1989-06-02

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill C-13, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Ltd., be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 31, I had started the debate on Bill C-13, a Bill to privatize Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Ltd. I had reviewed the privatization program of the Government to date and its successes. Now I would like to carry on where I left off before the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) interrupted with a point of order.
Before I get into the details of the legislation, I want to talk a little bit about process and how we plan to divest ourselves of these two companies.
With Nordion, it is our intention to proceed by way of a third party sale as recommended by our financial advisors. This approach will provide maximum benefits to the existing company in terms of stability of operations, access to new capital, the opening of additional markets through the purchaser, and the synergy of the relationship if the purchaser is in a similar or complementary business.
Subject to the passage of the legislation that we are dealing with today, such a third party sale would take
place through a bidding process into stage. The first round would identify a short list of serious bidders and then a final bidding process. I can see a winning bidder being selected and the deal being finalized shortly thereafter.
I must say in passing that there has been tremendous interest from the Canadian private sector in this company. I am sure that we will see some very active bidding on this company.
Theratronics is smaller and of lesser market value. It is, as a result, an appropriate candidate for an employee buy-out. Because of this we are giving employees priority in submitting a proposal to us. Furthermore, the Government is prepared to assist them in developing such a proposal by providing them with some financial resources to engage their own financial advisors.
I should add that Nordion employees have also expressed an interest in exploring the feasibility of purchasing all or part of their company. The Government has offered them a 5 per cent preference on price for a bid for 100 per cent of Nordion or a 10 per cent discount on shares for a minority interest. The Government has already provided employees with funding to cover the cost of hiring a financial advisor to assist them in evaluating these options.
It is interesting that we hear from time to time that unions oppose the privatization of these companies. However, the employees are very enthusiastic about it and are encouraging the Government to proceed with the privatization because they feel very strongly about these two companies, that they can do very, very well in the private sector.
Let me turn now to the actual provisions of the legislation. The Bill is a relatively simple one, so I do not want to take up too much House time. Clause 4 authorizes the Canadian Development Investment Corporation to sell or otherwise dispose of all of its shares in both Nordion and Theratronics in a manner to be approved by the Governor in Council.

June 2, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
Clauses 5 and 6 impose certain conditions relating to the shares of Nordion and limit total non-resident ownership to 25 per cent of the aggregate voting shares. Clause 7 restricts amendments to the articles of incorporation that are not consistent with the provisions of this legislation.
Clause 8 provides for a special continuity of employment pension option for Nordion and Theratronics employees. This is a very important point. This pension option has been legislated in all previous privatizations involving employees who were contributors to the public service superannuation plan. The provision allows employees to count the service with the privatized companies toward meeting service thresholds, for example, the early retirement service requirement under the public service superannuation plan.
Since employees of privatized companies cannot contribute to the public service superannuation plan, Clause 9 of the Bill permits the Governor in Council to delete Nordion and Theratronics from Schedule I of the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Finally, Clause 10 deems Nordion to have satisfied the requirements to make its equity an eligible investment for certain institutional investors. This legal for life provision simply facilitates investment by pension fund managers, trusted insurance companies,and Nordion shares should they so desire.
Because Nordion and Theratronics will both continue to serve Canadians and because their location is here in the national capital region, they will be required to provide service to the public in both official languages. This will be accomplished through the purchase and sale agreement for the two companies.
We have also imposed a 25 per cent non-resident ownership limit on the sale of Nordion because we wish to ensure that important Canadian technology remains under Canadian ownership and control now and in the future.
We have elected not to legislate similar restrictions for the sale of Theratronics. We are taking this approach in order to provide employees with the greatest possible flexibility in terms of structuring a proposal and arranging the necessary financing for it. As mentioned earlier,
we are taking a different approach with each company in order to capitalize on their respective strengths.
As always, the concerns of the employees of Nordion and Theratronics stand uppermost in our minds throughout the divestiture process. In order to protect employee interests, the conditions of sale of both companies will require that the current terms and conditions of employment continue in force. In addition, collective bargaining agreements and bargaining agents will not be affected by the sale. The new owners will be required to put in place new pension arrangements that, as a minimum, meet the standards prescribed by the Pension Benefits Standards Act.
They will also be required to enter into a reciprocal pension transfer agreement which gives employees the option to transfer their pension benefits to the new plan. Pension benefits earned to the date of sale will be fully protected and employees will be able to choose from the full range of available options-annuities, return of contributions, continuity of service, and so on-depending upon the age and length of service in deciding how they wish to receive the benefits earned to the date of privatization.
Let me speak to the important issue of health and safety because I know that is an important public concern when dealing with companies involved with nuclear and radiation technologies.
No matter who ultimately owns either Nordion or Theratronics, privatization of these companies will not affect the regulatory environment in which they operate.
They have always been subject not only to Canadian regulations but also to the regulatory environments of the countries in which they do business.
In foreign countries, Nordion, for example, is responsible for setting up the plant, training workers, and ensuring the plant is operating safely before it turns the facility over to the local authorities who then take responsibility for it.
In Canada, regulatory authorities include the Atomic Energy Control Board, which regulates the safe handling and use of radio active products; Transport Canada, which regulates the safe transportation of dangerous goods; and Health and Welfare Canada, whose Bureau of Radiation and Medical Devices regulates medical devices, radiation sources, hazardous products and also
June 2, 1989

enforces manufacturing and product standards. The role of these authorities will continue.
The United States, where there is a sizeable market for Nordion and Theratronics products, has a similar regulatory environment through the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Transport. At the same time, both companies will still function within regulations established in foreign countries in which they sell their products and under conventions which promote the safe transportation of radioactive materials.
In approaching the divestiture of Nordion and Theratronics, our Government is seeking purchasers who will make a commitment to these companies, a commitment to their employees, and a commitment to the communities in which they operate. We will be reviewing purchase proposals on that basis, because we want these two companies to be stronger and more successful in the future.
I trust that as we debate this legislation all Members of the House from all sides will be looking at the positive contributions that Nordion and Theratronics can make to the economy as Canada as strong private sector corporations.


Hon. Roger E. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this Bill falls within my area of responsibility as the opposition spokesman for privatization. It is in that context that in a minute or two, I will be saying some things about this Bill.
Before I do that, though, I just wanted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the two companies we are talking about in this Bill, Theratronics and Nordion, are both situated in Kanata, not far from here, and have implications for that immediate area, including the nearby riding of Renfrew. My good friend and distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Renfrew (Mr. Hopkins), is in his riding today doing what he does so well-keeping in touch with his constituents. He will be speaking later in this debate and at that time, among other things, will talk about some of those local ramifications of the Bill.
I should first take a minute to respond to two or three things that the Minister said a couple of days ago when we began debate on the Bill. I want to thank him for his
Nordion and Theratronics
courtesy in providing me with a copy of his notes as he began speaking on Wednesday.
A couple of days ago, the Minister talked about the Government's commitment in 1984 to revitalize the economy so that economic growth could be strengthened and productive jobs for Canadians created. I do not disagree with him that that is a very laudable objective. It is worded nicely, it reads well, and it tickles the cockles of almost any hearts who are out there looking for jobs.
Of course, it is not 1984; it is now 1989. I say to him that the ultimate test of any of those fairly lofty statements is whether in retrospect the track record indicates they meant anything or whether the Government that melded them at the time took them seriously. I want to give him one example.
I will be the first to admit that with the very specialized products in the area of radiation, chemicals and so on, Nordion and Theratronics are at least a country mile from the fishery off the south coast of Newfoundland. I want, in passing, to demonstrate that the Minister's statement of a couple of days ago in this matter of economic growth and the Government's undertaking in that respect needs a little examination and, by extension, to show the complete relevance of what I want to say here today, to raise the larger question of if his statement on the economy is not exactly what it appears to be on the surface, maybe certain other things in this speech of his bear a little scrutiny as well.
Let us talk for a moment about the fishery, because here was an opportunity for the Government to put its money where its mouth was in 1984 when it said: "a commitment to revitalize the economy so that economic growth could be strengthened and productive jobs for Canadians created". That is a laudable objective. What happened in the fishery? What happened in the 3PS fishing zone off Newfoundland involving the St. Pierre and Miquelon area that Members will be familiar with at least on a map? What happened in the so-called northern cod stock area, the 2J3KL area in terms of the NAFO designations off the east coast of north Newfoundland, the northeast coast of Newfoundland, and the east coast of southern Labrador? What happened in those two instances, the south coast of Newfoundland and the so-called northern cod area?

June 2, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
If we look at the period leading up to and including 1984, at which time we had a Government of another stripe than the present one, in those two cases and in those two areas there was no overfishing. In the first case, there was no overfishing by the French. They stayed within their assigned quotas, quotas assigned to them pursuant to a convention and agreement between Canada and France. They stayed within those quotas every year up to and including 1984.
What happened in the northern cod area? Spain, Portugal, and all the other countries, both NAFO countries and non-NAFO countries, without exception in the years leading up to and including 1984, stayed within their assigned quotas. In some cases they were fishing surplus stock inside the 200-mile limit. In other cases they were just outside, on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and on the Flemish Cap just to the east of the Banks. In all cases without exception those companies stayed within their quotas.
What happened beginning in 1985? Let me give a couple of figures off the top of my head. In 1985, the quota for France in 3PS was 9,500 metric tons. They took 25,800 metric tons. In 1986, the quota was 9,500 metric tons. They took 26,000 metric tons. What happened in the 2J3KL area?
For example, in 1986 the quota for the European Community, including Spain, Portugal, and other countries, was 19,200 metric tons. They took 110,000 metric tons.
What is the difference? One difference is there has been a change of government, but more than that there has been a change of signal being sent out by the Government of the day to foreign countries. The signal as of 1984 was: "Come, rape our resources, devastate the industry, take the jobs of our fishermen and fish plant workers; do what you want as long as you love us, as long as you are nice to our Prime Minister, and as long as you help him advance his career internationally". The fact that 15,000 or 16,000 fishermen and plant workers on the south coast of Newfoundland see their jobs in jeopardy is a mere detail.
Let us come back to the Minister's statement and to this Bill. It is very relevant, if people outside the Chamber really want to understand the agenda of this
Government, what it is up to with this Bill, and what it is up to generally.
The Government in 1984, as the Minister reminded us, talked about a commitment to revitalize the economy. Where is the proof of the pudding in so far as the fishery of the south coast of Newfoundland is concerned? Where is the economic growth there? How is it manifested in the Government's policy?
I submit to the Minister and the House that the reverse is manifested. What is manifested is a devil may care attitude in terms of the workers and people involved. There is a larger agenda at work which does not take into account the inshore fishermen along the northeast coast of Newfoundland, along the south coast of Newfoundland, and in parts of Nova Scotia, plus the deep sea fishermen, the trawlermen, and the plant workers. In total, 98,800 fishermen and plant workers, in round numbers 100,000 people in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia alone depend on the cod stocks I have just talked about. That is not the total number depending on the fisheries in the Atlantic area. That is just the number who are depending on the cod stocks I have been talking about. There are 100,000 jobs at stake. What is the Government doing? It is fiddling while Rome bums. It is on to another objective altogether. "Jobs for fishermen," it says, "don't bother us with details."
Let me give another example which is probably closer to home in terms of the stated objectives of this Bill. The Bill has to do with privatizing two companies headquartered here in Ontario with some holdings elsewhere including out West, Nordion and Theratronics.
Let us talk about another company in the context of the Minister's statement. He goes on to say in his statement that one of the ways the Government pursued the goal of economic growth was through a major review of Crown corporations. That is an accurate statement. It not only reviewed Crown corporations; it went a step further. In the case of one Crown corporation called Air Canada, it removed completely its public policy objective. Anyone who knows the history of air transportation in this country, the history of railway construction in this country, the history of the Post Office in this country, anyone who knows that the transportation ties and the communication ties have to be east-west to keep this country together.
June 2, 1989

It was a contradiction in terms from the beginning. If we go back to 1840 or subsequent to 1867 where Newfoundland was trading with the Boston states, where the B.C. coast was trading into the western United States as it is and was then, and when central Canada was also involved in a fair amount of north-south trade relations, the whole concept of a Canada from sea to sea was made plausible by a railway network, by a postal network, and subsequently by some public policy relating to airline transportation. The instrument of that policy in so far as the latter was concerned was Air Canada. That was the reason for it. Canada just did not need another airline to compete with the other existing airlines of the day. Canada needed a particular airline that would ensure that places like Stephenville in my riding, Sydney and Sept-Iles, Quebec which did not have millions of population coming out of their ears, would be able to travel from point a to point b.
That was the whole concept of Air Canada as a public instrument of air transportation policy. That is what is being ripped apart here when the Government not only talks about but rushes forward to privatize Air Canada. Very recently Stephenville, Gander, Sydney and Sept-Iles are four areas that have seen the results in spades of the Government's privatization and airline deregulation policy.
The people in Stephenville and in the entire southwestern part of Newfoundland, the Port aux Basques, the Burgeo area, the Port aux Port Peninsula, the Robinson-Codroy-Valley, are also seeing the results in spades. Abitibi Price, the giant pulp and paper employer in Stephenville, is on the public record as saying that Air Canada will pull out of Stephenville on June 17, a couple of weeks from now. It is going to be devastating to its ability to continue to perform and compete in the national market. This is not a question of moving a few passengers once or twice a year. This is a case in the Stephenville example of a company called Air Canada which could not carry all the passengers three or four months a year. It had to put on a larger aircraft every summer for the last couple of summers. My colleague, the provincial Member Mr. Kevin Allword, the Mayor of Stephenville, a delegation including the Mayor of Gander, and I met them a month or so ago in Montreal.
Nordion and Theratronics
The best answer of the guys in Montreal who perpetrated this foul scheme was "we were not making enough money in Stephenville with the aircraft. We can put her somewhere else and make more money". I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the original concept of having Air Canada as an instrument of public airline policy had nothing per se to do with making money. We as taxpayers hope that in the process of providing a service, Government would do so reasonably efficiently. One does not go out and squander money for the sake of squandering it. However, the idea that everything has to make money flies in the face of why we have a Government in the first place. If it is all bottom line and all predicated on how much money we can make, why is the Government involved in anything? Why do we not just give the whole thing over to the private sector? This strikes at the very heart of why we are having problems at this time in the country. We have at the head of the Government that gentleman from Baie Comeau whose complete resume, his whole curriculum vitae, states: "Manager, American branch plant operation-shutdown Schefferville". That is the entire resume.


Mr. Thacker:: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Do you want us to get into your personal record?


Roger Simmons: I say to my good friend, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge (Mr. Thacker), that I am talking about the public performance in his job.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my friend wishes to get personal with people, does he want us to get into his personal record? We would be happy to give his dossier.


Mr. Manley:: That is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member for Burin-St. George's has the floor.


Roger Simmons: I would like to respond to the gentleman. I thank him for the question.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Don't get into that scum. You don't need to do that.


Roger Simmons: It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Member now chooses to characterize the time of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he was President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, a subsidiary of a Cleveland company, and his action in shutting down the Town of Schefferville while he was

June 2, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
President of that company, as scum. Come on! Surely he has more respect for his leader than that. I am talking about two things that he did in his capacity as President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. These are the credentials he brings to this job. He was a very successful President of IOC.


Blaine Allen Thacker: You bring disgrace to yourself and your family.


Roger Simmons: I have not mentioned the Prime Minister's family.


Blaine Allen Thacker: You bring disgrace to your family.


John Horton McDermid: They unanimously voted for him.


Roger Simmons: They also unanimously voted for me. What has that got to do with it? We are both Members of this House.
I say to the Member for Lethbridge that the performance of the Prime Minister as President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada is very germane to what I am talking about.


John Horton McDermid: It was brilliant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to remind Members that this is not a question or comment period. I recognize the Member for Lethbridge on a point of order.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I wonder if the Member would be kind enough to comment on the 1.4 million jobs that have been created since the Prime Minister became Prime Minister.


John Paul Manley: That is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Cut him off.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order. The Member for Burin-St. George's has the floor.


Roger Simmons: I respect the fact that the views of the Member for Lethbridge are different from mine.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Get out of that personal stuff, for Pete's sake.


Roger Simmons: The Member goes on about personal stuf The Prime Minister was the President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, an American branch plant operation. The Prime Minister shut down Schefferville in his capacity as President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Why?


Roger Simmons: Because it did not satisfy the bottom line. That is exactly my point.


John Horton McDermid: They ran out of ore. Only the Liberals would keep a mine open when there is no ore.


Roger Simmons: If the Member for Lethbridge and the Minister for Privatization (Mr. McDermid) think that is scum, they should take it up with the Prime Minister of Canada. There are an awful lot of people who used to live in Schefferville who do not think it is a very exciting idea either. They do not call it scum, but if that is the way that Member chooses to characterize it, he has an argument with the Prime Minister and not with me.
Let us move on to something more juicy. Let us look at the speech of the Minister on page 5 where he talks about a compassionate and caring way. This is the same Minister who, approximately 45 seconds ago, objected to my making any reference to the devastation caused to thousands of people who were told to pack their suitcases in Schefferville. Now he wants to talk about caring and compassion.


John Horton McDermid: I will talk about that. Every employee was so well taken care of up there that they voted for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) completely when he ran there. Don't be silly.


Roger Simmons: I know that this is a tender subject for the Minister for Privatization.


John Horton McDermid: Not at all.


Roger Simmons: In his statement the Minister talked about some of the great successes of this privatization policy and he paraded Canadair that was sold to Bombardier, a national transportation company. Did you notice, Mr. Speaker, that in his litany and list of companies-I am sure he forgot this and will want to correct the record-he did not mention de Havilland. I wonder why he did not mention de Havilland. I am going to mention it for him.


John Horton McDermid: There are 1,500 more employees.


Roger Simmons: And 700 people who lost their jobs.


John Horton McDermid: No, there are still 1,500 more employees there than when the Government sold it.


Roger Simmons: Not to mention the fact that the Government is being sued for selling it under false pretences.
June 2, 1989


John Horton McDermid: You are wrong there, too.


Roger Simmons: I may be wrong, but the Minister's argument is not with me, it is with de Havilland that has launched the suit.


John Horton McDermid: It was the safety standards. Don't you understand.


Roger Simmons: It is not that I don't understand. It is that I do not agree with the Minister.


John Horton McDermid: I will brag about the de Havilland sale any time.


Roger Simmons: I wish he had, because when he talked about the examples he conveniently forgot about de Havilland. I want to tell the House a bit about de Havilland. Yes, it was sold to Boeing in the United States for $155 million; yes, it cost 700 jobs; yes, the case is in the courts because the Government sold it under false pretences; yes, it was to be the flagship of the Government's privatization policy. As was said in Fifth Estate a few weeks ago on television, it is a case of a love affair gone sour.


John Horton McDermid: Not at all.


Roger Simmons: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister gave a good speech. I did not agree with it, but I thought he read it well.
For a moment or two I want to talk about the privatization policy of the Government. It is more of a political tactic than any common-sense economic strategy. The most charitable thing I could say about it is that it is a hare-brained scheme gone completely out of control. One only needs to reflect on the examples relating to Air Canada and to de Havilland to identify with what I am talking about. At best it is a hare-brained scheme and now it is completely out of control.
One of the reasons advanced for this privatization policy has to do with reducing the deficit. Aren't you glad, Mr. Speaker, that you live in a country where politicians still have those spontaneous, lightning insights? It is marvellous to live in a country where politicians have lightning insights. One day in early April, when the Government was shopping around for a good theme for a Budget, it said "deficit". It discovered the deficit about April 1. It did not know anything about it last November when it was going to build Hibernia and
Nordion and Theratronics
spend more money for the tar sands and have more economic thrust than it could handle.


Mr. Gauthier:: How many billions again?


Roger Simmons: I lost track of it. There were a lot of zeros on the end and a lot of billions up front. Coincidentally, last November there was an election on. However, that aside, last November things were going full speed ahead. All we heard about was economic growth and that things were going to be Utopia tomorrow morning about six o'clock. Then, thank goodness for lightning insights, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) discovered the deficit. Suddenly we had a deficit. We did not have it last November, but we sure had it come about April 1.
Now, like closing down military bases, like ignoring the fishery, like socking it to the senior citizens, like the new national sales tax, like the new telephone tax and everything else, the Government has to wrestle this deficit to the ground. But who is doing the wrestling? Who is in there punching out for us? It is the crowd that took over the public debt in 1984 when it was $177 billion. What has the Government done in five years? It has taken that deficit from $177 billion to the point at which it is now only $330 billion after five years. It has managed to almost double it in five years.
Now the Government is going to tackle the deficit. I suppose next week it will be telling us how to nail jelly to the ceiling. The Government says that one of its objectives is to reduce the deficit. Let us take that at its face value and accept it as one of the Government's laudable objectives. Let us consider the fall-out from the reality of what is happening with privatization and the thousands of jobs that have been lost.


John Horton McDermid: Where?


Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont):: Canadair, for example.


Roger Simmons: A good example.


Benoît Tremblay: How many jobs?


Roger Simmons: It is small comfort to the worker who has lost a job elsewhere that someone at Canadair has a job.


Benoît Tremblay: How many thousands of jobs more?

June 2, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics


Roger Simmons: I understand the Hon. Member wants to focus only on the script he has been given by the Government. Why does he not do some independent investigating? He will find out that de Havilland cost the people 700 jobs.


John Horton McDermid: There are 1,500 more jobs there right now than there were. Be honest. I don't mind you poking fun at us, but be honest.


Roger Simmons: What can be more futile than arguing with a bunch of closed minds? The hidden reality is that thousands of jobs have been lost.


Benoît Tremblay: What about Teleglobe?


Roger Simmons: I will tell him about Teleglobe in a minute. Research and development funds by the millions of dollars are pouring into foreign firms. The de Havil-land-Boeing marriage is one example of that. Millions of dollars in research and development are going straight to foreign companies, free of charge. The Member may be able to defend that. I cannot defend it. I will not defend it.


John Horton McDermid: Good. We don't need you defending it.


Roger Simmons: The poor Minister is in a tender mood this morning. The fact is that the Government's handling of its privatization policy, whatever its objective, has been less than admirable. Part of the reason is that the Minister, who was previously the Minister of Housing and made that brilliant statement about the homeless, is now going to do for privatization what he did for the homeless. That is the threat. This whole policy is being very badly handled.
That is not to say that all the divestitures have not been an absolute boondoggle for the lobby groups. What a happy hunting ground it has been for them.
Let me give an example. Yielding to the admonitions of my good friends opposite, I will talk about the privatization of Terra Nova Telecommunications, a Newfoundland telephone company. That is something I know very well. Until recently, there were two utilities handling telephones in Newfoundland. They were the Newfoundland Telephone Company and Terra Nova Telecommunications, which heretofore had been a federal Government Crown corporation.
Quite recently the Government decided to privatize Terra Nova Telecommunications, which we know as TNT in Newfoundland. The letters have all kinds of connotations in the context of what I will say.
Newfoundland Telephone became the successful bidder and acquired TNT. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that along the way a former Member of this House, a very close friend of the Prime Minister, picked up $900,000 in fees? It had nothing at all to do in terms of affecting the legal transaction, the gentleman concerned is a very competent individual. They were straight lobby fees. He got $500,000 for going after the deal and another $400,000 bonus for landing the deal. Privatization has not been without its benefits for some people, but the people at large-
Mr TVemblay (Rosemont): Not for Canadians?


Roger Simmons: That gentleman is a Canadian. I agree with him, he is a Canadian. I have no argument with that but I say to him that there are a lot of other Canadians who did not quite get $900,000 yet from the Government's privatization deals.
The problem is that the Government has no real master plan for privatization. Today the Government will cure the deficit, tomorrow it will be concerned with efficiency. Every day a new song, every day a new Minister. There is no grand scheme and it is the taxpayers, the people of Canada, who are suffering.
Let us talk about another subject relating to the privatization issue. Of course, Petro-Canada is a Crown corporation, an arm of public policy put in place by the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, to ensure that the people of this country through their elected representatives had a window on the oil industry.


John Horton McDermid: Some window!


Mr. Hawkes:: Very expensive.


Roger Simmons: We will remember the brave words in 1980 spoken by the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). He was going to-


Benoît Tremblay: What a big mess.


Roger Simmons: He should not talk about the gentleman who is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in that vein. He would not like it. I do not believe he is a mess. I believe he is a respected parliamentarian but I believe he did the wrong thing insofar as the Petro-Canada issue

was concerned in 1980. To his credit he realized he did the wrong thing because he changed his mind. The Liberals brought in Petro-Canada. The Tories were going to get rid of it in 1979 and decided it would not-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Never decided it would be a bad idea. That is not true.


Roger Simmons: Then they decided to hold on to it. I say to the Government Whip that I am sure they still think it is a brilliant idea.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is.


Roger Simmons: But even the crowd over there are not completely politically stupid.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We do what is right for Canada, not politically expedient.


Roger Simmons: They got the message from the public that the public wanted the Government to keep-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Political expediency versus what is right.


Roger Simmons: Thke your time. I believe it is your maiden speech.


Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre):: You are certainly no maiden.


Roger Simmons: The Minister knows I would not touch that one. Petro-Canada should stay where it is, in the public domain.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Government should own service stations. That is a basic principle of the Liberal Party.


Roger Simmons: The public say so. The people of Canada have said very strongly over the past three or four years that if the Government wants to muck around with the oil industry it should address itself to the four majors which are organized from top to bottom, from oil fields all the way to gas stations, not only upstream but downstream, between Imperial, Texaco, Shell and Petro-Canada.
If the Government wants to do something with Petro-Canada and the other three I mentioned, let it divest itself of some of its downstream holdings so they do not have such a grip on the industiy.
I have mentioned how they are looking after lobbyists. They are also looking after the visitors, consultants and lawyers. One thing we can say for a Tory is that a Tory is loyal to his or her friend. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that in April of 1986 the following advisers were put in place working in whole or in part on the privatization of Nordion and Theratronics, those two former AECL subsidiaries, until they were handed over to the other Crown corporation for disposal? This is now 1989.1 am talking about three years ago. We are now finally getting
Nordion and Theratronics
around to privatizing Nordion and Theratronics. For three years this is what we have had working on the deal: three investment dealers, one legal firm advising AECL on the matter, one management firm and one accounting firm. I shall hate to see the bill when the Government starts to privatize Air Canada or CN, for example.
The question I am sure all Hon. Members have been waiting for-particularly my very attentive friends on the government side of the House-is this: Where does the Liberal Party stand on this question of privatization?


Blaine Allen Thacker: How many Members do you have?


Benoît Tremblay: It depends on who is speaking. You stand anywhere-south, north, east, west.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You have woken them up now.


Roger Simmons: I want to apologize. I thought they had their ears closed. I am so sorry. They are listening.
Where does the Liberal Party stand? First, we oppose privatization as a means of reducing the deficit. If there are some companies that ought to go to the private sector, then they ought to be considered individually on their merits as to what is in the public interest.


John Horton McDermid: Firmly on the fence.


Roger Simmons: This blanket statement that we are going to do it, not because it is the right thing to do for that particular company or for the taxpayers but because it will help us get a few more shekels to bring down the deficit, is absolutely the wrong reason for privatization.


John Horton McDermid: Where did you see that in my speech?


Roger Simmons: That is a good question. I believe we are having a meeting of minds here this morning. The Minister and I agree on something.

Nordion and Theratronics


John Horton McDermid: Now he is on our side.


Roger Simmons: He has now adopted the first tenet of the Liberal philosophy on privatization.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Why didn't you ever privatize one?


Roger Simmons: We reject those privatizations which lead to service reductions. In this regard I have already mentioned Air Canada where the economy is about to be devastated. I also mentioned the paper mill. I could have mentioned the fishery and the many people who depend on Air Canada to ship fish fresh out of Stephenville. We reject those privatizations where service reductions will take place, where there are job losses or where there is a poor return on investment for the Canadian dollar. Of course, de Havilland is a case in point. We oppose them in those particular cases. As I said a moment ago, each case has to be considered on its merits.
There are so many other things that could be said about this issue. We are talking about two companies that are relatively small in terms of the over-all context of Crown corporations. Nevertheless, this privatization Bill is a symbol of what the Government is up to.
What is it up to? The sad truth is that it does not have any clear objective of what it is up to, except it has an ongoing right wing policy which will continue to devastate all parts of the country. Apart from that, it is a symbol, a symbol that the Government is completely out of whack, out of touch with the people I mentioned in Stephenville, in southwestern Newfoundland, in Sydney, in those areas where privatization is-


John Horton McDermid: You're out of touch.


Roger Simmons: I am almost out of time, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Minister.


John Horton McDermid: Out of touch, not out of time!


Roger Simmons: It is a symbol that the Government and that Minister is out of touch with some of the realities out there. They are out of touch with the fact that privatization, together with airline deregulation, the closing of post offices, rail line abandonments, the jacking up of taxes, and the job losses in the fishery are
causing real havoc with the Canadian people who are not at all excited about the Minister's ideas on privatization.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is probably possible to say more about Nordion and Theratronics in the two or three minutes I have until 11 a.m. than the previous speaker has managed to put into 40 minutes.
This sale has some extremely serious problems associated with it. I will try to go through some of these problems after Question Period. However, I think that there are two points to make at this stage.
The first point is that the Government in its approach to privatization reminds me of a family which decides in the summertime that it makes sense to sell off the furnace because, after all, the furnace is not needed at that point in time. That is the philosophy of the Government. We do not need these companies at this stage. Thus, we will sell them off without looking to the future, without looking to the possibilities which have to be considered over the longer run. Various companies, from these companies to Petro-Canada, to Air Canada, have to be kept for the country's future and for the future of us as a nation.
Second, I am surprised, with the philosophy the Government is following, that we have not seen a more imaginative privatization program. I expect a Bill to be before us almost any day which will set out the privatization of the Parliament Buildings, the Supreme Court and all the public buildings right across the country. This would enable us to sell off everything-one great, grand fire sale. We will then face the future without any of the assets which we as a country have built up over years and years.
It is a silly approach on the part of the Government. It is an approach that it will come to regret. I hope it is an approach with which it will not persist in the future.
I see that it is eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to Statements by Members with the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Conservative Government as part of its right wing agenda introduced legislation to cut massively and to change our unemployment insurance system.
This is the most severe attack on unemployment insurance since its introduction following the great depression of the 1930s. Unemployment insurance was introduced and improved over the years to make sure that Canadian workers have enough money to buy groceries and pay their rent when unemployed against their will.
Under this Bill, Canadian workers will pay more in contributions and get less in coverage. Under this Bill, the Government is cutting its legislative contribution which last year was $2.9 billion.
All this is being done despite the fact that during the last election the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), citing the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), categorically denied that there would be any change or cuts in unemployment insurance. So much for Conservative credibility.
We will oppose these cruel cuts with every means available to us. Hopefully, the Government will start to listen.



THE LATE ETHEL TAYLOR

Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman from Red Deer who contributed very much during her lifetime working tirelessly for the betterment of the people of Red Deer.
Ethel Taylor's political allegiance was to the New Democratic Party, yet she was very popular in traditionally Conservative Red Deer. She was Red Deer's first female city councillor, but she would insist very strongly and very rightly that she was elected for her abilities and her efforts and not for her sex.
I could also imagine Ethel standing beside me insisting that she did not need nor did she want any pious platitudes from a Conservative. She was a person who could work well with others whose political philosophy she did not share. She would work tirelessly to improve services for less advantaged people.
The City of Red Deer has named a street and a bridge in her honour, but her philosophy of caring and sharing and the results of her good work are her most important legacy.



ITALIAN REPUBLIC NATIONAL HOLIDAY


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, today is the Italian national holiday and I take this opportunity to draw the attention of Members of this House to the important contribution of Italian Canadians to the growth of our country. Canadians of Italian origin were present in our cultural diversity long before we officially recognized multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. One might say that the first to leave his mark was John Cabot, or rather Giovanni Caboto, who in 1497 left England and reached the Atlantic Coast.
Mr. Speaker, the contribution of Italian Canadians has extended to many areas of our national life and reflects their vitality, their dynamism and their creativity. Canada would not have become what it is today without the invaluable contribution of Italian Canadians. They have understood the true meaning of Canadian-style multiculturalism. They have always been able to reconcile their deep attachment to Italy with their boundless loyalty to their adopted country.
Mr. Speaker, I call on all present here to join with Canadians in thanking the Italian community for the leading role it has played in Canadian life.

June 2, 1989



HOUSING


Mr. Jim KarpofF (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Redway) continues to say mea culpa when he is asked to address the continuing problems of supply and affordability of housing in Canada.
In St. John's this week he told the Co-operative Housing Foundation that "there is little to suggest you should be happy with me."
In Quebec City, the Canadian Association of Housing and Renewal Officials could only wonder why the rental RRAP program was cut from the Budget when a two-year review had suggested no such possibility.
The Minister's notorious "give me a blast" statement over the Government's lack of action on housing only tells Canadians that the Government has failed.
It has failed to provide a minimal 5,000 units of co-operative housing. It has failed our poorest citizens who require low cost shelter on the rental RRAP program. Because of high interest rates, it has failed young Canadian families looking for affordable housing.
How can the Minister believe that admission of failure excuses the shortcomings of his Departments, himself, and his Government? Since when has mea culpa become a substitute for action?



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Your Honour will know of several important and valuable parliamentary associations involving countries around the world, but there is perhaps no more immediately fascinating and crucial few days for Canadian Members of Parliament and Senators to spend than in the Canada-United States interparliamentary group.
I am honoured to be a participant in this the thirtieth meeting of this unique organization. Members on all sides of the Chamber plays host this weekend in Ottawa
and Montebello to a distinquished group of American Senators and Congressional representatives.
We will have a lot to talk about informally about an interesting week in both Canadian and American Houses. More important, we will trade views on issues which literally cross party lines and international boundaries: acid rain; the greenhouse effect; transboundary movement of hazardous waste products; east coast fisheries enforcement; bilateral trade issues such as steel; agricultural concerns; energy issues; the future of NATO. The list goes on, as will our very special relationship between Canada and the United States. Welcome, friends.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, the recent acknowledgement by the Ontario Government of the need for a four-lane link between the Nation's Capital and Highway 401 was good news for Eastern Ontario. What many do not realize is that the Ottawa-Hull area is the second largest centre in Ontario and the fourth largest in Canada.
Since the completion of this new road into and from the capital will be of great interest to the federal Government, it seems appropriate-and it is indeed the hope of all municipalities affected by this initiative-that the federal Government will extend co-operation to the provincial and municipal Governments involved in order that we can see this project started and completed in the not too distant future.



THE ELDERLY


Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, in many parts of the country and more specifically in the riding of Montmorency-Orleans, this time of the year marks the winding down of activities in senior citizens clubs.
In the past few days, I had the privilege of taking part in a number of special activities organized by senior
June 2, 1989

citizens in my riding. Everywhere I went, I was struck by the way these people enjoyed getting together and sharing some wonderful times.
The Government of Canada takes great pride in helping senior citizens clubs by supporting them financially through the New Horizons Program. This program helps to substantially improve the quality of life of those who built this country. It enables them to strike up new friendships by organizing activities that are a wonderful opportunity for them to get together.
I am delighted to see, Mr. Speaker, that the budgets for this program and for the Seniors Independence Program have remained intact for the new fiscal year, which shows once again how important senior citizens are to this Government.
In concluding, I would like to say to the seniors in the riding of Montmorency-Orleans that I enjoy the times we are able to spend together and that I consider it an honour and a privilege to be invited by those in charge of the senior citizens clubs to take part in their activities.



FREEDOM OF THE PRESS


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the decision by the RCMP to lay charges against journalist Doug Small sets a dangerous precedent that portends the erosion of fundamental democratic freedom.
Such action calls into question the operation of a free press in a democratic society and the public's right to know what its Government is up to.
The Government's actions are designed to label the issue as a wilful criminal act rather than to accept the consequence of its own sloppy security and subsequent lack of accountability.
At the same time that it casts the blame on the media, the Government conveniently hides behind the robes of the courts claiming it cannot comment for fear of prejudicing judicial proceedings.
The truth is that the conviction of Mr. Small would forever compromise the editorial freedom of every journalist in this country.
The charges by the RCMP involve issues fundamental to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and jeopardize the concept of freedom of the press so crucial to a democratic society.
This is not a minor matter. The very foundation of a free democratic society is at stake.



FREE TRADE AGREEMENT


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, the Dow Coming Corporation of Michigan has received the go ahead on building a pilot research and development plant that will eventually employ 30 people. Phase 2 and Phase 3 of this project may eventually employ in the range of 500 people.
Triple S Investments, a federally funded Community Futures organization, was instrumental in attracting and selling Selkirk as a desirable location.
I welcome this opportunity to diversify and strengthen our economy in Manitoba. The Red River Valley looks forward to becoming the silicon valley of the 1990s. I think this is another example of the success of the Free Trade Agreement.



THE HANDICAPPED


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to urge disabled Canadians to celebrate the second National Access Awareness Week, to be held from June 4 to June 10.
The disabled have long been inconvenienced by lack of access to services and facilities and by various forms of discrimination.

This week draws attention to other problems that face handicapped Canadians, namely, the fact that this Government is insensitive to the real practical needs of the disabled in Canada.
This Government that has chartered itself as the creator of jobs has failed miserably when it comes to employment opportunities for disabled Canadians. More

June 2, 1989
than 300 handicapped jobs have been lost according to the 1988 annual report on the Employment Equity Act.

I want to ask this Government to act immediately to reverse this situation. The time for speeches is past, Mr. Speaker. It is now time for the Government to act.



CONGRATULATIONS TO KAMLOOPS-HOST TO 1993 CANADA SUMMER GAMES

Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate today the City of Kamloops, British Columbia. This beautiful and hospitable city in the interior of British Columbia has been chosen to host the 1993 Canada Summer Games.
This announcement was made yesterday by the Hon. Minister of State for Youth and Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Charest) and the Hon. Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Oberle).
As well as congratulating the City of Kamloops on its selection, I would like to commend the other cities for the excellence of their bids. The Canada Games Act is a catalyst in civic development and allows a community to show the rest of the country the measure of its hospitality and organizational ability.
I am sure Kamloops will do well on all counts.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration has passed a motion to send a delegation to various Canadian cities in order that Canadians may better exercise their democratic right to speak to drastic changes to the unemployment insurance system.
It is a modest tour of 13 cities, yet it would serve to let the people of Canada give direction to this Government. Incredibly, the Government is preventing a decision of
this important committee from coming before Parliament for approval.
Throughout last year's election campaign, the Progressive Conservatives denied that there would be any changes to this fundamental Canadian institution, so the work of this committee is especially urgent now that they have done an about-face on this important matter.
By this action, whether devious or cowardly, the Government is again denying the people of Canada their legitimate voice on the changes to one of the most significant programs for the protection of Canadians- unemployment insurance.



SENIOR CITIZENS


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, next week is Seniors Week in Alberta. Alberta is a leader in offering seniors the support that lets them live their own life with dignity.
Many Albertans refer to Alberta's seniors as our pioneers. This is a society of men and women who see their older fellow citizens as a strong link in our social fabric. They built Alberta's wealth and developed such resources as agriculture and energy. They built something of value for themselves and for all Canada.
In the next decade and into the next century, the quality of seniors' lives will be a vital issue. We will work with our seniors to find a balanced program of leisure activity to fulfil the needs and wishes of those people.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, our congratulations to Robert Lesage, the new Liberal MPP for the riding of Hull in the Quebec National Assembly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, on May 29, by-elections were held in Quebec in the ridings of Hull and Papineau.
June 2, 1989

Two more victories for the Quebec Liberal Party, and I say this with great pride!
The riding of Hull, which I represented in the Quebec National Assembly for over seven years and which is part of the federal riding of Hull-Aylmer which I represent in this House, will now be represented by Robert Lesage, and I want to offer him my sincere congratulations on his splendid victory.
Having served the city of Hull, Robert Lesage is well acquainted with the concerns of his riding, and I am sure he is admirably suited to the new responsibilities with which he has just been entrusted.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, he can count on my co-operation in defending vigorously and tirelessly the interests of the population of the Outaouais on issues as important as the completion of Highway 50, the train from Hull to Wakefield and other important projects involving both the federal and the provincial governments.



CONGRATULATIONS TO KAMPLOOPS-HOST TO 1993 CANADA SUMMER GAMES

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops and central British Columbia, indeed all British Columbians and much of Canada, I want to say how much we appreciate the generosity of the Minister who yesterday announced in Kamloops that Kamloops would host the 1993 Summer Games. We appreciate the opportunity.
What I can guarantee the Minister is that by offering Kamloops this opportunity, we will not only make the Minister and the Government of Canada proud but indeed all Canadians proud of the way we are able to host the games.



SENIOR CITIZENS


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, last week I was privileged to join the many Winnipegers who honoured the Reverend Dr. Fred Douglas on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Fred
Oral Questions
Douglas Lodge, one of the first housing units in Winnipeg for seniors which he campaigned to build and continues to serve.
I would like to share that honour with my colleagues in the House of Commons. To pay tribute to Rev. Fred Douglas, a man who has an admirable life long record of helping people with problems and concerns, is truly a singular privilege. I am confident that my honourable colleagues in the House will share my wish to thank and salute him for the vision, leadership, and dedication he has shown in his work. He continues to inspire those who know him.
Indeed the greatest tribute we can bestow upon Reverend Fred Douglas is to dedicate ourselves to pursuing the goals to which he has so ably committed himself for more than a quarter century. The Fred Douglas Lodge in my constituency of Winnipeg North stands as a monument of service to all seniors.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question for the Deputy Prime Minister is about the Government's handling of the budget leak fiasco.
Yesterday, June 1, in Hansard the Prime Minister in speaking about what he did the evening of April 26 when he learned about the budget leak said:
I requested immediately that evening that a full Royal Canadian Mounted Police inquiry be launched. Once that inquiry was launched that night there should never have been an attempt by anybody to interfere with the proper conduct of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police inquiry. Everything that was done from that moment on until today has been in keeping with that tradition.
How Canadians can take the words of the Prime Minister at all seriously when we know that the next day after April 26, on April 27 outside the House, the Prime Minister, speaking to reporters and talking about this leak, said: "We are talking about a crime".
How can the words of the Prime Minister be taken seriously when he used that offensive language?

June 2, 1989
Oral Questions


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister responded to the question in a very fulsome manner. If the Hon. Member is worried about allegations of a crime, he may be interested in what the press were saying on April 28.
For example, The Financial Post said: "Finance Minister Michael Wilson and the Government are victims of a crime". The Toronto Star, on April 28, said: "Wednesday's unprecedented leak in Ottawa appears to have been the result of a criminal penetration of budget security". The Financial Post said: "They are considering several potential criminal code violations, including theft, breech of trust, and a possible breech of the rarely used Official Secrets Act". I could go on.
What the Right. Hon. Prime Minister said yesterday was essentially quoting other news sources which suggested the same thing. As he said, he pointed the finger at no one, but there was obviously an illegal, unauthorized release of the Budget prior to the date on which the Budget was to be presented.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was for everyone to see on television. As the Prime Minister indicated, the Government took the only appropriate course of action.


COMMENTS OF MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that if he quotes editorials and he takes them seriously, let him take the editorial seriously that called for the immediate resignation of the Minister of Finance.
Second, if the Deputy Prime Minister is taking seriously the words of the Prime Minister yesterday that there should be no attempt to interfere with the inquiry and its aftermath, why is he here in this House this minute using the word "illegal" when there has been no finding to that effect by any court?
The record shows that on at least 23 occasions the Prime Minister and other Ministers inside and outside the House referred to the budget leaks in language that showed their conclusion that these leaks involved a
crime or criminal act, and I say that this was done while the RCMP investigation was still under way.
How could the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Crown use this language and at the same time say they were not interfering with an RCMP investigation, not prejudicing a fair trial for anybody who might be charged and not at the same time sending a signal to the RCMP about how they wanted the investigation to end up?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the last statement is absolutely and totally false. If he has any evidence to prove that he should stand up and present it to the House now. Otherwise, withdraw.


William Warren Allmand: Answer the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the RCMP Commissioner said "were you pressured by the Government in this case", his response was "not in the slightest". Why would the Hon. Member want to smear the fine reputation of the RCMP Commissioner? Why would he do that?
In response to the other part of the question with reference to editorials, he knows as I do that editorials change like the wind, as does the position of the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I hope this Hon. Member isn't suggesting that the Finance Minister himself released the Budget prematurely.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will draw their own conclusions about the language used by the Prime Minister and his Ministers. There is nothing that I have to say further than what is already on the record.


POSITION OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister is about the circumstances surrounding the budget leak. I want to draw to his attention that on May 31 in Hansard, the Prime Minister, speaking of when he learned about the Mutual Life aspect of the situation, said:

When the call came to Mr. Gorbet, the Deputy Minister of
Finance, he acted-
Then later on he said about Mr. Gorbet, the Deputy Minister of Finance:
I have already answered that the Deputy Minister of Finance
received the information in a telephone call, I am informed,
sometime in the neighbourhood of 1.30 p.m.
Yet, the President of Mutual Life, Mr. Masterman, said in his statement that the contact was made at approximately 1.30 p.m., April 27, and "after contact was made with the RCMP I called the office of the Minister of Finance in Ottawa and gave the same information to a member of the Minister's staff"; not the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Gorbet, but a member of the Minister's staff.
I want the Deputy Prime Minister to explain this discrepancy. Who got the call and what did he do with it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would go back over Hansard he would find at pages 2088, 2089, 2090, 2094, 2143, 2144, 2200, and 2203 where those questions have been answered.


Some Hon. Members:: Not true.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What I find incredible-and I am sure Canadians are finding it somewhat incredible-is the double standard of the Liberal Party.
When they were in office they sanctioned the seizure of CBC interviews by the RCMP back in March, 1978. They sanctioned the raiding of the offices of The Toronto Sun in that same period of time, and the Justice Minister charged The Sun and two news executives as reported in The Globe and Mail on March 22, 1978. They ran absolutely roughshod over freedom of the press, and now they stand up here and purport to be the defenders.


RECEIPT OF TELEPHONE CALL
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is falling on his own sword. If he is suggesting that previous Governments sanctioned certain actions, then he is admitting today that this Government has sanctioned a charge against a reporter of Global News.
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister has tried to explain away the one and a half to two hour gap in information of a second budget leak being conveyed to senior Ministers, including to the Prime Minister, by suggesting that the matter was being handled by "distinguished and non-partisan public servants" for that period of time on April 27.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is straightforward. Given that Maiy McLaughlin, the Vice-President of Public Affairs at Mutual Life, confirmed in a telephone call with me one hour ago that Mr. Master-man, President of Mutual Life, conveyed news of the second budget leak, not as suggested by the Prime Minister to Mr. Fred Gorbet, the Deputy Minister of Finance, but rather to a member of the Minister of Finance's personal staff, will the Deputy Prime Minister now answer, as was asked by the Liberal House Leader, who in the office of the Minister of Finance received that call from Mr. Masterman? We now know it has been confirmed one hour ago that it was not Fred Gorbet, the Deputy Finance Minister. Who was it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government was advised and the Prime Minister was advised through the offices of the Clerk of the Privy Council as I was. That is a matter of public record. Who received the initial call and what discussions took place are really immaterial-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -because the decision as to how to handle the Budget was taken the night before.
The Budget was released prematurely on Wednesday, April 26 at 10 or 10.30 p.m. because of the leak that was obvious. Anything that took place after that with regard to potential leaks or related leaks, suggestions, or allegations all became a law enforcement matter. Those things were turned over to the RCMP. We were satisfied that the actions taken by the public servants and by members of the Finance Minister's office were appropriate. The action that we took is the only course of action that could be followed.
The Hon. Member may disagree but that course was decided upon on Wednesday, April 26.

Oral Questions


INFORMATION WITHIN KNOWLEDGE OF DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and indeed the Deputy Prime Minister have had no hesitation in talking about the actions of Mr. Gorbet, a senior civil servant, and Mr. Tellier, a senior civil servant. They have had no trouble making the case that you can rest assured that nothing fishy was going on for 90 minutes, or for two hours in the case of the Prime Minister, because "non-partisan senior distinguished public servants" were handling the whole matter. I am quoting the Prime Minister.
Why then does Mutual Life this morning refuse to name the individual in the office of the Minister of Finance who took the call from Mr. Masterman?
Why does the Deputy Prime Minister, when asked a very straightforward question both by the Liberal House Leader and again by myself, refuse to name the political staff member in the office of the Minister of Finance who had this information and tell us what that individual did with the information?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what we have here is-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is a cover-up.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -is an example of the Liberals attempting to cast aspersions or trying to cast aspersions-


Some Hon. Members:: Give us a name.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -against public servants. They are trying to smear the RCMP, and now they are trying to smear members of the Finance Minister's staff. You have struck out on the public servants, you have struck out on the RCMP, and you are going to strike out on this one, too.


POSITION OF MR. RUTHERFORD
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice about an alleged report that his Associate Deputy Minister had phoned the
Attorney General's department in Toronto allegedly on behalf of the Ministry of Finance.
I had wanted to know if this were true. In particular, I wanted to know the nature of the conversation to see if Mr. Rutherford was the person who had recommended that criminal charges be laid.
In a two-page reply I received from the Minister in my office this morning, the Minister confirmed that it was Mr. Rutherford who initiated the conversation with Toronto, but he does not answer the other questions.
Since the Prime Minister of Canada, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have all publicly prejudged the case by saying a criminal act had taken place, surely the people of Canada have a right to know if in that telephone conversation Mr. Rutherford claimed he was acting on behalf of the Ministry of Finance and if he was the one who recommended that criminal charges be laid.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought my hon. friend might have read the memo a little more carefully.


John Edward Broadbent: I did.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: First, yesterday's issue was, who initiated the call, the inference being that Justice initiated the call in order to "intervene".
My hon. friend knows very well that the aide-memoire prepared by the Department of Justice stated that when the RCMP consulted with the Ontario provincial Attorney General's Office about the charges, they were advised-and here it is-that during these consultations it was agreed that there should be consultations on certain matters between the Ontario Crown law officers and the Justice Department. The RCMP advised the Associate Deputy Minister of the issues that required direct discussion between the Department of Justice and the Ontario Crown officers. Mr. Rutherford called the Crown law officers on May 19 to arrange a meeting.
It is very clear that the call from Mr. Rutherford to the Ontario law officers came about at the request of the RCMP.
June 2, 1989


INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENT-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I read the Minister's letter and the aide-memoire that he sent with care. I say to the Minister that he has said what his conclusion was, but I tell him that a careful reading of the document does not make it clear that the content of the conversation that took place was as a result of the request of the RCMP. Quite the contrary. In his own covering letter, he states that it had been agreed that there should be direct consultations with the Ontario Crown law officers. It does not say who was party to that agreement.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It does.


John Edward Broadbent: We can both interpret the document, and I am not accusing the Government, in this instance, of bad faith. The Minister replied directly. I want to get the answer from the Minister.
In the call that Mr. Rutherford made to Toronto, did he or did he not claim that he was acting on behalf of the Ministry of Finance? Second, did he or did he not urge that criminal charges be laid?
I want no other particular information. They are the facts that are important to know. Three leading Ministers of the Crown have already publicly stated that a crime has taken place. I believe that is prejudging. I hope that no senior official of the Government was taking follow-up action that would compound this injustice. Is it yes or no?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what is in the aide-memoire in respect of my hon. friend's request yesterday.
During these consultations it was agreed there should be consultations, that is, consultations between the RCMP and the Ontario Crown law officers. It was agreed that there should be consultations on certain matters between the Ontario Crown law officers and the Justice Department.
The RCMP advised the Associate Deputy Minister of the issues that required direct discussion between the Department of Justice and the Ontario Crown law officers. Mr. Rutherford then called the Ontario Crown.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And said what?
Oral Questions


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: In respect to the question as to whether or not Mr. Rutherford told the Ontario Crown Attorney's office that he represented the Department of Finance, I have checked and I am advised that Mr. Rutherford has no recollection of saying that. However, that is a red herring because the consultations were entirely normal. The RCMP has confirmed that.


INFORMATION SOUGHT ABOUT RECOMMENDATION MADE BY SENIOR OFFICIAL-GOVERNMENT DENIES INTERFERENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister also knows that he did not answer the second part of the question about whether Mr. Rutherford recommended that criminal charges be laid. That surely is very pertinent to an extraordinary circumstance, and the whole country knows that in the history of our country we have not had Canadians accused of the type of criminal offences that have followed these particular Budget leaks. We have a very special circumstance. It may not be of particular concern to certain Ministers of the Crown, but Canadians are concerned with civil liberties and fundamental rights and honesty from the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat quite clearly: Will the Minister of Justice, who responded with this aide-memoire, make it quite clear to the House whether the Government, whether this senior official suggested to his counterpart in the Ontario Government that he should take official action under the Criminal Code against these people?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the aide-memoire that I offered to my hon. friend today in writing in order that he would not have these problems.
Ultimately, advice was given to the RCMP by Ontario Crown law officers and the RCMP laid the charges that are now before the courts. Or one can take the quote from Mr. Inkster who stated that he did reveal that he had met with Rutherford to discuss the questions of possible charges under the Official Secrets Act, a meeting that he said was just normal advice to the police from government lawyers.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question, Doug.

June 2, 1989
Oral Questions


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am answering the question. The question was, was there any interference? There was none.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALLEGED-GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. The Minister has admitted there were normal discussions between his Department and the RCMP. Given that an Associate Deputy Minister of Justice identified himself as counsel for the Department of Finance, and given that on April 27 at page 1005 of Hansard the Minister of Finance stated: "The premature release of details of the Budget appears to have resulted from a breach of trust, a wilful criminal act against which there can be no certain security", would not the Minister of Justice agree that the Associate Deputy Minister, Mr. Rutherford, was in a gross conflict of interest in conducting these so-called normal discussions?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate what I said to my hon. friend, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that we checked and Mr. Rutherford has no recollection of suggesting that he was acting on behalf of the Department of Finance.
These are normal consultations which take place between the RCMP and the Ministry of Justice. The Commissioner of the RCMP has confirmed that. I do not know what more we can do except send aide-memoires which confirm it from our side and have the Commissioner of the RCMP confirm it too.


CONSULTATION BETWEEN RCMP AND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL QUESTIONED-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I suggest perhaps the Department of Justice needs medical advice on its recurring amnesia.
In my personal experience as a Crown prosecutor, I have never heard that a senior Associate Deputy Minister of Justice would sit down with the RCMP to discuss the alleged possession of a stolen document worth three cents.
What was the nature of the advice that Mr. Rutherford offered the RCMP?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the consultations between the Attorney General's officials and the RCMP were entirely normal under the circumstances.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What did Rutherford say?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Define "normal".


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Define "normal"?


Mary Catherine Clancy: What is normal?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I won't touch that.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


NEED FOR SECRECY INQUIRED INTO-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, and it also concerns the second Budget leak.
For 28 days the Government of Canada hid the truth about the Mutual Life Budget leak from Parliament. Once we did find out about the leak, the Government then tried to justify its behaviour by claiming that it had to hide this information in order to protect an RCMP investigation.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister pretend that the RCMP made them do this when yesterday the Solicitor General confessed, before a committee, that he had never even bothered to ask the RCMP whether or not this information should be made public?
Is it not obvious that the only person who was going to be protected by this was the hide of the Minister of Finance who was in deep, deep trouble?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the investigation started Wednesday evening. It was our responsibility to turn over all information to the RCMP. We did not interfere with the investigation in any way. My friend finds it unfortunate that that is confirmed by the Commissioner of the RCMP.


An Hon. Member:: We don't believe it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The matter was a law-enforcement matter from the very start on Wednesday night. We kept it that way.
June 2, 1989


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I find it unusual that the Minister would make that claim of the Government not interfering with the RCMP investigation when there are no less than 27 different references by members of the Government to calling the incidents in question a criminal offence.


THE SECOND BUDGET LEAK-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Don Boudria: would like to direct my supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister. We have now just heard, and we all know that yesterday, when the Solicitor General appeared before a parliamentary committee, he admitted he never consulted the RCMP to ask whether he should or should not reveal the fact that there had been a second Budget leak, a major leak. Will the Deputy Prime Minister now admit what he should have said all along, that the facts are as follows: Wasn't the Conservative Government trying to save the hide of its Minister of Finance instead of protecting the RCMP investigation?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my friend refers to allegations that there was pressure put on the RCMP. Mr. Inkster has made it very clear that there was no pressure on the RCMP.


Don Boudria: I never said that.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It has been very clear that this was a law enforcement matter from the start. That is where it should remain.


CLARIFICATION OF QUESTION-MINISTER'S RESPONSE
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it seems the Minister of Justice is having difficulty with numerous questions that have been asked today on this matter. He seems to be having difficulty understanding the question in either French or English.
Since the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have already prejudged the decision, could the Minister of Justice very simply answer: Did Mr. Rutherford advise the RCMP on how to proceed?
Oral Questions


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No.
ADVICE GIVEN TO ONTARIO LAW OFFICERS QUESTIONED-MINISTER CITES AIDE M&MOIRE


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister if the law officers of Ontario indeed were advised how to proceed?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the aide-memoire-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Yes or no?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yesterday when I did not have the information I offered to provide it to the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party. I provided it. It is too darned bad you do not have a Xerox machine in your office. You could give it to your colleague. And I could show you how to work it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh,oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It might take some time.
The RCMP did the investigation. They went to the Ontario Crown officers to discuss the charges that were going to be laid because the carriage of the action would be by the Ontario law officers.
There were some consultations required, as it is laid out in the aide-memoire, with the Department of Justice officials. Mr. Rutherford called in response to that request and then the RCMP laid the charges.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY OF THE HONOURABLE SAM
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Sam Johnston, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Yukon Territory.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM CANADA-USA INTER-PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the Canada-USA Inter-Parliamentary Association

Oral Questions
led by Senators Richard Bryan and Ted Stevens, CoLeaders of the U.S. Senate Delegation and Congressman Sam Gejdenson, Co-Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives Delegation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


THE BUDGET
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. The June 5 issue of Maclean's Magazine reports a spokesman of the Toronto stock exchange as saying that even though they had been asked to conduct an investigation into possible profiteering, they knew nothing of a second Budget leak to an $11 billion financial institution for 28 days. Yet the Solicitor General has continually told the House that there was no evidence of illegal profiteering.
Why was this critical and crucial piece of information, the leak to the $11 billion financial institution, withheld from the stock exchange officials conducting this investigation?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, When the Budget leak became public, the RCMP was called in and asked to investigate all matters in relation to the Budget leak. The investigation was carried out by the RCMP without any interference vis-a-vis that, and I have no knowledge of what my hon. friend refers to. I am not suggesting it is wrong, but I am saying that it was up to the RCMP to conduct the investigation. It was a law enforcement matter and that is the way it has been treated.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, it almost appears that the Government is more interested in concealing evidence of profiteering than in revealing it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dick:: Give us some evidence.


STOCK EXCHANGE OFFICIALS NOT ADVISED OF MUTUAL LIFE LEAK-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. What kind of investigation is the Government conducting when officials at the stock exchange were kept in the
dark for 28 days about this second budget leak? Does the Government have an obsession with secrecy?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this Government came to the House with the Budget as soon as it was absolutely possible-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Ten to six.


Mr. Duhamel:: Ten to six.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -in an effort to make it public. This Government has nothing to hide. In fact, it has been very clear that this Government is not conducting the investigation. The RCMP is conducting the investigation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Cover-up.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Some cover-up. We went public with it and we brought in the RCMP.


POSSIBILITY BENEFITING FROM BUDGET LEAKS-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, on April 27, the Prime Minister told us-and I would ask the Minister of Justice to go back to Hansard for April 27:
The RCMP is conducting a full investigation. That investigation extends to the actions of presumably all of those involved in that part of it, and also extends to the stock exchanges to ascertain if anybody has profited in any way from any kind of information.

My question is for the Minister of Justice in light of what we now see in Maclean's Magazine. As far as the profiteering investigation is concerned, Maclean's has learned that the RCMP, while asking the Canadian stock exchanges to review records of stock trades that might have been made on the basis of the first Budget leak, did not even inform them of the second leak. As a result, spokesmen for the exchange said that they may have missed evidence of profit making by specific individuals or companies.

How can the Government continue today, on June 2, to maintain that no one profited from the leaks of this Budget? And how can the Prime Minister continue to keep the Minister of Finance, who has failed in his parliamentary duties?
June 2, 1989


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I compliment my hon. friend. He has it right, the RCMP is conducting the investigation. It is not a government investigation as alleged by his colleague. It is a law enforcement matter. It has been from the start. We have left it that way.
It really bums my friends opposite that we did not interfere. It really bothers you, doesn't it? It really bothers you that we did not interfere. We did not interfere then and we are not going to interfere now.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would accept the word of the Minister of Justice except for what took place yesterday. We see the headlines: "Tories acted alone in keeping second leak secret", said the Solicitor General. Another states: "Mountie's testimony cut short by Minister". Is the RCMP doing its investigation on its own without any direct information and direct orders given by the Solicitor General? If it is the truth, then I would like the Minister of Justice to tell us today if he is sure, as the Solicitor General was a few weeks ago, that indeed no one profited from these leaks of the Budget.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think when it comes to questioning pressure from this Government I can do no more than go back to the Commissioner of the RCMP who very clearly stated to the question: "Were you pressured by the Government in this case?" "Not in the slightest".
With respect to profit-taking as a result of the Budget leak, we will have to await the final report of the RCMP in this matter-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Hon. Member may not like it. He may want to have several reports so he can keep this up.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is different from the Solicitor General.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: One of these days Members opposite will really have to get back to what is bothering the nation.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Yes, your terrible Budget.
Oral Questions


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There are the fish problems on the East Coast, defence bases closing, forestry problems. One of these days they will have to go home to face the news.


HOUSING
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, the first priority of concern for my riding is not old leaks that have been fixed, or a matter that is in the hands of the police or before the courts. My first concern is housing. I would like to ask the Minister of State for Housing a question concerning the Downsview Airport lands.
What is the Minister doing to ensure that the housing on the recently released federal lands at Downsview Airport is accessible to families with average incomes of $33,000 to $48,000, comparable to those in the surrounding neighbourhoods who currently enjoy housing and, second, does not result in excessive profits to developers and real estate speculators? Further, what does the Minister think of the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for York Centre to sell all of Downsview Airport for affordable housing?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question certainly targets in on the real concerns of Canadians.
With respect to the Downsview Air Base property that has been released to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC is developing that property as the prime developer. We are not selling it off to private interests but keeping it ourselves in order to prepare and to put in place a development plan. In that way we can help to ensure that it will be housing that is affordable.
If we can work out the proper plan with the City of North York, the municipality that is involved, to put in place density on that site that will create housing that is affordable, then that is the real solution.
The suggestion that was made some time ago by the Hon. Member for York Centre that the property be sold off for the highest price would only create million-dollar houses on that site. It would not create affordable

June 2, 1989
Oral Questions
houses, the kind the Hon. Member and myself want to see there.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It is a follow-up to the questions asked by the Hon. Member from Papineau.
We have now been told that the four Canadian stock exchanges were not notified by the RCMP of the leak to Mutual Life Insurance. In fact, they had not even heard about it until they heard about it from the news media.
On May 18 in the House, the Solicitor General said: "-from the outset, the investigation-included the situation that was in the news yesterday", namely, the Mutual leaks. How can the Solicitor General say on May 18, on the one hand, that the investigation included Mutual Life from the beginning, while on the other hand the stock exchanges were not notified until they heard about the Mutual leak in the news media?
Can the Minister confirm in the House today that, indeed, the RCMP did not notify the stock exchanges? Can he tell the House why that was not done?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to confirm what my hon. friend has already alluded to, and that is this. It became obvious on the Wednesday night that the RCMP should be called in. They were called in. The next day, as has been mentioned several times, there was a call from Mutual Life to the Minister of Finance in his office.


André Ouellet: At what time?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is my understanding that that was immediately confirmed to the RCMP. They were brought in on the fact that Mutual Life had notified them and that they had the document.
As to what the RCMP did with that information, I am not privy to that information as Attorney General. That is a matter for the RCMP investigation.


REFERENCE MADE TO SOLICITOR GENERALS STATEMENTS-ASSURANCES SOUGHT AS TO PROFIT-TAKING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not answered the question. It was the Solicitor General himself who said in the House that the investigation included the facts that were "in the news yesterday", namely, the Mutual leak. He also said in the House that there had been no indication of any profiteering.
I wish to ask the Minister of Justice this. How could the Solicitor General say that there had been no indication of any profiteering when the four stock exchanges had not even been notified by the RCMP of the leak from Mutual Life?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a question that should be answered by the Solicitor General. I am acting on his behalf today.
I have advised my friend, and he knows very well, that the RCMP called him on Wednesday evening, that the information that came from the office of the Minister of Finance was turned over to the RCMP. We have not interfered with that investigation. It is up to the RCMP to continue its investigation. If it finds there was illegal profit taking as a result of the Budget leak, it is up to them to consult and to lay charges.


PRACTICE OF SENIOR OFFICIALS-GOVERNMENT REITERATES TIMING OF EVENTS
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I was an Assistant Deputy Minister and a Deputy Minister in two different government administrations. I know that it is standard practice to inform the Minister immediately of any major problem-wherever the Minister happens to be-which has occurred in the Department. If I had not, I would have been fired.
I personally believe that the senior civil servants immediately informed the Prime Minister and his senior Ministers of the Mutual Life leak. I cannot believe otherwise.


Mr. Charest:: What is this? What else do you believe?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may believe a lot of things. However, the Hon. Member is rising to put a question. I would ask him to put his question.
June 2, 1989


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister think that Canadians believe that this did not happen, that senior officials did not inform Ministers immediately upon receiving the call?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated in this House when he learned of the information that my friend asks about. The Minister of Finance has stated in this House when he learned of the information that my hon. friend asks about. We have been very forthright on that.
I think it is a shame that we have these allegations of wrongdoing about respected public servants who cannot come in here to defend themselves.


William Warren Allmand: Let them come in.


SENIOR OFFICIALS' ROLES
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I just want to say that there was no allegation about the Public Service. Is the Prime Minister using senior officials to protect himself and his Ministers and give himself credibility? Are these senior officials becoming scapegoats for the Government's incompetence in this matter?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think that is another very unfair and inappropriate allegation to make either of the Prime Minister or of senior Public Servants.


Ron J. Duhamel: It is a question. Answer the question.


Mr. Kempling:: It is a stupid question.


Ron J. Duhamel: I wish you could come up with one that is half as good.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We did. That is why you are in that position.


Ron J. Duhamel: Not for long.


INFLUENCE OF MINISTERIAL COMMENTS-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On no fewer than 27 occasions since the first Budget leak was revealed the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime
Oral Questions
Minister, the Minister of Finance, Minister of Justice, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the leak as a crime, a theft, a sabotage, and a criminal act.
Why for 37 days did the Prime Minister and members of the senior front bench prejudice the rights of Canadians? Why? Is saving the skin of the Minister of Finance more important than protecting the civil liberties of all Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was a question there. Let me be very, very clear that there was an investigation going on, that there were no comments made which impinged on that investigation, and that there are going to be no comments made which impinge or interfere with a fair trial.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time I am going to proceed with a single question from the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair.


FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Since freedom of the press is explicitly guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; since some Conservative Members and the Prime Minister himself made statements yesterday on the importance of freedom of the press, is the Minister of Justice prepared to join with the leaders of the opposition parties and prepare a motion for adoption by the House that would express our concern about the threats to freedom of the press resulting from the charges laid against journalist Doug Small?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend referred to the guarantee of freedom of the press. There is another guarantee which is just as important, and that is,

Statements by Ministers
the freedom to have a trial and not have any interference in it.
My hon. friend knows very well that I am not in a position, nor is anybody in this House either in answering questions or making allegations. No one should interfere with that right to a fair trial.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: I am rising on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, because it became evident to me during the course of the Question Period that there may be some problems with the sound system in this Chamber which make it very difficult for some of us as Members to participate fully in carrying out our duties.
I note that in response to the question which was put to the Deputy Prime Minister as to who in the Minister of Finance's office received the call from Mr. Master-man, the Deputy Prime Minister stood in his place and said that he had answered that question on numerous occasions and proceeded then to say what they were. Members behind him were nodding, as if they had also heard the answer.
However, I have been very attentive to the course of debates over the past several weeks, with my ear-plug in, and I have yet to find out who is that person. I look in Hansard and I see that Hansard was unable to hear it as well. I am wondering-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know if any comment is necessary. It is not a question of privilege.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, without wishing to comment on what the Hon. Member just said,-that is not why I rose in my seat-perhaps I may recall one of our local sayings, which people use a lot where I come from. They say you can't put a gallon in a quart, and I think that aptly illustrates the problem facing the Hon. Member.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, since stating our intentions regarding upcoming government business yesterday afternoon, I understand that there have been discussions among the Parties, with the result that changes have been made to accommodate both official critics and Ministers of the Government.
Today, as far as government business is concerned, we shall continue second reading consideration of Bill C-13, the Nordion Bill, with Bill C-16, the space Bill as this afternoon's back-up.
On Monday, we shall commence second reading of both Bill C-19 and Bill C-4, the two energy Bills. At 3 p.m. we will commence second reading of Bill C-17, the customs Bill. The back-up Bill for Monday will be Bill C-9, the bank charges Bill.
On Tuesday, at 11 a.m., we shall commence second reading of Bill C-20, the excise tax Bill and at 3 p.m. we shall commence second reading of Bill C-21, the UI Bill.
On Wednesday, we shall resume second reading consideration of Bill C-21, the UI Bill.
I understand that this is in common agreement with both opposition Parties.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I will say that, yes, there have been extensive negotiations among the Parties.
I want to say that we appreciate this way of doing business, to ensure that we try to convenience as much as possible the Ministers who are expected to be here for these various Bills, as well as the critics. We have enjoyed the negotiation process to make the business of the House go smoothly all next week, hopefully.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour as Minister of Veterans Affairs to remind the House, and indeed all Canadians, that next Tuesday, June 6, is the forty-fifth anniversary of one of the greatest days in the history of international freedom. D-Day was also one of the finest days in the history of the Canadian military.
June 2, 1989

All three of our Services were in action on June 6, 1944, the momentus day that spelled the beginning of the end for Elitler and the evil he represented.
Our sailors provided covering fire and manned some of the landing craft. Our airmen helped to keep the skies free of enemy aircraft. More than 15,000 Canadians landed on Normandy beaches to begin the hard fight of delivering millions of Europeans from captivity in their own country.

Mr. Speaker, it will be my privilege to accompany Canadian veterans back to Normandy for this special D-Day anniversary. Together, we will be holding ceremonies at the many memorials and cemeteries that tell of the sacrifice for freedom.

Some 359 Canadians were killed on D-Day and another 715 wounded. Thousands more were killed in the subsequent Normandy campaign.
Next Ibesday let all of us pause in our normal routines and give thought to those Canadians who were called upon to put their lives on the line so that others might be free.
They did us very proud indeed 45 years ago on D-Day. Let us never lose our pride in them.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, June 6 indeed marks the day 45 years ago when the greatest assembly of soldiers, sailors, and airmen, attended by equally courageous nurses, doctors, medics, clergy, and many other support groups assailed the beaches of Normandy. They went, Sir, to bring to an end the awful carnage wrought by a maniacal madman. It was the greatest congregation of military might ever assembled. The training, the planning, the awesome courage of these men and women, effected the beginning of the end of Hitler's madness and carnage.

Mr. Speaker, many of those brave soldiers were Canadians, and Canadians they remain. The sacrifices they made so unstintingly, sometimes at the cost of their own life, are the price we have to pay to guarantee and preserve our freedom. I think it is entirely appropriate that this House should take a moment to commemorate and pay tribute to these brave and generous Canadians.
Committee Reports

To fail to remember the truly important contribution to democracy of Canadians,to fail to remember them, truly means their ultimate sacrifice was indeed in vain, for in forgetting we condemn ourselves and future generations to its repetition.
These Canadians died so that we might have more abundant freedom and life. Let us never forget that.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to respond on behalf of my colleagues to the Minister's comments.
June 6, 1944 was indeed an important day for world peace. The majority of Canadians today, especially those bom since World War U, often take our freedoms for granted. That freedom was fought for and it exacted a heavy price. Thousands of our Canadian soldiers died or were injured so that the western world could continue as a democratic society.
The Canadians we are commemorating next Tuesday fought for the principle of peace and for the principle of social justice. Even today our fight for world peace continues as we emerge from the bellicose cold war rhetoric of the nuclear superpowers. The current movement today toward bilateral nuclear disarmament is encouraging and must be continued.
Perhaps the most significant way that we as Canadians can honour our veterans is to in fact honour the cornerstone of freedom for which they fought to preserve. The purpose of their sacrifice was to ensure a world that would remain a free and open society of humankind. We as Canadians are committed to that cause and will continue today through our international efforts hopefully and finally to turn our weapons into ploughshares.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Striking Committee and, with the concurrence of the House, later this day I would move for its adoption.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.[

June 2, 1989
Petitions


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-251, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Temiscamingue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to table in this House a Bill aimed at changing the name of the electoral district of Temiscamingue.
Mr. Speaker, for the sake of fairness and to provide more equitable representation of all my constituents, I suggest changing the name of Temiscamingue to Temis-cabitibi.
The new name, Mr. Speaker, is based on geographical and historical considerations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting off the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


STRIKING COMMITTEE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I now wish to move that the Seventh Report of the Striking Committee, tabled earlier today, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jean J. Charest: I move:
That the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of
Disabled Persons be authorized to travel to Toronto for June 20,1989
to hold hearings in relation to disabled persons:


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe a standing committee has been seeking authorization to travel and to hold hearings into the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, that is, the Bill that is presently before the House. I cannot recall whether that request has come to the floor yet. I wonder if the Deputy House Leader could remind me.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by my colleague from Calgary West, who is also the Government Whip, that apparently there is some study of the budgets relating to travel under way now. If I understand correctly, once those issues and discussions have been held, these questions will be dealt with.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today on behalf of a number of people from Kamloops, British Columbia.
In the first petition the petitioners point out their concern about the growing militarization of the Canadian economy, particularly the fact that Canada continues to export military and paramilitary equipment to countries known for their violation of human rights.
They are fundamentally asking for the Government of Canada to change this course of action to restrict arms sales to these kinds of countries and to reconsider the continuing militarization of our economy.
June 2, 1989


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns VIA Rail, again on behalf of a number of people from Kamloops, British Columbia who are of the opinion that the Government is destined to eliminate VIA Rail service in the country.
Certainly by the comments we recognize that VIA Rail will have serious curtailment of their passenger service. They are simply calling upon Parliament to maintain, improve, and modernize VIA Rail. In other words they are asking for it to be given the necessary resources to enable VIA to fulfil its promise of improved passenger rail service in Canada.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, as you know Members of Parliament from across Canada are submitting petitions with respect to the extradition laws of Canada.
I have the honour today, under the provisions of Standing Order 36, to present one with 1,323 signatures. It calls for the Government of Canada to revise its extradition laws in order that we can prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven for dangerous individuals from other countries. I have a feeling that most people who signed it have in mind people like Charles Ng.
I therefore would submit this petition. I might note that it is signed by individuals from addresses including the following: Peterborough, Westlock, Alberta, Ottawa, Taber, Toronto, Calgary, High Level, Drumheller, Regina, Estevan, Maple Creek, Saskatchewan, Didsbury, Alberta, Vanier, Gatineau, Nepean, St. Leonard, Hull, Manotick, Halifax, and Medicine Hat.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition on behalf of residents of Scarborough, Pickering, Cobourg, Keswick, Mount Albert, Uxbridge, Markham, Thornhill, and Ajax.
The petitioners state that there are those accused of heinous crimes in other countries who are entering Canada as a form of obtaining sanctuary. The petitioners believe that the current due process and the incarceration of some of these individuals for crimes committed in
Nordion and Theratronics
Canada allow them possibly to escape justice in the country in which they are accused of other crimes.
Therefore the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to revise the laws relating to extradition to allow the Minister of Justice to order the extradition of alleged or convicted criminals after their apprehension in Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask the House to correct the Order Paper and Notice Paper under the item: Private Members' Business.

Your Honour will find that there was a draw yesterday for Private Members' Bills and Motions. I am advised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mrs. Catterall) that Motion No. 485, which is recorded at page 17, is indeed not her motion and that there possibly could be an error as to who is the godfather or godmother of that particular motion.
I am also informed that a motion ofthe Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) was also chosen yesterday but that motion had already been disposed of.
I just wondered if we could have some correction made to the records to make sure that indeed when these draws are made the House is informed.

June 2, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair was aware of the problem with respect to the motion of Mr. Allmand, but was not aware there was also a problem with Mrs. Catterall's motion. We will look into this.
I wish to inform the House that as a result of the Minister's statement, Government Orders' will be extended by six minutes.
Consequently, the hour set aside for Private Members' Business will begin at 2.06 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill C-13, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Ltd., be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off with some comments of appreciation to the Minister of State for Privatization (Mr. McDermid) for the quite extraordinary lengths to which he has gone to see to it that critics on the other side of the House were able to receive briefings with respect to these companies, receive detailed financial information, question officials of the company and therefore put ourselves in a position to make comments with respect to the specific companies which are much more pointed and, hopefully, useful as a consequence.
I am going to start off by talking briefly about the whole question of public enterprise in our economy. As the Minister himself noted in his speech, there is a long tradition of public enterprise in this country. He suggested that that was perhaps a tradition on which we should be increasingly turning our backs. My sense is to the contraiy.
It is a tradition which has served this country very well, has given us a railway system which is extensive, profitable and efficient. It has given us the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio Canada, which has served us immensely well throughout all of Canada. It has given us in time of war a series of companies initiated by government which met crucial needs for materiel for our armed services during the Second World War. It is a tradition which has given us Air Canada which serves various parts of this country with a sense of duty and a sense of service as something in addition to the concern for private profit. It has given us Petro-Canada which as a corporation has been extremely active in seeing to it that we extend the resources which exist offshore, in the Arctic and in other parts of the country so that we can be more secure with respect to our energy future.
Is this then a tradition from the past which should be abandoned, or is it a tradition which we should build on? For our Party, there is not an ideological answer to that. There is instead a series of considerations which we would use in analyzing the different public enterprises which exist in this country, as to whether they should continue to exist, and also in analyzing the areas in which we do not at this stage have public enterprise serving Canada. Does it make sense to have such companies play a role in that tradition which we have so successfully built up in Canada?
First, it is important to recognize that there are certain activities that the thought processes, the time horizons of the marketplace, do not lead private enterprise to initiate, to undertake within our country, cases of activities which take too long a period of time to mature, for example. There are classic cases like large-scale dams which have pay-offs, but pay-offs which are extended over many years and which the intensely competitive private enterprise sector of our economy cannot afford to wait for returns from.
There are other cases in which the risks in the economic sense are just too high, cases, for instance, in which we are dealing with new and uncertain technologies and where it is very difficult to have a sense of what will happen in the development of those technologies. Often those are areas in which public enterprise makes sense because we can spread the risk over the entire community instead of putting it in the hands of a few private entrepreneurs who are not able to take that kind of risk. Often, too, we may have questions of extreme urgency in which we simply cannot wait for private entrepreneurs to see themselves capable of taking the
June 2, 1989

initiative. That was certainly the case in war-time. It has been the case in other periods of our history.
The second reason why public ownership may make sense in certain circumstances is to give the community a role, a sense of some kind of information, some kind of capacity to help direct what takes place in Canada in circumstances where a small number of very large, often foreign, companies are dominating a key sector of our economy. This was the reason why the New Democratic Party pushed so strongly to have Petro-Canada established. We felt that it was absolutely central to our future as a country that this sector of our economy not continue to be dominated by a very small number of extremely large integrated multinational oil companies.
A third reason which pushes us to look at public enterprise as a response in certain areas is when we are talking about key sectors of our economy in which initiative and innovation is not taking place with the speed and dynamism which is crucial to our future as a country. There, too, it may be necessary to establish public enterprises.
For instance, in the case of the atomic energy area, this was one of the crucial reasons for the establishment of Atomic Energy Canada Limited. This was seen as an area of important innovation. Was it possible to see to it that nuclear power could have peaceful and safe uses within our society? If that was to happen, how was it to happen? Who was to take the lead? Partly because of health and security reasons, we in this country decided that that was an area within which it was important to take a public enterprise initiative.
There are other areas that we as a Party have thought of as areas where public ownership has to be examined. For instance, we have areas that economists often call natural monopolies in which the economics of cost make it important and obvious that one company can serve people at a lower cost than a number of competing companies. For example, two or three telephone companies reproducing a set of telephone lines across the country would not make economic sense. In those areas of natural monopoly it seemed to us to be sensible to
Nordion and Theratronics
look at public enterprise as a way of dealing with this particular economic situation.
Finally, we have looked at public enterprise in provinces where the New Democratic Party has held power. In arguments we have made in the House, we have looked at public enterprise as something that can earn returns and make profits for the people of Canada in order that we will have a return to the social and economic programs which are important to all of us within this country.
With that as a backdrop, let me ask some questions with respect to this particular Bill. What are the issues that emerge as one starts to probe this particular piece of legislation? There are some key process problems to start with. The Minister has brought a Bill before us and in his speech he talked about the importance of satisfying the concerns and aspirations of workers. Yet, we have a situation with both companies in which workers represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada have been quite concerned with respect to the privatization that is taking place, so much so that workers in both companies voted 95 per cent in favour of strike action during the month of May this year because of their concerns, in part over privatization.


John Horton McDermid: No, no.


Steven W. Langdon: I have to tell the Minister that I fear that that is the case, because we have talked with representatives of the Public Service Alliance which represents workers employed at those two companies. There is a tentative settlement which was reached last Friday, one week ago, with respect to Theatronics. It still has to go to the membership for final approval. With respect to Nordion, which is the most important of those two companies in terms of profitability and workers involved, there has not been even a tentative settlement which has taken place. In fact, there is a 95 per cent strike mandate which they will move to if a settlement is not reached. The pension plan is part of their concern. They are also concerned about employee benefits in the future under privatization, and they are concerned about safety issues under privatization.
This tells me there are some very important question marks that the Government has not succeeded in settling before bringing this Bill before the House. I must say I regret that. I asked some questions during the briefings which the Minister arranged about whether there were safety questions and whether there were

June 2, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
questions with respect to pensions. I was told by the management of the company that there was no problem. Very shortly after I was told that a 95 per cent strike mandate was taken in these companies because of pension problems and safety problems under privatization.


John Horton McDermid: Not true.


Steven W. Langdon: I suggest to the Minister that he spend some time talking to representatives of the Public Service Alliance in order to find out whether a 95 per cent strike mandate, which is the vote of workers in the company, does not indicate that there are serious problems with respect to this privatization.


John Horton McDermid: It has nothing to do with privatization.


Steven W. Langdon: The workers say it is because of the privatization. They voted 95 per cent to strike because of the issues associated with privatization. Frankly, the Minister is going to have to clear this up before he has any hope of getting this Bill through the House on second reading.
It was suggested to us during the briefings arranged by the Minister that these were part of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, but were parts that could be spun off to the private sector because the relationship between these former parts of AECL and AECL itself were relatively unimportant. In fact, when one begins to examine the evidence one finds that these relationships are anything but minor.
In the case of Theratronics, for the most recent full year for which we have statistics, there is interaction with AECL which includes purchases of over $5 million worth of input from AECL. At the same time, Theratronics provides products to Nordion which, in the most recent year for which we have material, amount to almost $8 million.
We also have in the case of Theratronics over $1 million in support for the accelerator products being developed by AECL. In addition, there is a commitment on the part of Theratronics to purchase the key input which is used for this company's production, that is Cobalt-60, from AECL up to the year 2008. We are not talking about arm's length companies, we are talking about companies that have been closely linked in the
past and which are closely linked at the present. That is the case of Theratronics.
Let us look at the case of Nordion. In the case of Nordion those same kinds of connections exist in terms of related party transactions with AECL, and Theratronics providing a lot of input to Nordion and vice versa.
What is perhaps the most serious problem with respect to this Bill in its present form is that there is a commitment within the financial statements of Nordion of almost $17 million. The company itself has assets of about $96 million. With net assets under $100 million, at the same time there is a commitment of $17 million to make in payments to AECL for the next reactor which AECL is setting up for isotope production. Isotopes are the key ingredients which AECL sells to Nordion.
What is most important, and frankly most unfortunate, is that that commitment of $17 million, which has to be put into effect before 1991, is not even included in the financial balance sheet of Nordion as a company. We can see the assets of Nordion, the liabilities and shareholders equity, but there is no mention whatsoever of the fact that this company which the Government of Canada is trying to privatize will have to pay out $17 million over the next two years. There is not one mention of that in the balance sheet of this company.
There is no conclusion that one can come to except that the Government is playing fast and loose with the balance sheets that have been set up for Nordion as a company.
There are also some important information questions which have to be raised. When we talked with the various officials at the briefing, we were told that there is no one in mind at this stage as a purchaser of Nordion. Yet research by The Financial Post, which the Government likes to quote during Question Period, indicates that in its view: "Lavalin Incorporated of Montreal is considered the leading candidate to buy Nordion".
I think the game is fixed. We have a situation where this very profitable company that can give a great deal in returns to the people of Canada is going to be sold to one of those corporations that has been close to the Conservative Party. It is a corporation in which one of the senior cabinet Ministers within this Government previously worked at an executive level. It would appear from what The Financial Post has discovered that that company will
June 2, 1989

be able to purchase Nordion, the more profitable of these two companies.
Those are some of the questions that emerge as specific issues of concern which I think the Government must answer before it can hope to get this Bill through the House at second reading. They are major questions which I think should have been cleared up before reaching the stage at which legislation is presented to the House.
Even if those questions can be cleared up, the basic arguments still remain with reference to the sale of these companies to the private sector.
Both these companies are significantly profitable. This is especially true of Nordion. Nordion has the capacity to give back to the people of Canada some of the tremendous investment which the people of Canada have put into it and have put into the establishment of AECL over the years. If we were to keep this company in the public sector for the next five years, we would get back in profits as much as we are likely to get in the sale of this company to the private sector. Everything after that five years would be gravy, benefits for the people of Canada, which could be taken either in the form of lower taxes or in the form of improved services.
This case, if it leads to the privatization of these two companies, will represent the first time in Canada that part of the nuclear industry goes out from under the control of the public sector. When the Government put out this document about Cobalt-60, it made an important point about AECL, the company of which these two firms have been part. That is to say AECL is the only source allowed in Canada to market Cobalt-60.
Cobalt-60 is something produced in nuclear reactors. It has with it radiation which, as we all know, can affect very seriously the health of people in the country, the health of people working in these firms and the health of other people working in firms in which the products of these firms are used.
This would be the first time in Canadian history in which we took part of the core of the nuclear industry and put it into private hands. What has happened in the United States as a consequence of its nuclear industry in
Nordion and Theratronics
large part being in private hands is something which we would not wish upon our childrens' future.
In the United States it has become more and more difficult to guarantee safety in the core of the nuclear industry because of the short cuts and the cutting of comers which take place on the part of private companies. These are short cuts and cuttings of comers which simply cannot be accepted in a nuclear industry which has so much in the way of risks, so much in the way of security issues attached to it.
It is no surprise when Canadians were asked which of various companies they would like to see put up for sale that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited received the lowest amount of support and the greatest amount of opposition of any company in the country. I make the point that both of these firms that are supposedly not part of AECL are directly, intimately and continuously involved with AECL. They have commitments to help AECL build reactors. They have commitments to buy from AECL. In fact, these firms are part of Atomic Energy of Canada. Yet 50 per cent of the people of Canada in the most recent polling which has been done indicate that they disagree strongly with the sale of AECL to the private sector. They do so because they recognize that there are special health and security issues which come up in the nuclear industry and that both these firms being offered for privatization are part of the core of the nuclear industry.
Finally, I want to make a point with respect to the legislation. In the legislation Nordion is protected from any foreign take-over. We are quite pleased to see that. However, Theratronics, which also has played an important role in our economy, is not protected. There is no protection against a foreign take-over of this important company which Canadian taxpayers have built up over the years.
The last point I want to make, and it is a general one, is that with the Free Tirade Agreement now in place, Crown corporations are one of the few means left to the Canadian Government to take independent action. Under the free trade deal it is possible for Crown corporations to have particular purchase policies, particular investment policies and particular regional development policies without there being any possibility of the United States calling them into question. Yet in this Bill the Government is taking two of these instruments which we

June 2, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
still have to use, two of these Crown corporations, and suggesting that we strip from our capacity to act in the future these two corporations. It is a serious mistake to do that, especially in light of what the trade deal has brought to the Government and the country in terms of a limiting of policy possibilities.
There are some very specific and pointed problems that mark both these firms to which I want answers and to which our Party wants answers. There are some basic arguments against taking a part of the nuclear industry and putting it into the private sector.
In light of the policy limitations of the Free Trade Agreement, we should keep our Crown corporations, especially when they are as profitable as these two are, so that they can be instruments for us in other areas of policy activity in the future.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, the nuclear industry world-wide has been since its inception a combination of a blessing and a curse, of questionable benefits now and in the future. Equally questionable are the dangers inherent in improper use and in the danger of accidents.
People across the country are both attracted and repelled. They are attracted by the benefits provided by nuclear medicine, by nuclear power and by other forms of nuclear research. They are repelled by the very real fears of the accidents that they have seen take place in nuclear power plants in the United States and in the Soviet Union, and more particularly, about the disposal of nuclear waste. They fear that research and development in both the peaceful purposes of nuclear elements and the ongoing improvements to perfect this colossal power will be lost if this power moves out of the hands of a Crown corporation and into the hands of the private sector. To make the nuclear industry acceptable and palatable to the people of Canada, it must be proven that it can be safe and that all humankind will benefit and not be destroyed. With this level of concern among the populace, with this need for close monitoring on the health and safety aspects of the industiy, is this the time to hand over two such crucial components of this industiy to the private sector? No, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is not.
We were told in the Speech from the Throne that certain Crown corporations would be privatized when they no longer had a public policy role to play. I fear that the Government is again fooling us with smoke and mirrors. These corporations still have an important role in public policy. From their operations, it would appear that they will have for some time to come. Surely the development of diagnostic and therapeutic materials is a matter of public concern and one that should not be left to the vagaries of the free market system so beloved by the Government.
Nordion, as we know, is a leading international supplier of nuclear-based products serving the world's health care industry. The Industrial Irradiation Division produces half of the world's Cobalt-60 radiation processing equipment and provides 80 per cent of the world's Cobalt-60. The Division's major application for its Cobalt-60 radiation processing equipment is the sterilization of disposal medical and consumer products such as needles, syringes, sutures, bandages and rubber gloves. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that for my constituents and indeed for the people of Nova Scotia, the fact that a company that has a great deal to do with the sterilization of products such as this is one of great public interest when sadly we see this kind of waste washing up on our beaches almost every day.
Increasing use of this technology to sterilize sewage and waste products promises to be an important factor in alleviating the growing waste disposal problem.
The Isotope Division provides approximately two-thirds of the world's supply of bulk reactor produced isotopes and also provides cyclotron isotopes. The isotopes are used primarily in nuclear medicine for diagnostic tests but are also occasionally used therapeutically.
Theratronics manufactures, sells and services radiotherapy equipment to cancer therapy clinics and hospitals throughout the world. Theratronics produces and sells Cobalt-60 based radiation therapy equipment and computer based cancer therapy planning equipment and software. The company also sells two types of treatment simulation equipment for radiation therapy.
This is a typical case of the Government arguing that these corporations have outgrown their mandate and are no longer effectively implementing the mandate for which they were created. Eldorado Nuclear, originally created Nordion, which was transferred to AECL in
June 2, 1989

1952. Theratronics International also commenced operations in 1946 as part of Eldorado Mining and Refining. It too was transferred to AECL in 1952.
It should be noted that Eldorado Nuclear was nationalized originally to provide a secure source of uranium for the Manhattan Project during World War II. The question which arises, and the question which arises in the minds of many Canadians, is whether or not Government ownership in this sector has been redundant.
Given again a personal note, Mr. Speaker, the feelings of citizens in Nova Scotia regarding the mining of uranium and the entire connection to the nuclear industry, I think this is a pertinent question to be asked. I think it is one that is of great relevance in the field of public policy. This clearly is not a corporation that has outlived its public policy role.
The whole question of security vis-a-vis the nuclear industry as well in the realm of exports has to be looked at. Again we have the question of whether the employees who have been offered an opportunity to purchase Theratronics before it is offered to corporate purchasers, and we have been told that the Government will assist in funding of an independent adviser if requested to do so. The Government will also assist in the funding of a financial adviser to the employees of Nordion if requested, to enable them to assess purchasing the company or buying shares in it. Why are we paying so much to rid ourselves of this company when it appears to be doing quite well?
While the federal Government clearly believes that privatization generally encourages market competition and thereby increases economic wealth, entrepreneurship is encouraged by the removal of political and bureaucratic constraints. It is not at all clear that this is true in the current economic climate. In the case of the sensitivity of the current economic climate. In the case of the sensitivy of the nuclear industry, more Government involvement, not less, should be the ideal in these particularly perilous times.
This idea of privatization is a political tactic rather than a common sense economic strategy. In four and a half years, the Government has sold 13 federal Crown corporations, agencies or subsidiaries.
Nordion and Theratronics


An Hon. Member:: Sixteen.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Sixteen. The reason given to the Canadian public is to reduce the deficit and shrink the size of Government. We are getting used to figures being bounced about one way or another regarding the deficit and it just does not work. Such reasons hide the reality that privatization to date has caused thousands of jobs to be lost and, in some cases, millions of dollars in research and development funds have been handed over, free of charge, to foreign companies. Just ask the former employees of CN trucking about their treatment by Route Canada if you want to know what happens to some people left to the tender mercies of the post-privatization owners. The Government's divestiture process has been long and drawn out, and in some cases, in the middle of bidding, bidders have been caught in cross-fire of competing and conflicting interests. In the case of bidding on Teleglobe, material changes to the policy requirements were made during the course of the bidding which not only damaged the credibility of the process but made it expensive for the Government and the bidders.
Again, costs are going wild. The Government has gone completely overboard in its hiring of advisers, consultants and lawyers, all to rid us of companies that are doing quite well.
In April of 1986, the following advisers were in place, working in whole or in part on the privatization of Nordion and Theratronics, formerly AECL's radiochemical and medical products division: three investment dealers; one legal firm advising AECL/RCC; one management firm, and one accounting firm. Too many cooks in this case might spoil the isotope broth.
Privatization is not the way to reduce the deficit. Many divestitures lead to service reductions for the Canadian public, employment losses, or a poor return on the investment for the Canadian dollar. Each case has to be assessed on its own merits and in the socioeconomic interests of the country as a whole.
Forecasts tell us that left alone, revenues from Nordion and Theratronics will dramatically increase over the next four years, and any profits from these increases should go to the taxpayers who carried the financial burden of these companies during the bad times.

June 2, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
The sole source of Cobalt-90 is Ontario Hydro, which is opposed to any privatization in which Ontario Hydro does not play a role. If the connection is broken between AECL, Nordion and Theratronics customers and suppliers, research could be seriously affected. If changes are made to streamline the decision-making processes in these corporations, there would be no need to privatize them.
The feeling is that once these companies are privatized, the health and safety regulations so crucial to the well-being and the peace of mind of Canadian citizens will not be strictly enforced. The Government will argue that the Atomic Energy Board of Canada, the regulatory body, will more strict when these companies are moved into the private sector. However, will they? What kind of costs will be engendered to make sure that the regulatory body is out there keeping an eye on the industry. There are well-founded fears that the regulatory framework in Third World countries such as India may not be sufficient to maintain the stringent rules and regulations absolutely necessary to avoid accidents.
I mentioned before whether employees can afford to make an offer. Many of them, the employees themselves, express pessimism about being able to purchase whole or even part of these two companies.
A survey among the employees last fall indicated they could possibly raise $2 million, which is a pretty small lever for employees to buy out 100 per cent of one or two of these companies.
I bring up the question of food irradiation, one of the major potential sources of revenue growth for Nordion, but this is a highly sensitive and contentious field. Until the technology is well established and perfected, its ownership should remain in government hands.
The Government is determined to privatize Nordion and Theratronics. I do not suppose that any argument here will change that, even the argument over the safety of the people of Canada and safety in Third World countries where we have a responsibility to act in the best interests of our trading partners, and the over-all safety questions of the nuclear industry in general that plague and worry Canadian citizens should also plague and worry the Minister and this Government.
If we are to see the nuclear industry become the benefit thae nuclear industry, more Government involvement, not less, should be the ideal in these particularly perilous times.t it could be for humankind, we must focus attention on the forms of research and development that will ensure the health and safety of all concerned.
The Atomic Energy Control Board, which inspects and licences systems that cover all aspects of nuclear facilities and controls the packaging, preparation and receipt of radioactive materials, will have to reinforce its inspection branch in order to cope with any increased activity in the private sector.
National Health and Welfare and Transport Canada, which is responsible for the transportation of dangerous goods, and the Minister responsible for the environment will also have to beef up inspection and enforcement of regulations once the responsibility for products produced by Nordion and Theratronics go out of the control of the Government.
There is also a perspective dealing with the workers. The energy workers union had a reaction to privatization of Nordion and Theratronics. That reaction was not a good one. They disagree with the Government's direction to privatize these two companies.
Contrary to statements that employees could be given an opportunity to purchase Theratronics or Nordion, to date the employees have had very little input. There is no set program whereby the employees can purchase Theratronics. Most employees feel that there is little or no chance to purchase Nordion either in a whole or in part. Apparently Nordion had a huge profit last year, a net $23 million, which makes it very attractive for the vultures. The union would not have a fighting chance. The union is also concerned about health and safety problems which can arise with privatization. The employees are also worried about future research at AECL.
Once Nordion and Theratronics are stripped away from AECL, all it will be left with is research. Then the question arises as to how much funding the Government will be prepared to put into research in future. If a fee-for-service approach is introduced, the whole research program could collapse.
Even though the union shares concerns about health and safety, in my opinion, the employees do not have the energy, the ability or the time to resist this privatization with any great vigour. People of Canada need to be protected from acts such as this and not have this

sensitive industry thrown away from Government control and left to develop or misdevelop on its own.
Since taking over the privatization portfolio, my friend the Minister, has not really given us any major indication of what the Government's long-term plans are in the area of privatization. His predecessor on the job, the Deputy Prime Minister, suggested that Petro-Canada- the gas stations and the refineries-might go on the block. Petro-Canada has always down-played that rumour. In the past couple of weeks, rumours are rampant again that the gas stations are going on the block.
The Minister told the meeting of the Cambridge Federal Progressive Conservative Association in April that the Government has sold 18 Crown agencies since 1984. You told me 16.


John Horton McDermid: Sixteen in the whole and two in part.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Thank you. Now that we have our figures straight, that is good. Sixteen and two is 18,1 think. VIA Rail privatization. What plans does the Government have in that direction?
In the fall of 1985 the Government-owned de Havil-land Aircraft of Canada and sold it to Boeing for $155 million. Since the sale, the Government has sunk $30 million into Boeing and are being sued by de Havilland for $110 million.
This is the flagship of the Government's privatization program. The Fifth Estate said: "A love affair gone sour". What is going to happen with the privatization of AECL? What is going to happen with the privatization of segments of AECL, Nordion and Theratronics? What will be the future of the Canadian people when these two nuclear-based industries are out there with the vultures of the private sector and not under the consideration and the care of the Crown corporation acting in the best interests of the people of Canada?
We talked before and will talk again about the health and safety issues. The nuclear industry is one that can bring great benefit to this country.
I did not call them all vultures. Just a few.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mary Catherine Clancy: That is all right. You can say what you will.
Nordion and Theratronics


An Hon. Member:: Yes, you have. You can't get off that one.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Yes, I can. I will wait until you ask me a question. The vultures are here and the vultures are outside. Most of them are wearing blue.
What will happen to the health and safety issues that are of such great concern to the people of Canada when these two companies and their revenues are no longer within the purview of a Crown corporation? What will happen to the future of the nuclear industry? What will happen to the health and safety standards that Canadians have a right to demand from their Government and have been able to demand from Crown corporations in the past? What will happen to a safe development of a colossal power that could be used for the good?
I do not know the answers to these questions. I suggest, sadly for the people of Canada, that the Government does not know either. They are just prepared to privatize at any cost with a cavalier attitude for the future of this industry, for the future of the workers, for the health and safety of Canadians in general. I think it is a shame.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment rather than a question. That was one of the silliest speeches that I have heard in this House in a very long time. The Hon. Member stood up and said that the private sector are nothing but a bunch of vultures. Those are her exact words. What absolute poppycock. What nonsense!
If she was sitting over here with her socialist friends in the little red rump, then maybe I would understand that speech, but I thought she was a Grit. Now we know where she is coming from. It has finally been exposed in this House.
I want to ask her to try to explain to this House why a Crown corporation obeys health and safety standards, are policed by outside agencies which police the private sector as well as the public sector and operate under the exact rules and regulations, what difference is it going to make with them being a Crown corporation?
By the way, these companies are not with AECL and have not been for about year now. They have been a separate corporation for a year under the Canadian Development Investment Corporation, just so that she

June 2, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
understands that they have not been with AECL for some time.
Why would inspection have to be beefed up? Inspection is going on now by these outside organizations such as the Atomic Energy Control Board and so on. If this is her theory, then in fact all inspection that goes on from the Government, whether it be Transport or whether it be health safety standards in hospitals or food or anything else, should be in Crown corporations because it is better controlled there. I want her to try and explain how safety and the health of Canadians is being compromised by the privatization of these two companies.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I do wish that brevity was the soul of wit. However, first, I would ask my hon. friend to check the "blues". I certainly would never cast aspersions on the entire business community suggesting they were all vultures. What I said was "the vultures out there". Gentleman, listen, you might learn something. I said "the vultures out there" and there certainly are vultures out there. With the greatest of respect, I would suspect that some of my hon. friends opposite may be more familiar with some of these vultures than I am myself. If they want to explain about the vultures, they can certainly do so. But for my hon. friends to suggest that I would say that the entire business community are vultures is a colossal misunderstanding and a distortion of my words.
Second, the Minister asks how I can say that health, safety and inspection regulations would have to be beefed up. This is the kind of answer that we would like to get from the Minister. We would like to know what the long-term plans are.
Who is going to buy Nordion? Who is going to buy Theratronics? Who is going to be in charge of these incredibly sensitive companies with incredibly sensitive products that are important to medical research and in the long term important to the over-all health and safety of Canadians? Who are the people going to be? Where are they going to be located? Answer us some of those questions, and tell us who is going to be in charge, who is doing what and how many Americans are going to be rushing in to take over this industry as well?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is interesting to listen to new Members, Mr. Speaker. Crown corporation-Chernobyl, Three Mile Island-private sector. I ask myself which situation was the better investigated, the more open, the more honest and led to more safety changes for the future.
I have sat here for the last two and a half weeks in Question Period listening to suggestions that because the RCMP are paid by federal funds, because distinguished public servants work on behalf of the people of Canada, that there is something wrong with them, that they have no personal ethics, that they cannot do things the right way.


John Paul Manley: They cannot speak for themselves.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Then I hear a speech that says that one agency of government which is to regulate and be concerned about safety will perform its function less well when a private sector organization is being regulated and inspected than it will if it is a Crown corporation being regulated and inspected. We have had two and a half weeks of questions in Question Period about the need of separation of political control and influence and then a plea later on the same day that politicians stay involved in something more than the regulation and safety aspect. Government, run it over here and regulate it over here. Run it over here and inspect it over here. Surely the role of Government is more clearly on the side of regulation, inspection and protection of society. How on earth you could make a plea for the Government of Canada to own a service station in my neighbourhood and state it is an important public function, I will never know. You have been talking about honesty for two and a half weeks. If you want to be honest, stand up in this Chamber and tell the Canadian people what the 18 privatizations accomplished to this point. There are hundreds more people with jobs-


Mary Catherine Clancy: Prove it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thousands of people.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Prove it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Go down and look at de Havilland and Canadair, look at Teleglobe. There are thousands more people with jobs because of the privatization by this Government. Then add up the subsidies that previous Parliaments were sending to those 18 that no longer exist and see how many billions of dollars of debt and interest payments have been saved on behalf of Canadians. Then
June 2, 1989

go to the income tax files and see where those 18 privatized corporations are now paying taxes into the public treasury. More jobs, less expenses, more revenue; that is the Conservative Government's privatization.
If she is honest, if all the last two and a half weeks have to do with honesty, the Hon. Member should stand up and honestly tell Canadians, that is the story of privatization right there.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I thank the Hon. Member for his comments. I am awfully glad to know that the avuncular attitude and patriarchal spirit of the Government is still alive and well across the way. For those of us new Members, it is really nice to know that we can be led so gently by our friends over there.
In so far as the question of honesty is concerned, I would suggest that the Government and the Hon. Member look to his own laurels. He brought up de Havilland. He should look at de Havilland. What an embarrassment for you people.
Now to the question of the jobs that you created, show us. We would like to see it. Show us how well you have done. More important than any of this, more important than the braying of the sheep or the bringing in of the sheaves, whichever you prefer, more important than all the smoke and mirrors that we get from over there is the future of the nuclear industry in this country. More important to the people sitting out there in Canada from coast to coast, from north to south is what you are doing to ensure that their children are protected.
Indeed the majority of the people in this country feel that the protection of the Canadian people is under a Crown corporation, not under your pals who want to make a quick buck on an industry that is not perfected yet. Look to your laurels, gentleman, and look to them fast.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express strong support for the measure proposed by the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs (Mr. McDermid). The divestiture of Nordion and Theratronics is by no means the most significant privatization endeavour of this Government nor, I am sure, the last. Still I am
Nordion and Theratronics
convinced that they can look forward to the same kind of prospects which awaited other Crown corporations which have been privatized: from the moment they are returned to the private sector they can expect new opportunities and a challenging future.
Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively short Bill with a limited number of clauses and provisions. In fact it does not reflect the care our Government gives each such privatization project. So much so that the Bill is only the tip of the iceberg, as it were, because it deals mainly with the implementation of the process. However there are four more stages, and Hon. Members who were in the House during the previous session when similar legislative measures on Air Canada and Eldorado were adopted are already familiar with our step-by-step approach.
The first stage is the preliminary analysis when the Government considers whether a given Crown corporation should be privatized. That is when the role of the corporation-if any- in achieving public objectives is assessed. Should the decision indicate that public ownership no longer serves the public interest, the Crown corporation under consideration undergoes the second stage, close scrutiny. That examination covers a wide range of factors such as national and regional policy objectives, the corporation's financial situation, the competitive climate, the regulatory framework, the employees' interests, as well as the privatization options best suited to that particular situation.
After evaluating all those considerations and identifying the advantages of various approaches, the Government proceeds to the legislative stage, when sales authorization and conditions to be approved are set out in a Bill introduced in the House of Commons. Members then study the Bill clause by clause and legislative questions are carefully examined. During study of the Eldorado privatization legislation, 67 separate questions were discussed, Mr. Speaker.
Another stage of the privatization process is sales preparation. It almost coincides with approval of the privatization plan by the Cabinet and involves preparing the company for its transfer to the private sector. A team of experts including financial advisers and lawyers works closely with the Crown corporation at this stage.

June 2, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
At last, we proceed with the sale. That step completes the sale and transfer to the private sector. Effective implementation depends on the sales method. For example, a public share issue is quite different from a sale to a third party.
Mr. Speaker, all members should understand why that process takes so long. It allows the Government to see to it that all questions are dealt with in a satisfactory manner and that the interests of all parties involved are protected. The interested parties include not only the corporation and the federal Government but also the Canadian taxpayers, as well as the corporation's employees, clients and suppliers.
If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to describe to this House the way the interests of a very important group have been protected in the privatization process of Nordion and Theratronics. I am thinking about the group without which no organization can survive: the employees.
Nordion and Theratronics are relatively small companies, which does not mean that the Government does not give a high priority to the needs and concerns of their employees. Nordion has 387 employees whereas Theratronics has 329. The two companies have 716 wage-earners, a great number of which can probably look after their families, and very well.
The majority of the workers of both companies are in Kanata, Ontario. Furthermore, Nordion has employees at the University of British Columbia and at Laval, in the province of Quebec. Theratronics has sales and service groups in the United States.
In privatizing these two corporations, Mr. Speaker, the Government took some measures to ensure that the interests of the employees of Nordion and Theratronics are well protected. For example, the terms and conditions of employment for all Nordion and Theratronics employees at the time of the sale will continue to apply after the sale.
This includes maintaining the present collective agreements and bargaining agents. I also understand that the unions whose members might be affected by the sale of Nordion and Theratronics are the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents nearly 100 employees in the two companies, and the Energy and Chemical Workers Union, representing 186 employees. These unions will still be free to negotiate on behalf of their
members and to negotiate the future terms of employment that they consider in their workers' best interests.
Mr. Speaker, the Government now recognizes that after job security, employee pension plans are very important for the workers of companies that change status or owner. The employees of Nordion and Theratronics now pay into a Public Service pension plan under the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Under the terms of this Act, the employees will no longer be able to pay into the Public Service Plan when the two companies are privatized. Therefore, the Government will require the purchaser of Nordion and Theratronics to establish a new pension plan that at least meets the standards set by the Pension Benefits Standards Act.
The purchaser will also be required to conclude a reciprocal pension transfer agreement as a condition of the sale. One of the conditions of this reciprocal pension transfer agreement will be that all funds transferred from the plan under the Public Service Superannuation Act will be solely for the benefit of the employees transferred.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement will give the employees of Nordion and Theratronics the option to transfer their accumulated Public Service pension benefits to the new plan to be established by the privatized corporations. Thus, if an employee with 10 years of pensionable service under the Public Service Superannuation Act elects to transfer his benefits, he will have 10 years to his credit under the new pension plan.
Needless to say the federal Government does not intend to force employees to transfer to a private plan the pension benefits accured to them as public servants. After the sale, employees will have available to them a series of options regarding their pensionable service. Depending on their age and the number of years they have to their credit, they can choose the reimbursement of their contributions, payment of an immediate or deferred annuity or the employment continuity option.
As was the case in all corporations already privatized where employees contributed under the Public Service superannuation plan, the enabling legislation provides for a special employment continuity option. For the benefit of Members who do not understand that expression, Mr. Speaker, it allows employees of Nordion or Theratronics to count their years of service in the new privatized corporations as pensionable service to reach the number required under the Public Service superannuation plan. It is a big advantage for the person who is
June 2, 1989

considering taking an early retirement or who intends to return to the public sector later in his career.
Those provisions, Mr. Speaker, will allow employees to use their pension credit in the way that is most appropriate for them, according to their long-term financial plans for retirement.
In fact, one of the other features in most of the privatizations this Government has achieved is sharebuying by employees. That measure proved very popular among employees of privatized Crown corporations because it gives them for the first time an interest in the corporation they work for. For that reason, one of the Nordion sales conditions will require the buyer to give employees the opportunity to acquire a minority interest at a 10 per cent discount.
I would like to point out that Nordion employees are interested in the opportunity to buy all or part of the corporation. This way, the Government offers them the opportunity not only to acquire a minority interest but also to make an offer under the competitive bidding process while getting a 5 per cent discount on the price. The Government already finances the cost of hiring a financial adviser to help employees evaluate their options. In the case of Theratronics, its smaller size and lower market value could make it a good candidate for a takeover by its employees. Employees would then have priority when they make an offer. In addition, the Government is willing to help them develop a proposal by giving them money to hire financial advisers. We don't know yet, Mr. Speaker, if that approach will be successful but it shows that our Government is moving heaven and earth to meet employees' needs and address their concerns.
Mr. Speaker, during discussions on nearly all privatizations that have taken place so far, opposition members have asked the Government to give all employees the assurance of long-term job security.
I would remind Hon. Members that the best job security is a strong and dynamic company with future growth prospects. As evidenced in a number of previous cases, opportunities seem to mushroom once a Crown corporation has been privatized. Canadair would be a
Nordion and Theratronics
good example. Funded by the Government for years on end because the company was operating at a loss, Canadair management have just announced they will make newly designed aircraft and hire hundreds of new workers. That, Mr. Speaker, is good news.
So what about all the gloomy predictions? Why do Members of the Opposition who took the floor to warn that privatizing Canadair would lead to massive lay-offs not rise now to commend the Government for such foresight?
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid any attempt on our part to privatize will never meet with the approval of Hon. Members opposite. But then that is not the purpose of our program. What we are aiming at instead is to make sure that the requirements of the company and its staff are more efficiently met by a more dynamic organization subject to the vagaries of the market.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that, notwithstanding the remarks of Members of the Opposition, the divestiture of Nordion and Theratronics will pave the way towards these objectives.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made a number of references to the workers of these two corporations, saying that they can expect a better deal through privatization. I wonder if that is the case!
Why did the workers of the two corporations go on strike against privatization before the sale, a strike which in the case of Theratronics has to do with wage cuts and reduced benefits? And in the case of Nordion the dispute is related to issues of health, pensions and benefits as well.
The employees of both companies held a strike vote and 95 per cent of them decided to walk out if these problems were not settled.
With all that how can we possibly believe that all workers are indeed rejoicing over this privatization?


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the attitudes or choices of employees in these firms are part of the normal process of working conditions and labour

June 2, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
relations in any business corporation, whether in the private or public sector.
That process is involved in corporations in the private and public sector that have labour agreements, whose employees are subject to the terms of labour agreements that expire every three or four years and are then renewable, and the strike mandate that was given to the negotiating agents who represent those employees in my view are part of the of the normal process of discussing a new labour agreement.
I do not believe, and there is no evidence to that effect, that the strike mandates given to the labour organizations in those firms were directly related to or connected with the privatization proposal.
In the private sector as in the public sector, labour agreements come up for renewal from time to time. Work conditions, safety conditions, retirement conditions, pension fund conditions and the hospital plan are discussed each time they are re-negotiated. And that is in my view a normal process, Mr. Speaker.
I emphasized earlier those labour agreements are not affected. Negotiating agents representing employees in those firms are not affected. Pension funds are protected, and the employees involved would have a number of options to protect their pension fund.
I believe the legislation, the Government's intentions and discussions that were held afford that level of security to employees. And to answer the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), the Government took actions to protect the health, jobs and future of the employees in those two firms.


Mr. Funk:: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest to the debate. In the last year we went through a privatization venture in the uranium industry in my constituency. I refer to the amalgamation and ultimate privatization of the Saskatchewan Crown Corporation, Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation and Eldorado Nuclear, and their operations in northern Saskatchewan.
Many of the similar concerns raised by my colleague, the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and the Member from Halifax, were raised at that time. The same assurances were given. A year later there are 100
permanent lay-offs at Rabbit Lake Mine. While we were assured of no lay-offs, 100 permanent jobs were lost.
There was a commitment that they would keep the community and northern perspective that SMDC and Eldorado Nuclear had, whereby they would guarantee local jobs and benefits for local contractors. It was promised that involvement with the local community would continue.
I had word recently that the office in La Ronge is being closed and the 11 employees who looked after the northern affairs of that corporation are being laid off without being replaced.
In my constituency we have a case in the same industry where 111 people have lost their jobs. The focus that gave benefit to the local community is being eliminated a year after promises that are similar to the ones we are hearing today were made. How can we be assured this process will be any different?


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the concerns of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert-Churchill River (Mr. Funk).
I represent a riding that had to go through the same process with the iron ore mining industry in the 1980s. The price of iron ore dropped considerably and additional and new mines were opened in other countries. That brought competition and a surplus of iron ore on the world market.
The comments made by my hon. friend are in relation to world-wide market conditions. The price of uranium is not the highest at this time, in fact it is probably at its lowest.
One of the companies he refers to is Eldorado Nuclear. It had been doing exploration work in the northern part of my riding as well. Approximately a year ago they suspended all exploration work because the price of uranium did not make it worth-while to keep working on that mine.
We are facing world-wide conditions in the mining industry, specifically in uranium mining. I hope too that those conditions will improve so those people will get their jobs back. I do not think it would have been any different if those enterprises had been in the public sector. The private sector is more adaptive and has more means to take steps in those cases to make the conditions less severe for the people.
June 2, 1989


Steven W. Langdon: In light of the Hon. Member's response, I have a brief supplementary question. He says that all these labour problems are a matter of course in labour-management negotiations. When I discussed these problems with the PSAC representative, Mr. Tom Dinan, he told me quite frankly that they were due to privatization, that, in Theratronics' case, management is trying to reduce benefits in anticipation of privatization. In Nor-dion's case, he said that, because of privatization, there are now problems related to health and pensions, issues of great importance to the workers. I asked him if all these problems actually existed. Does the Hon. Member agree with me that we should wait for a bill authorizing the privatization of these companies?


Charles A. Langlois: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member refers to the employees of Theratronics and Nordion. Fifteen of Theratronics' employees are covered by a collective agreement which is being discussed as he mentioned. In Nordion's case, 86 out of 387 employees are covered by a collective agreement. Consequently, despite their small numbers, these employees are covered by collective agreements.

My hon. friend has referred to reductions in their benefits and discussions leading to possible reductions. I would like to point out to him that for the last four or five years there were reductions negotiated through bargaining and collective agreements in major industries and smaller industries throughout Canada to adapt the working and market conditions as well as the competitive position of these companies to the prevailing market conditions. This is nothing new.
Even if these companies remain in the private sector their responsibility would still be to assure a certain degree of efficiency and economic profitability. The fact that they are to be transferred to the public sector does not change the majority of the benefits of the working people. The Bill in front of us and the discussions carried on by the Government concerning these two privatizations assure these people of their benefits, better jobs and better job security after privatization.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill tells us a great deal about the beliefs on which the Government exercises the trust the Canadian public has placed in it. To be more precise, it tells us a great
Nordion and Theratronics
deal about the lack of beliefs, the lack of values and the lack of commitment to Canada, to and to the people of Canada.
I detect in the Bill, the debate and the history of privatization by the Government a bankruptcy of fundamental values that it brings to the area of public policy. I want to run through some of the ways in which I believe this debate demonstrates a lack of values on which public policy is now based.
First, clearly, the Government does not believe in Canada. It does not believe in government except as a framework in which to serve the interests of commercialization. It does not believe in any sense of national purpose. It seems to have forgotten that this is a nation built on public policy, built on struggling constantly to find the right balance between the public role and the private role and to keep the two in harmony.
Second, it seems obvious that the Government does not believe in the Canadian people getting a return on their investment. Otherwise, why would it be selling off companies that are producing profits, in the case of Nordion to the tune of $23 million per year with the prospect of millions of dollars of increased profits? Up until now those profits have been returned into research, the development of science and of future opportunities for the country at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
Third, the Government appears not to believe in its responsibility to the rest of the world. It is no secret that nuclear technology, with the processes and the products emanating from it, is both a miracle and a curse. It has the ability to do great good in the field of medicine, energy and in domains not yet explored. However, that power is also a power to kill, to do damage. There are dangers in its direct use. There are dangers in the remnants it leaves after its use.
The use of nuclear energy is not simply a question of the good it can do, but a question of its implications for the safety of employees, the safety of the environment and, ultimately, the safety of the world.
The issue has been raised in debate here as to what difference it makes if this technology is in the public domain or in the private domain. The fundamental difference is this-and the fact that the Government has to ask the question makes it clear that it has no understanding of public policy or of public good-Government has as its bottom line the public good. Business, the private sector, has as its bottom line a profit in dollars. That is as it should be. That is why it is finding

June 2, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
the balance between those two interests that determines or should determine the role of government.
I said that the Government does not believe in the responsibility of Canada to the rest of the world. Let me mention just a few examples of that. Canada is in the process of financing the sale of equipment to irradiate food in Thailand. We are very careful in Canada to have in place regulations to ensure that the consumer knows and has the option to choose irradiated or non-irradiated foods. Yet we are prepared to put money into the irradiation of foods in Third World countries without having any concern whatsoever as to whether the people in those parts of the world are similarly protected. We are concerned only with profitability. We are concerned not with the public good of those Third World peoples. I am deeply concerned about the new economic colonialism that this type of practice seems to indicate.
There are many other areas in terms of our responsibility to the world. I refer to the disposal of hazardous wastes and to safe practices in the use of dangerous products, all of which argue for a continued public interest in both these companies.
Fourth, the Government does not believe in respecting and valuing the men and women who work for the people of Canada who have developed many of our greatest institutions. The previous speaker told us what is good for the employees. I prefer to listen to what the employees' representatives tell us is good for the employees. They have issued a press release and a news letter explaining why they are prepared to go on strike if this privatization goes through. They describe it this way: "Members are caught in the middle of a vicious privatization process".


John Horton McDermid: Vicious?


Marlene Catterall: "Yes, employees are being given the opportunity to purchase shares, but only if they agree to a series of take-backs and concessions in their collective agreements. The employer insists on these concessions before any sale or purchase takes place. But the employer refuses to tell the people what their pension entitlements are until after the sale goes through". Is this fair
and equal treatment of employees who should be valued for having produced two profit-making companies within the public domain?
We need only to go back to experiences we have already had. The points made by the Hon. Member opposite sound very much like assurances that were given to the employees of CN Express when it was made into CN Route Canada and then privatized into Transport Route Canada. The Government, the Prime Minister specifically, still has in his possession a request from the people representing those employees for a public inquiry into the bankruptcy of that company. The bankruptcy denied employees benefits, pay and salary that they were entitled to, while the company walked away with $50 million to $60 million worth of property assets bought and paid for by the people of Canada.
The Government failed to respond to that request for an inquiry. It is failing now to consider the interest of its employees. This Government does not believe in research, or why would it be selling off the rights to $23 million, and growing, profits that feed research at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Why would it have stripped space science research as it has done over the last four years? Why would it have stripped environmental research? Why would it have stripped agricultural research? The process continues of undermining science and research which build opportunities for companies and for individual Canadians for the future.
This Government does not even believe in the market-place when it works to the benefit of Canadians. Why is it that Crown corporations are not subject to the same land disposal policy that ensures maximum benefits to the Canadian public on disposition of assets? What are the rules that will apply here? Will it be a public process?
I mention the sale of experimental farm lands in Ottawa West in the last two years. These were lands that were appraised at $5.5 million, sold at $3.5 million. That sale was supported by a subsequent reappraisal that said they were really only worth $1.5 million to start with. Is it not about time that the Government of Canada was
June 2, 1989

forthright in operating in the market-place to the best benefit of the people of Canada?
This Government does not even believe in good management. I am reminded today, and I see the background papers that tell me it is going to be better managed as a private corporation. Why is it that the Government is sitting there and conceding that with an operation in public hands it cannot achieve good management. We saw the same thing with the disposal of Air Canada. We have the President of Air Canada who said: "I can manage this company better as a private company than I can when it is in the public interest." That is a dereliction of duty.
This Government believes in ad hockery. Where is the plan for privatization? Where is the accounting? We now have done 16 plus two-halves privatizations. Where is the accounting by the Government of Canada to the people of Canada, when it is stripping our ability to establish and implement public policy through the privatization of assets for which the people of Canada bought and paid? Where is the accountability to them now, four years into a privatization program, to show them what they have gained from it and what they have lost.
This Government believes in privatization. That is what it does believe in. Without question, without analysis, without accountability, without commitment to employees, without commitment to the public good, it pursues privatization as a religion and a fanaticism almost, to be pursued for its own good, for its own sake and with no commitment to the public good.


The Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments, the Hon. Member.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her remarks. I think that she raised a number of good points. I would just like to add an additional concern which I have about this Bill in the few minutes that remain, and that is what will happen to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited? It has not been mentioned in the remarks or in the briefing.
I notice that these two companies contributed something like 80 per cent of AECLs net income for last year. The question that remains is once this income is removed, what will remain? What does that mean for our policy with respect to the development of peaceful nuclear energy, if we are going to take out the income
Multiculturalism
flow of this company and sell it off to the private sector, as well as the technology and research that has been embedded in this? I think that this is not only affecting these two companies but it is also affecting in a broader sense the capacity of the Government and Canadians to control our destiny with respect to the development of nuclear energy and our Candu reactors which has already been-


An Hon. Member:: The best technology in the world.


Francis G. LeBlanc: That is right. And the Government is withdrawing its commitment to research.


An Hon. Member:: Totally wrong.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Absolutely not.


An Hon. Member:: Show us the Estimates.


The Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. It being 2.06 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Member's Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBER'S BUSINESS - MOTIONS   MULTICULTURALISM PREAMBLE TO CONSTITUTION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, multiculturalism should be recognized as a "fundamental characteristic" of the Canadian nation in the Preamble to the Constitution.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise to speak on my private Member's motion which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, multiculturalism should be recognized as a "fundamental characteristic" of the Canadian nation in the Preamble to the Constitution.
I expect that Members on both sides of the House and indeed the general public will agree with this motion, because it reflects the reality of modem Canada. Our Constitution, of course, should be based on a Canada that was founded by many different nations of aboriginal peoples whose ancestors today are fighting for their rights amidst a pluralistic modem society. They should

Multiculturalism
also be recognized in the Constitution as our founding people.
Canada recognizes the descendants of French and English-speaking Europeans who settled in Upper and Lower Canada and whose languages today are the official languages of Canada. But there is also a Canada where over one-third of the population, probably more now, has come from none of these origins, settlers from all countries of the world who represent many races and cultures, varied religions and languages and who will soon be a majority group in Canada.
My motion today concerns the official recognition of this latter group of Canadians of many cultures, who have made Canada a mosaic of colour and rich diversity.
Over the centuries Canada has become the home of people from every part of the world. People of every race, coming from many nations, believing in many creeds, have chosen to make a better life for themselves and their families in Canada.
Our history is rich with culture from early settlers. The Maritime provinces, long the home of Acadian populations, welcomed Scottish, Irish, German, New England and Black settlers. The Red River Valley became home to French-speaking voyageurs, English traders, Scottish clergymen, Swiss mercenaries, and the Metis people, the result of inter-marriage with the aboriginal people. The Prairies were opened up by southern and eastern Europeans, who came to Canada with the promise of a better way of life. British Columbia became the destination of immigrants from Asia, many of whom worked and even died to build our railways. Canada, as a whole, has received people from all over the world, people who are interested in preserving their cultural identity as can be witnessed by many active ethnocultural communities across the land.
It was not until 1971, however, that the federal Government recognized the ethnocultural variety within the Canadian nation. Political tokenism recognized ethnocultural groups with fine words but little funding. In 1988, our Multiculturalism Act was passed with strong support from all Parties and from ethnocultural communities.
A parliamentary standing committee on multicultural-ism was promised at that time to monitor this Act. Unfortunately, this promise has yet to be fulfilled in this House. A separate Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship will soon be established under Bill C-18.
Multiculturalism means many things to many people. To New Democrats it is more than an appreciation of different cultures, although our cultural diversity makes us a strong, vibrant, exciting country.
Multiculturalism should promote cross-cultural relations and racial harmony in our schools, our communities and places of work.
The primary goal of multiculturalism in Canada must be to achieve real equality for all Canadians in education, employment and all aspects of Canadian society. There must be equal opportunities for people to immigrate to Canada from all parts of this crowded world with fairer access to people from Third World countries. Immigrants must have adequate language training to settle, seniors must not be forgotten, and women must be protected from double discrimination. Visible minority persons must have equal access to jobs and we must remove systemic discrimination in the workplace with mandatory, not voluntary, employment equity.
Multiculturalism must attack all forms of racism with redress for past wrongs and protections for minorities in the present, and from future discrimination. As an example, the Government promised to acknowledge the injustices of the Chinese Head Tax and Exclusion Act and has not done this. There must be appropriate redress for other ethnic communities that also experienced injustices. We have recommended a redress policy.
Finally, multiculturalism should involve a much more conscious promotion in all of us of a Canadian identity which is greater than the sum of our diverse cultures and which supersedes our own particular heritage.
If multiculturalism is to be more than tokenism, we must acknowledge in our Constitution that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our Canadian nation. Our Constitution lags far behind our legislation and the principles and policies that now are legalized in the Multicultural Act of 1988.

Section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to protect minority rights when it states:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Section 27 of our Charter also recognizes our multicultural heritage. It states:
This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
Many of us thought that this would protect minority rights and preserve the multicultural character of Canada. However we share the growing concern of ethnocultural groups that the provisions of the Charter which I have just quoted may be superseded by Section 33, the "notwithstanding" clause of the Charter, which allows the federal or provincial governments to opt out of these obligations to protect minority rights. I quote Section 33(1) which states:
Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or the Legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
Provinces or even the federal Government could opt out of the earlier rights. We are concerned about this.
The Meech Lake Constitutional Accord passed by Parliament in 1987, which has not been approved by all provinces, is seriously lacking in the protection of minority rights. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council has stated their position. They would like to see the following amendments to the Meech Lake Accord either as amendments to the Accord or through a companion resolution having the same force as the Accord: "Recognition of multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic alongside such recognition given to linguistic duality; guarantee that the Charter of Rights will not be overridden by the Accord; revoking the "notwithstanding" clause in the Charter of Rights, section 33, so that governments cannot override the rights of citizens when they choose."
The report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which was entitled "The 1987 Constitutional Accord" contains our NDP position in a minority report which states:
Multiculturalism
We recommend that serious attention be given to section 33 of the Charter (and that) the First Ministers should discuss its possible repeal in the (next round of Constitutional talks).
The minority report also refers to Canadian ethnocultural reality as follows:
During the hearings, the multicultural associations emphasized the reality that one-third of Canadians are of neither English nor French origin. These Canadians have also made an outstanding contribution to our development as a nation. Today they are an integral part of the Canadian mosaic.
The linguistic duality of Canada has now been recognized in the Accord as "a fundamental characteristic of Canada". The report of the committee states that the ethnocultural diversity of Canada deserves further study. We would go further than this, urging early consideration of the ethnocultural reality of Canada as a fundamental characteristic of our nation.
This, of course, is what this motion does. We would also add the recognition of our founding peoples in any Constitutional amendments.
Modifications to the Charter and a review of the Meech Lake Accord are essential to ensure that the rights of minorities are fully protected, that racism in any form is prohibited, and that the multicultural nature of Canada is promoted and enhanced.
In addition, however, it is important that the nature of Canada's peoples be recognized in the preamble to our Canadian Constitution. This requires reference to aboriginal peoples, reference to the two official language groups, as well as inclusion of persons of other ethnocultural origins. It is essential that our Constitution be modernized to reflect the ethnocultural reality of Canada as a basis for making multicultural policies an integral part of our Canadian culture.
I ask Members of this House and the public at large to support constitutional reforms that reflect the principles in my motion today:
That, in the opinion of this House, multiculturalism should be
recognized as a "fundamental characteristic" of the Canadian nation
in the Preamble to the Constitution.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) has introduced a motion that reads as follows:

June 2, 1989
Multiculturalism
That, in the opinion of this House, multiculturalism should be recognized as a "fundamental characteristic" of the Canadian nation in the Preamble to the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, we can hardly object to the underlying principle of the Hon. Member's proposal. And after listening to the Hon. Member enumerate all the people, all the groups that make up the Canadian mosaic, we can only support such a motion, or at least we cannot oppose it. All I hope is, and that is often where the trouble starts: When we start adding up various groups, we always forget a few, and that is often where our discussions on the Canadian Constitution hit a snag. In any case, the multicultural character of Canadian society is one of the fundamental aspects of the founding of this nation.
And in fact, last July the House adopted Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada. The preamble to the Act, apparently the first of its kind in the world, is quite clear.
And whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and is committed to a policy of multiculturalism designed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians while working to achieve the equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada.
That is where it all started, Mr. Speaker, and I remember very well the discussions we had at the time, when we started to talk about the Canadian people, about race, country of origin, ethnic origins, colour and religion-some people mentioned sexual orientation, as they may, since we are in a democratic Parliament. Some people suggested other measures. Finally, after many discussions, we managed to reach a consensus, at least on those points.
The same Bill C-93, Mr. Speaker, also provides that it is the Canadian Government's policy to recognize, among other things, and I quote:
That multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada's future.
Mr. Speaker, I think that as Canadians and Parliamentarians, we may be proud that the Government, Parliament and our legislation went as far as they did to state that multiculturalism is alive and well in our society.
However, the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) asks us to do more, more than just recognize the fundamental characteristic of multiculturalism, which the House has already done. The motion also asks us to enshrine that recognition in the preamble to the Constitution. Earlier, in her speech, the Hon. Member mentioned revoking the notwithstanding clause.
When we refer to the preamble to the Constitution, we mean the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1982.
When we talk about the Meech Lake Accord, its purpose was to bring Quebec back into the constitutional fold. It was not meant as a review of the entire Constitution. Its primary purpose was to bring Quebec back and obtain its signature to the 1982 Constitutional Accord.
When the Hon. Member for Vancouver East talks about adding this to the preamble to the Constitution, we are talking about the preamble to the 1982 Constitution. In fact, during the constitutional talks in 1980, and the Hon. Member is certainly more experienced in this area than I am, because I was elected in 1984, while she was elected well before then, at the time, the intention had been to enshrine in the preamble the great common values shared by all Canadians.
Unfortunately, at the time, govemements failed to agree on the wording of such a preamble or on any other item on the agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you about a personal experience. In 1978, before I entered politics, I had been appointed General Director of a School Board. At the time, people were starting to talk about- In Quebec, Mr. Morin had published a book which insisted that the school system should be used as a vehicle for teaching values. It became very fashionable at the time to insist on the fact that the values conveyed by our education system had to be defined. It was as though people had suddenly discovered the facts of life. Meetings were hurriedly organized and we suddenly discovered that our program of studies were pushing no values. We started working in earnest. When the lobbyists who had pushed for schools with values came to see us, we asked them to suggest something.
June 2, 1989

So we took the "something" they had proposed and we tried to improve on it by consulting people. We started by saying: The first value we should develop in education is quality teaching. That was great! So we started to work on this, so once you have a value, you have to define it. We tried to describe what we felt was quality education. So far so good. But there was another group of lobbyists who said: It is very nice to have quality education, but we should rather say religious quality education. That was another problem. That is when the trouble started. We said: That is fine, but what religion? A quality language education. But what language?
When people start defining things-because while one group was working on quality education, another group was working on religion. Still another group was working on language.
Then, because they did not want to be left behind, the teachers of physical education said: It is all very nice to have quality religious education, quality language teaching, why not also quality physical education? We were stuck and we have been stuck for the past eleven years because we wanted to include all the subjects and all the programs in our definitions. That is where the problem often arises. That is what happened in 1980. When we want to name values, when we want to name multicultural groups, when we want to start defining them, we very often forget some and we leave important items out of this definition. Discussions have been going on for 11 years. Three or four Ministers started to say that we really should define it in a "directive" way, but no one has dared to do so yet.
So after the attempt at unilateral repatriation, the Government of Canada and nine provinces agreed on the 1982 Constitution Act. Nevertheless, when we look at that Act, we see nothing about the nature of the society for which it is the fundamental law. There is no preamble, except in the Charter of Rights which recognizes the supremacy of God and the rule of law. That is the only preamble there is in the law. But the inability to agree on a preamble in 1982 does not mean that nothing has been done to define our basic values. It might be said that instead of starting with a preamble identifying these values, Canadians preferred to proceed in stages, and that is where Bill C-73 came in. In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enshrined and is now a fundamental value shared by all Canadians. The Constitution has also recognized the rights of Canada's
Multiculturalism
native peoples. The objective of promoting and maintaining the multicultural heritage of Canadians was also affirmed in 1982.
The Constitution also recognizes the importance of regional vitality in Canada by committing Parliament and the Government of Canada to respecting the principle of equalization.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, because my time is up, I am convinced that once such an initiative is complete, the process of ratifying the Meech Lake Accord will win over all Hon. Members, including my hon. colleague from Vancouver East. However, without Meech Lake-and I say this to the opposition parties because they are showing signs of weakening commitment in some quarters and even some candidates are starting to say different things-without Meech Lake, Mr. Speaker, the process of constitutional reform will remain blocked because we will never be able to agree on a whole series of worthwhile things that should be put in the preamble.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today in the House to the motion presented by the Member from Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). The question that we must address is whether the House should recognize multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian nation in the preamble to our Constitution.
Canada is a diverse nation with people from around the world choosing it as their adoptive home. We have become recognized globally as a nation that cares about the underprivileged and the troubled. Canada has opened its doors to the world. As a result of the various waves of immigration that have flocked to this country, its face has been permanently changed. At first Canada was home to a diverse array of people who had crossed into North America many thousands of years ago. Aboriginal Canadians have shaped Canada's history and heritage since before the arrival of Jacques Cartier, Champlain or even the Norse that established temporary fishing communities on the shores of Newfoundland.

The following wave of immigration to Canada saw the establishment of French colonies on the East Coast, mainly in Louisbourg, Nova Scotia, in Quebec City and in Hochelaga. They were valiant immigrants who laid the foundations of Canada's French heritage. They were the fathers of French Canadian society, which can be found

June 2, 1989
Multiculturalism
today in all regions of our country. These immigrants worked the land, hunted and fished, in circumstances made difficult by Canada's climate and geography. They laid the foundation on which those who came later would develop and contribute to this country. As part of one of the founding nations of North America, the French pioneers gave Canada its own identity which is unique in the world.
The people of the British Isles provided Canada with its other linguistic dimension. Communities in the Mari-times, Upper Canada, and post-conquest Quebec proved to be of ultimate importance to the evolution of Canada. The British gave this country its political heritage. After all, the institutions of Parliament and the allegiance to the Crown have been given to Canada by its British ancestry.
One cannot separate multiculturalism from the history of Canada. From the outset, we were a country of many different people.
When Canada entered this new century, its characteristics began to change quickly. In addition to the thousands of Chinese who immigrated to Canada to help us complete the CP Railway, there were vast immigrations of Ukrainians, Germans, and Poles. These people were instrumental in settling the western provinces and providing them with a distinct cultural and linguistic heritage.
The arrival of Jewish immigrants from Russia also proved to be an important element in the history of major centres such as Montreal, Vancouver, and Winnipeg. Those people proved to be the lucky ones in that they managed to escape the atrocities of Europe in the 1930s and 1940s.
Canada has opened its arms to those people, and they have had a profound impact on how we view ourselves and how the world looks at us. The potential is there for Canada to be an even better example to the world. We can show that all peoples of all backgrounds can live together in peace and prosperity. It is clear that Canada's
multicultural heritage is an instrumental part of the Canadian experience.
It is for this reason that I feel the motion is worthwhile. The constitution of a country is supposed to reflect the fundamental principles upon which it is built. It is supposed to be representative of the people who live in the country. The entrenchment of multiculturalism in the preamble of the Constitution is obviously in the spirit of the document.
There are several problems with the motion presented by the Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). First, it is not clear where the Hon. Member would like to see the Constitution amended. As far as I can see, it would be inappropriate in the Constitution Act of 1982, or the BNA Act of 1867. In fact, the only place that this would be appropriate would be in amending Section 2 of the Meech Lake Accord to include our multicultural heritage as a fundamental characteristic of Canada. If that is the case then the motion as presented by the Hon. Member would make more sense. In fact, this is the exact position that members of the Liberal Party have taken all along. It was on our list of proposed amendments that we introduced when Meech Lake was before the House of Commons in 1987.
I believe that the Hon. Member for Vancouver East feels that the House should nevertheless adopt this motion because of the positive signal it sends to Canada's ethnic communities, and for this reason I feel it is a productive move. However, I feel as Canadians concerned with the preservation and promotion of our ethnic diversity, we should be concentrating our efforts in other areas.
We should concentrate on promoting greater understanding among ethnic groups in Canada, as well as facilitating the transition of new Canadians into productive and participating citizens. Although the amendment to the preamble of Meech Lake would prove to be a positive symbolic step, it would do little in terms of concrete improvement of ethnic Canadians' standing within our society.
We must work toward the elimination of discrimination in employment practices through a strengthening of the Employment Equity Act. We can achieve greater ethnic harmony through a review of government policy, and through a more effective educational program that will facilitate this end.
June 2, 1989

Section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an historic achievement of the previous Liberal Government, states quite clearly:
This Charier shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
I cannot think of any clearer way of articulating multiculturalism in the Constitution than has already been done by former Prime Minister Trudeau.
In July of last year our Party position was to strengthen this aspect, along with the entire Charter, by eliminating the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution. Through such an action, which I am afraid to say the Government has too small a backbone to do, Section 27 would be greatly enhanced and multiculturalism would become an unimpeded element of the Canadian Constitution.
In conclusion, I would like to say that this motion, although not terribly original, is a move that I feel the entire House can and should adopt. The entrenchment of multiculturalism in our Constitution is a gesture that should be welcomed by Members on all sides of the House.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today states:
That, in the opinion of this House, multiculturalism should be
recognized as a "fundamental characteristic" of the Canadian nation
in the Preamble to the Constitution.
In saluting the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), and in agreeing with her, I thank her for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter this afternoon. Some years ago I had occasion to work in what I believe is the boundary of Vancouver East at West Hastings and Main Street. I think the Hon. Member is extremely lucky to have that area within her riding. The diversity of Vancouver East is something that every Canadian should have a chance to see.
When jogging recently around the sea wall in Stanley Park, I was fascinated to hear that most of the other joggers were speaking languages other than English. I do not know if that is a comment on people who speak English or on the people who do not speak English as a preferred language.


Alan Redway: Or on the people who jog.


David Kilgour: Or on the people who jog, as my hon. colleague says.
Multiculturalism
In South Vancouver I am told that approximately half of the students going into grade one speak a language at home other than English. That, as I am sure the Member will agree with me, shows how important it is to have adequate resources to teach those students or their parents to speak English. Teachers of English as a second language feel extremely strongly about this matter, as I hope all Hon. Members do. All levels of Government must support the teaching of English or French to Canadians by choice rather than birth.
No MP in the House can be unaware of the fact that approximately 38 per cent of our population originate from countries other than France or Britain. I believe in the riding of Edmonton Southeast the percentage is approximately 60 per cent. There are people in that riding from literally every place on earth from Afghanistan to Zaire. I rejoice in that. We benefit from the contribution and the chemistry that is created in a dynamic society such as ours.
I must confess that increasingly the students who are receiving awards are people whose origin is not France or Britain. Last spring the student who received the Governor General's medal at J. Percy Page High School was bom either in Hong Kong or Vietnam, and the second top student was also bom in one of those two places.


Alan Redway: They were both girls.


David Kilgour: I am Sony to tell the Hon. Member that they were both the other sex, the minority sex.
We must all encourage a greater appreciation of the unique diversity of racial and cultural heritage shared by Canadians. It is vitally important that we emphasize what we have in common as Canadians; Canadian values, shared experiences, non-violence, understanding and mutual respect, if we are going to achieve the goals of enhanced harmony and economic prosperity for all Canadians regardless of national origin, religion, or cultural heritage.
Cultural pluralism constitutes a vital part of what it means to be Canadian. Mixing socially and in the workplace by Canadians of many races, cultures, and religions bonded by a common citizenship not only fosters social cohesion and national unity, but also creates a climate in which prejudice and bigotry cannot survive for very long. As an Albertan, I could make the comment that many people have said Alberta has a greater problem with bigotry than other provinces. Let me point out that according to a survey last year, there is

June 2, 1989
Multiculturalism
less bigotry and feeling of racial discrimination on the Prairies than any other part of this country. Like all of us from the Prairies, I rejoice in that.
The number of visible minority Canadians has risen dramatically in major cities in the last decade. It is essential that we provide equal opportunity for them to gain a secure future for themselves and their families.
I am delighted that the new Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia appointed by this Government is someone of origin in Hong Kong and I am delighted that Lincoln Alexander has been appointed by this Government to be Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.
There is a new cultural generation of Canadians. Multiculturalism for them signifies not only pride in personal traditions but also enhanced prospects and opportunities for social mobility and economic security. They are thankfully determined to participate fully in the social, economic and political life of our country. We must help them achieve these goals and develop their full potential. This Government believes in equality of opportunity as a paramount objective of national policy.
Canada has an exciting new feature in multiculturalism policies. We know of the contribution that the many cultural groups have made to the economic and social development of Canada. We must also rejoice in the continuing benefits which flow from the multicultural and multiracial nature of our nation.
Still, too little attention has been paid to the economic dimension of multiculturalism in the past. As a friend of mine, Professor David Bai, has put it: "It is high time that immigrant medical doctors stopped working as unskilled labourers, people with MAs as taxi drivers, and design engineers from abroad as servicemen".
I am extremely pleased about this new growth in multiculturalism as indicated by the motion. Cultural retention remains a very important part of the mandate of any government. The Hon. Member will know that we in the West do not see the issue as being French, English and others. We are all minorities in western Canada and
we have what we call permissive differentiation, respect for each other, which I believe is unique to our part of the country. My friend from Toronto will say that it is unique to his part of the country, but I put it to the Member that we knew what multiculturalism was in western Canada before they even knew the word in Toronto, and probably Montreal.
Their entrepreneurial skills, knowledge and energy will enrich Canadians generally and we intend to ensure that they have improved opportunities to make the maximum feasible contribution in every sector of economic endeavour.
We want to enhance the economic strength of Canada's cultural resources in international trade, the expansion of small business, the development of new products and markets, and the continued revitalization of our country's economy in general.
Much has been done. There is still a great deal to be done. In that spirit, I salute strongly the Member for giving us a chance to speak on this subject today.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise and to this motion No. 293 introduced by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).
What is a nation? What are the aspects that constitute a nation? According to Webster's Dictionary, it is a geography, a physical entity in any part of the world where not only cultural but social, economic and political aspects are considered in that given locality.
It is in this context as we speak today of the Canadian nation, that this Private Member's motion strives to include multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of our nation, that I rise with great pleasure.
The Canadian nation is about the Canadian people, those indigenous in the country, bom here originally, and those who came after, the immigrants-those of French origin, those of English, Ukrainian, Polish, Jewish, Filipino, Indian origin and others. The Canadian nation is bonded together by the sinews of our diversity.
The character of a nation is and ought to be recognized in its fundamental document, its constitution. We have
June 2, 1989

to recognize that all members of our Canadian society have equal rights and equal responsibilities.
The Meech Lake Accord failed to include an amendment from the Liberal Party that multiculturalism be recognized as a distinct feature of our Canadian society. Since the preamble of any constitution in essence can be considered its soul, the multicultural distinctness of our country has to be included and enshrined in this document multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of our Constitution to reassure the eight million Canadians of non-aboriginal, non-francophone, non-anglophone origins that they too are truly part of our great Canadian nation. This is important because multiculturalism is about human dignity. That an individual is honoured, respected, treated and even asked to serve irrespective of race, colour, creed and any physical characteristic.
Multiculturalism is about tolerance, that others not only should allow everyone to pursue his or her own individual aspirations, it should be allowed to be pursued notwithstanding differences in appearance, accent and traditions.
Multiculturalism is about employment equity. It is about affirmative action programs. Affirmative action programs are based on the principle that merit is the basis for employment, irrespective of colour, creed and physical characteristics. Regrettably, today we still see bases of inequities in the Public Service.
The Public Service Employment Act still gives preference to Canadian citizens and not quite equally to landed Canadian immigrants. I submit that immigration is the beginning of citizenship and the privileges of employment should be given to the landed immigrants equally with Canadian citizens.
Multiculturalism is also about equal access to affordable housing and it is also about human rights. Therefore, it was a great disappointment when the Government, despite its proclamation that it is committed to multiculturalism, saw fit in the Budget to reduce the budgetary allocation for multiculturalism. I had hoped that the Government would have introduced a Budget that would allow the growth and strengthening of multiculturalism.
Hence, this Private Member's motion by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East is a signal to us that yes, we
Multiculturalism
must work together as a unified House so that we may promote social harmony, for we are all Canadians in a great Canadian nation. I salute and thank the Hon. Member for Vancouver East in introducing this motion.


Mr.   Maurice@: Mr. Speaker, we have now before us a motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) calling upon the House to ask for the recognition of multiculturalism in the Constitution!


Mr. McGuire:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on as point of order. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of the Speaker of the House of Assembly of Prince Edward Island, Mr. Edward Clark. With Mr. Clark is Douglas Campbell and his mother. Douglas just received the Medal of Bravery this afternoon and last Monday Mr. Clark received 77.5 per cent of the popular vote in his riding.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. TVemblay (Lotbiniere):: You have said this is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accepted the Chair's suggestion that I cut my speech short, but if Opposition Members want to nibble at my time, you will understand that although I am pleased to extend that courtesy to the House, I would like to have enough time to make my points clearly.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, we have now before us a motion by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East calling for the recognition of multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristics of our Canadian society.
Multiculturalism, Mr. Speaker, for the Hon. Member's information, is a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. It is in Quebec as well as in Ontario or British Columbia. Last year, for instance, this House unanimously approved the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, thereby emphasizing that multiculturalism per se is a fundamental characteristic of our society. That Act recognizes the pluralistic nature of our society and points to this Government's commitment to ensure the conti-bution and participation of every Canadian.

Multiculturalism
Wherever you go, whether it is Montreal, Vancouver or Winnipeg, you will find concrete signs of the importance of muticulturalism in our society. Canada was not built in a day. Our realities are not carved in stone; rather, Canada is a society forever growing! It grew with each new generation, each new wave of immigrants that came here to find a new kind of freedom. It grew because of the experience, customs and values they contributed. It grew, learned and developed socially and economically because it is an open society.
Mr. Speaker, this is what we should and will continue to do if our society is to improve. In my own province of Quebec, some people don't quite understand the advantages of a multicultural society and refuse to contemplate, accept and enjoy those advantages. Canadian society is not perfect. It is not immune to prejudice and discrimination. It is questioned by all those who, throughout Canada, would like to go back in time.
Mr. Speaker, some people consider diversity a weakness rather than a strength. They believe that, to be a true Canadian, you must assimilate. They feel threatened by our modem pluralistic society.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you and all other members in this House that if that attitude had prevailed in the past, the Canada we know would not exist today. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the principles entrenched in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, including the principle that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our society, are among those which have sustained Quebec and allowed it to preserve its uniqueness.
Mr. Speaker, the values and principles underlying the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the notion that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our society, are some of the traits that distinguish Canada from its American neighbour. I cannot see how Canada could survive in an American ocean without the vibrant dimension which French Canada gives it. It is French Canada, it is the fact that we, as Canadians, have built a bilingual and multicultural society, that fundamentally distinguishes our country from the United States. I cannot imagine Canada not respecting its multicultural diversity-
Mr. Speaker, getting back to the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) I say to her, as a Quebecer: Let us first finalize the Meech Lake Accord, and then we can consider the next series of constitutional changes. Her motion, although well meaning, is inappropriate. We should undertake now to bring the federal family together and Quebec back into the fold as a proud and full-fledged partner. Let us now ratify the Meech Lake Accord!
Mr. Speaker, this is the message I should like to convey to the Hon. Member, for we have an opportunity, with the Meech Lake Accord, to work together and build a Constitution made-in-Canada which truly reflects our identity.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) as well as her Liberal provincial colleagues in Manitoba and New Brunswick not to delay dally any longer, and stop opposing the century old dream of Canadians for a unique Constitution based on participation. With the full and enthusiastic participation of Quebec, we could all get together and create a complete constitutional framework which would reflect the best elements of our Canadian society.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on the motion of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). I come from a small town in Saskatchewan called Domremy, the namesake of the place where Joan of Arc was born in France. The basic population of the community is French. Some of my neighbours were the original people of Canada.
My parents came from Norway as children and later became Canadian citizens. The type of communities in which we live in western Canada are already multicultural communities. In Canada we decided not to become a melting pot like the nation to the south of us decided to become, but to recognize the differences of the people when they came to Canada as well as the culture of their original nations.
Saskatchewan is the only province in Canada where more than 50 per cent of the population is neither French nor English. In other words, as the Hon. Member from Edmonton pointed out, every group in Saskatche-
June 2, 1989

wan is a minority. We decided to become a mosaic rather than a melting pot.
I want to deal for a moment or two with the history of multiculturalism in western Canada. We went through a period of a great deal of friction, a great deal of confrontation between specific cultural groups. We solved that problem, sometimes with a great deal of difficulty. This gave us an acceptance of multiculturalism. Most of the immigrants who came to the West settled into communities and spoke their original language for a good portion of the time. If one travels to Saskatchewan now, one will see that in the West there are still communities in which the people speak German, Norwegian, French or Italian.
We made the adjustment. It was somewhat difficult for western Canada when suddenly one of those groups became more equal than the rest of the groups. It received a great deal of assistance for its culture. We must recognize that culture is very closely related to language. The people of that group received a lot more assistance for their culture as a result of the bilingualism decision taken by the Government of the day.
Western Canadians recognize the founding structure of Canada. They recognize that this was a good reason for having a bilingual country, and a good reason for leaving it that way. However, they do not have and did not have the protection or the recognition that they needed. There was a great movement when the Constitution was brought before the country in 1982 to make it a multicultural Constitution. That Constitution was accepted and we have a recognition of multiculturalism there. I agree with my colleague for Vancouver East, that it would strengthen the position of multiculturalism in Canada if we recognized it in the preamble of the Constitution. I would gladly sit down, Mr. Speaker, if I thought that this would come to a vote.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware that we started this debate at 2.06 p.m. and I assume we would be going to that time. I wonder if my friend could have a few more minutes if he wished.


The Deputy Speaker:: What I did, for the information of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East, as I have had many requests from speakers to speak today, is I have
Multiculturalism
taken the last 15 minutes and divided it up with as many speakers as I could. That is why I have asked the Member for Saskatoon-Humbolt to speak for five minutes. That is why, in that sense, his time has expired. He has agreed to that.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy, if this House and everyone who has spoken agrees with it, that we would stop a minute before the end of the debate and allow this motion to come to a vote, and consequently, in the opinion of this House, inform the Government that we do think it should be in the Constitution.


Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assini-boia):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to participate in this afternoon's debate, to consider the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East, to the effect that the phrase, and I quote: "multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society", be included in the Constitution of the country.
I know that I am joined by every Member in this Chamber, when I say that all of us recognize that Canada is a land built by the contributions of people from all comers of the globe. Indeed, the noted economist Barbara Ward has said that Canada is the first international nation.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, last year this Parliament unanimously approved the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. That legislation was led through this Chamber by the Hon. Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship, the Member for Pierrefonds-Dollard (Mr. Weiner).
Unanimous approval is not something which we give in this place very often. That it was given in this case shows to me the extent to which Members from both sides in this House, and indeed Members from both sides in the other House, came together to recognize the importance of the parliamentary statements that are contained in that historic piece of legislation.
I would also like to take a moment to remind this House of the co-operative and conciliatory way in which the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was passed through this Chamber. The record is clear, the Government sought to develop and nuture a consensus, and it listened as it promised it would. It made changes to make the Act the best possible one, as it promised it would.

Multiculturalism
In considering this debate on the motion of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East, it is instructive to examine carefully the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, its Preamble, and its historic Section 3 which embodies the world's first national legislated multiculturalism policy, a policy which is light years in advance of that merely administrative instrument that the previous Liberal Government introduced in 1971, and did not change for some 14 years.
What strikes me about the Canadian Multiculturalism Act that we here in Parliament affirmed was the importance of multiculturalism in our society. We affirmed that our recognition of multiculturalism was founded, indeed rooted, in our constitutional framework, in the Statutes of Parliament and in several international conventions and instruments. I found at the end of the Preamble of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act a very ringing affirmation of how this House feels about multiculturalism. I think that we would all share this today. I would like to take a moment to read it if I may.
The last clause reads:
And, whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society, and is committed to a policy of multiculturalism designed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians while working to achieve the equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada.
These are very moving words. Members may be aware that they came, interestingly enough, from an amendment brought to this place by the then Member for Thunder Bay, Mr. Epp, on behalf of the New Democratic Party and accepted without change by the Government. I want to emphasize those words "a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society."
I would further want to turn to Section 3 of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Section 3.1(b) reads:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity, and that it provides an invaluable resource for shaping Canada's future.
You are indicating that we have time problem, Mr. Speaker.
Parliament has spoken. Multiculturalism has been recognized by Parliament to be a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. All Members who were here made that affirmation together.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I just want to get to the heart of the matter. The motion by the Hon. Member from Vancouver East is about amending our Constitution. It is a motion about the next phase of the evolution of the Canadian Constitution. I think surely that Meech Lake has to come first.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 3.06 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.1.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.06 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 5, 1989