opportunity to explain to me and Canadians, and particularly the people in northwestern Ontario, what its rationale really was for eliminating this very important piece of trackage. The figures show that there is no necessity.
There has been no environmental impact study. Again, I brought that up at a meeting of the environment committee and I asked environment officials if they could tell me exactly what the level of C02 emissions would be once that roughly one million passengers would be using vehicles when the cuts went into effect. Basically they said: "We don't know that number," whereas the minister stood in his place in this House and said that the environmental impact would be negligible. If you do not know what the upper limit is as far as C02 emissions are concerned, how can you say that 1 million cars more is negligible? In essence, the people in the Ministry of the
Adjournment Debate
Environment told me that that is an unknown factor, therefore, we cannot really tell you that answer.
I think that the government opposite has pulled a fast one on the Canadian people and has not shown the impact on the environment that this will have. Therefore, I think it is important that the government take a look at this particular route that I am talking about today which is The Canadian because it did not even look at options to improve the run. For example, in the summer, it is so full you cannot get on.
I suggest that if you want to eliminate the subsidy on a route like that, put more cars on in the summer when the tourism season is at its peak instead of just cutting the route completely and throwing hundreds of people out of a job, as well as affecting the tourism trade in an area of northern Ontario which I know for a fact foreigners come to on a regular basis by train because of its beauty and the magnitude of that particular geographical area.
In conclusion, I ask the parliamentary secretary to explain to me and to northwestern Ontarians and people who had The Canadian and no longer have it, what the rationale really is behind this particular cut-back to VIA and to what we call The Canadian.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River for again raising this very important subject not only to his area, but also to people across the prairie provinces as well.
I might say to the hon. member that the decision to discontinue the passenger service provided by the western transcontinental train, or better known as The Canadian, was taken because the country cannot continue to provide the large subsidies required to operate the total service of VIA Rail and so there had to be cuts made within the VIA Rail system.
In 1988, The Canadian service carried approximately
545.000	passengers and had a load factor of some 70 per cent. The cost for this service exceeded revenues by $109 million. That was in 1988. The subsidy for each passenger who travelled on The Canadian was $199. Between January and October of this year The Canadian carried
466.000	passengers, an increase of 16 per cent over the ridership for the same period of the year before. The load factor for the first 10 months of this year was increased to 83.5 per cent.
It is true that during the summer months demands for space on these trains has exceeded supply, which the hon. member alluded to in his previous remarks. This is

Adjournment Debate
not a new situation. It has occurred in varying degrees for a number of years. However, it is not economically feasible to spend millions of dollars for passenger cars which are only used during the summer.
Even with the increased level of ridership, the service will require a subsidy in excess of $100 million for 1989. On the basis of this financial reality, the government stands by its decision to discontinue The Canadian. While the service over the route followed by The Canadian between Toronto and Vancouver via Thunder Bay and Calgary will be discontinued, transcontinental
service will continue to be provided as stated in the October 4, 1989 announcement. The government has decided that a tri-weekly service will operate between Toronto and Vancouver via Sioux Lookout and Edmonton.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 5, 1989