1989-12-12

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to 161 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table today 25 petitions signed by people of the riding of Ottawa-Vanier, people who object strongly to this government's proposal to impose a goods and services tax, whether it is 9 per cent, 7 per cent or any per cent.
The federal Conservative government wants to impose this tax, which will be hidden from Canadians and applied to just about everything they buy.
In the petition, these constituents insist, that the imposition of this new general goods and services tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle income Canadians and that the tax will create an onerous burden on small business.
On behalf of these Canadians who strongly oppose this new goods and services tax which, in their opinion, is an unprecedented tax grab from their pockets and will hit them not only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment, the
undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject this proposed goods and services tax. [Translation\


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my privilege today to present a petition rejecting the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas. Your petitioners, who represent the isolated community of Lebel-sur-Quevillon in Abitibi, are concerned about the recommendations in this report which may cause many workers to leave these isolated communities. They believe that the Government of Canada has refused to consider the fact that people in the north live in a harsh and isolated environment and that the cost of living is high.
Mr. Speaker, according to the disparity index for 84 isolated communities in Quebec in 1989, Lebel-sur-Quevillon ranks 70th and Fermont 81st.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I have one more petition. Today it is my privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition rejecting the proposed goods and services tax, especially on skating expenses. Your petitioners, who represent the communities of Malartic and Riviere Heva, are concerned about the heavy financial burden that the proposed tax will put on the families of young athletes, and they ask Parliament to designate skating lessons as an educational service and thus exempt related costs from the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and on behalf of hundreds of British Columbians, I wish to present a petition signed mainly by citizens of Port Albemi, British Columbia, and collected during our visits to British Columbia, explaining to Canadians what exactly the goods and services tax is all about, a hidden tax on virtually everything they use, everything they buy, a tax that whether it comes in at 3

December 12, 1989
Routine Proceedings
per cent, 5 per cent, 7 per cent or 9 per cent, will undoubtedly go the route of the same tax that was introduced in New Zealand at 10 per cent and went to 12.5 per cent.
On behalf of British Columbians who oppose the goods and services tax, I want to present this petition to the House.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36 to present petitions to this House. I have three petitions from my constituents who strenuously object to the proposed goods and services tax and call upon this House to reject this unfair burden.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to table on behalf of the residents of Hyde Park, Ontario, who avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a common grievance in the certain assurance this honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
Mr. Speaker, 270 people signed this petition and they call upon this Parliament to instruct Canada Post to continue to maintain the Hyde Park post office as a federally operated post office and reappoint a permanent postmaster to this position.
I present this petition on behalf of these people who are concerned that the government plans to privatize the post offices across Canada which will effectively close down and destroy the small towns and villages of this nation.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by 32 petitioners from Lumsden in the northern part of my riding.
These constituents are concerned that the Government of Canada is proposing to dramatically cut unemployment insurance benefits by making it more difficult to qualify, and reducing the number of weeks covered. They are also concerned about the negative effect this is going to have on job development strategy and the community infrastructure in their riding. They are concerned that the Government of Canada is proposing to
withdraw a contribution of $2.9 billion to the unemployment insurance fund.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these cuts in the unemployment insurance system.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give wholehearted support to a petition against the goods and services tax. These petitioners from Grand Bank, Lamaline and Red Cove and many other communities in Burin-St. George's now join the hundreds of thousands of people who have already signed petitions on this issue.
The prayer of the petitioners is that Parliament will reject the proposed goods and services tax. I wholeheartedly support it and ask members to give heed.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by a total of 409 Canadians, almost all of whom are resident in Alberta and many of whom are resident in Edmonton.
The petitioners believe that the clawback action might well be unconstitutional, that it is unfair as those with similar income are taxed differently. It is discriminatory on the basis of age and marital status and it destroys the credibility and trust that Canadians have in their government. The petitioners pray that the budget proposal to claw back payments under the social programs, old age security and family allowances be withdrawn.
With these 409 names added to the literally thousands I have presented before, it brings the total to over 11,000 names against the clawback I have presented in petition to this House.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present petitions on behalf of petitioners from Prud'homme, Alvena, Biggar and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, who call upon the government to reject the current proposed goods and services tax. The petitioners point out that they want the government to ensure that if and when there is a broad public consensus on the sales tax measure to replace the manufacturing sales tax, this reform should not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab. They call upon the government to not proceed with the goods and services tax.
December 12, 1989


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present to Parliament a number of petitions duly signed and certified pursuant to Standing Order 36. Thousands of the residents of Aurora, King City, Richmond Hill and Vaughn, workers, senior citizens, students, businesspersons, people I meet in factories, shopping centres, train stations, schools and at town hall meetings strongly oppose the proposed 9 per cent goods and services tax.
The residents of York North are against this tax that will bring about higher inflation, increased unemployment, higher interest rates and will be a nightmare to administer.
On their behalf, I urge this Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present three petitions from my constituency of Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke dealing with the 9 per cent goods and services tax. These petitioners are from Pembroke, Petawawa and other communities throughout eastern Ontario. I also have another petition covering a good many communities in New Brunswick.
The petitioners ask the government not to introduce the 9 per cent goods and services tax. They feel that with the 31 increases in taxes which this government has brought in already, and this being a major one, the thirty-second one, that enough is enough. As well, they feel that this is going to be a great burden on small businesses to administer and indeed it will, so they are petitioning the government not to go ahead with this tax and to take a second look at its policies.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 with two petitions signed by some 56 persons from the constituency of Kootenay West-Revelstoke. The petitioners reside in Revelstoke, Trail, Castlegar and
Routine Proceedings
also other parts of British Columbia, such as Golden, Victoria and Kamloops.
They point out that the forests of Canada sustain an industry which employs, directly and indirectly, more Canadians than any other industry. They also point out the valuable work that has been done during the term of the present agreement and encourage the Parliament of Canada to renew this important agreement with British Columbia, thereby providing for a renewed commitment to restocking our forest land, advancing forestry research, promoting silviculture and assisting the forest industry in developing the new products and markets that will provide us with forestry jobs in the future.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, six petitions on behalf of residents of Grand Forks, Christina Lake, Greenwood, Midway and Beaverdell in the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. These petitions contain 878 names.
The petitioners call on the government to take another look at the goods and services tax, ensure that if and when there is broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, that the government should not use this as an opportunity to impose a massive tax grab. They ask the government to cease with a proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically present to the House today a petition that is entitled "Help Save the Rouge".
The Rouge Valley is 5,000 acres of beautiful wilderness land in metro Toronto. A very important point about this valley is that there is a component of farmland within it that some of the members have not heard about recently. This farmland needs to be preserved because it contains the headwaters of the river itself. So its preservation is very much a part of preserving the valley.

December 12, 1989
Government Orders
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada, which has already committed $10 million to this project, to work with the province of Ontario to establish a Canadian heritage land or a provincial park in the Rouge Valley system in Scarborough.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or practice
of the House, for the purposes of consideration and disposition of
Bill C-49, An Act to provide for the resumption of certain
government services:
1)	there shall be, following the adoption of this Order, one day for the report stage and one day for the third reading stage of the Bill;
2)	on each of the said days, at 15 minutes before the time normally provided as the conclusion of Government Orders, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceeding then under way and shall put forthwith, successively and without further amendment or debate, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the Bill; provided that if any such day be a Monday, Tliesday, Thursday or Friday, Private Members' Business shall commence, and continue for one hour, immediately following such proceedings; and
3)	following such hour of Private Members' Business or, on other days at the conclusion of proceedings on Bill C-49, as the case may be, the Speaker shall adjourn the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I was late getting from committee into the Elouse for the vote.
Had I been in the House I would have voted in favour of the motion.
Government Orders


NORDION AND THERATRONICS DIVESTITURE AUTHORIZATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 4, consideration of Bill C-13, an act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratron-ics International Limited, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 1.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hon. member for Burin-St. George's had the floor on debate. I would like to recognize the hon. member for Burin-St. George's on the great speech I know we are going to have this afternoon, but it is pretty difficult with members still holding conversations in the chamber.
Would members holding conversations please go behind the curtain.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying when I was interrupted some days ago, this particular resolution, this amendment by my colleague-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Will hon. members who are having conversations please move behind the curtains. Order, please. The hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke put down a number of motions and of course this particular one would have us change the legislation so that some royalties would be collected from the two companies to be privatized, Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Limited, and that those royalties would be directed back to AECL.
There is a very good reason for that amendment. The people of Canada, the people who own those two companies through AECL which nurtured them in the early years before they improved their bottom line, ought to be the benefactors during some of the good times.
My colleague and I, and all my colleagues here in this caucus, do not think it is fair ball now to take those two companies and put them into the private sector without, in the process, providing some return to the people of Canada on the investment that they put into these two companies over the years. AECL could do with the

Government Orders
royalties and it could continue, in turn, to do the kind of work that it has been doing so well over the years.
There is another issue that needs to be addressed while we are talking about the old matter of privatization of those two companies. It is an issue that has come up in pretty well every legislative committee that we have had in this particular session of Parliament. That issue is the government's determination not to hear opposing views on the legislation.
My colleague and I, together with one member from the NDP and several from the Tory side, sat as a legislative committee on Bill C-13. It is a bill which has many ramifications. In its simplest form it would just privatize two companies, but that says it much too simply.
In the process it would put in private hands matters relating to food irradiation, for example. Across this country there are many people who have very legitimate concerns about the issue of food irradiation. We on the committee from this side of the House wanted to call some people who could enlighten the committee in terms of their concerns about food irradiation. My colleague and I had taken the step of being in contact with many people who wanted to appear before the legislative committee on Bill C-13.
They wanted to come and tell us, those who represent the people of Canada here in this place, some of their concerns: their safety concerns, their health concerns. People from the Canadian Cancer Society wanted to come and talk to us about the nuclear medicine issue which arises from this particular subject, for example. Do you know what the Tories did in that particular case? They did what they are doing in every single case without exception.
This is the same crowd which back in 1984 brought in some new rules to give members of this House a fuller opportunity in committee to ensure that legislation would be properly scrutinized. It would give a greater role for individual members from all across this country, yes, but in the process it would give the committees a greater role and, more to the point, it would better serve the Canadian people by ensuring that the legislation
proposed in this place which receives first and second reading is properly scrutinized in detail, clause by clause, before it comes to third reading and passage in this chamber.
That was the theory but something went wrong along the way. The government lost its commitment on this issue or, more to the point, decided it did not need the niceties of a committee procedure. So it now sends to committees its mobile gang, its group of parliamentary terrorists, almost, who come in every day with plugs in their ears and shut down the committees one by one, whether it is the committee addressing the question of clawing back seniors' pensions, the committee on Nor-dion, or any other committee for that matter.
I realize my time has run out so quickly, but there will be other opportunities. I appeal to all members of the House to do in this chamber what we were not allowed to do in committee because of the Tory majority: to say our piece, to express our concerns about nuclear medicine, about food irradiation and the other issues I would have got into had there been time.
Later in the day when we get to other amendments we will be up again, as I hope will every member of this chamber who shares these concerns.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, briefly on the amendment introduced by my friend from Renfrew-Ni-pissing-Pembroke, there has been a number of things raised in the comments on his amendment, the first being that we are trying to rush things through.
On March 4, 1988, almost two years ago, it was announced that Nordion and Theratronics would be divested from AECL and privatized. For the next year the work was done on these two companies to get them in shape for privatization. I had the privilege of introducing the legislation in this House on May 4, 1989.
At that time we had first reading. We went into second reading in June. The bill sat over summer, of course, and got into committee in October. I appeared before the committee and spent a considerable amount of time with my colleagues in committee answering their questions. I understand there were then motions in committee to put a time limit on the debate.
December 12, 1989

We are opposing this particular amendment, as my friend knows. I have chatted with him privately in this regard. AECL's future and its future funding is not related to the sale of Nordion and Theratronics in any way. I want to make it very clear that Nordion provided a very minor amount, I believe it was less than 5 per cent, of the funding for AECL. That is a separate issue that the minister of energy will address and is addressing at the present time, both the research and the development end of the Candu III, which we have heard a lot about and so on. Those statements will come from the minister of energy at another time and will be separate from what we are talking about here.
I must also comment on a couple of things that were said by my friends in opposition. One was that privatization is a Conservative ideology, that the Conservatives are hell-bent for election on privatization, and that it is strictly a Conservative bent.
If people look at what is going on in the world today they will see that communist countries are privatizing, socialist countries are privatizing, Liberal governments and countries governed by Liberals, God bless them, are privatizing, and Conservative governments are privatizing.
It is obvious that these various types of governments around the world have realized the benefits of corporations being held in private hands and run by the private sector, that in many instances these corporations can be better run and have better opportunities.
I wanted to make that point. I also wanted to point out that Nordion and Theratronics, being successful companies, will now be paying taxes to the federal coffers. We expect them to do extremely well in the private sector, so we would have to oppose this particular motion because AECL's funding requirements are not going to be solved by Nordion and Theratronics.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member
Government Orders
for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 5 by
(a)	striking out line 20 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"5.(1) Nordion and Theratronics shall prepare articles of"
(b)	striking out line 27 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"subsection (1), Nordion and Theratronics shall send the ". Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 6 by
(a)	striking out line 35 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"dion and Theratronics shall contain provisions imposing con-"
(b)	striking out line 38 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"Nordion and Theratronics to prevent non-residents, together"
(c)	striking out line 2 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"elect the directors of Nordion and Theratronics."
(d)	striking out line 7 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"Nordion and Theratronics as if the constraints imposed pursu-"
(e)	striking out line 38 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:

December 12, 1989
Government Orders
"that relates to voting shares of Nordion and Theratronics;"
(f)	striking out line 43 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"Nordion and Theratronics; or"
(g)	striking out line 10 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"shares of Nordion and Theratronics held or to be held by the"
(h)	striking out line 26 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"securities register of Nordion and Theratronics that any"
(i)	striking out line 32 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"Nordion and Theratronics and two thousand such votes, that". Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-13 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 5 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. Nordion and Theratronics and their shareholders and
direc-".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious debate that we are having on these two Crown corporations being privatized. The minister said that the sale of Nordion International and Theratronics International is not going to solve AECL's financial problems because I believe Nordion has been directing only 5 per cent of its revenue toward AECL in the immediate past.
I want to point out to the House and to all Canadians that that is 5 per cent more than this government has been willing to give. I also want to point out that Theratronics and Nordion together have had for 45 years taxpayers' money invested in them. The minister says that these companies are going to make a return to the taxation department of Canada because when they are privatized they will be paying taxes to the Government of Canada. That is nothing new. Every other company that starts from scratch pays taxes into the public Treasury of Canada.
But where are these two companies starting from? They have their factory in place. They have their sources of material in place. They have their marketing in place out there in the world. They have their technicians already in their plant. They have their engineers. They
have their specialists. They are starting from an ongoing successful operation.
The minister says that if we do not do this we are not going to give anything in return to the taxpayers of Canada. Both of these companies are predicted to grow considerably in the next few years.
The minister just said that everybody around the world is privatizing. Privatizing is one thing; the method of privatizing is another.
A large source of isotopes have been coming from the NRU reactor and the Chalk River nuclear laboratories. That NRU reactor is ageing. It will require repairs and indeed replacement. The Maple X reactor for the production of isotopes is still not on stream, and we do not know the time frame of when it will be coming on stream.
These amendments dealing with Theratronics were moved because there are no foreign control guarantees built into this bill. Nordion has a protection in this bill from foreign control. Theratronics has nothing. They have left it wide open because they want it to be flexible for investors.
We in this House all know what is going on today under the free trade agreement. We know what is going on in this particular case. If you are not going to put any controls on, then you must be looking for foreign investors. Are we going to stand idly by and allow this government to sell a Crown corporation off without any foreign controls on it after the taxpayers of Canada have brought that company to where it is today? There is an obligation here to deal with the taxpayers of Canada.
We hear often that when people buy things under privatization they have a right to profit, and that is quite true. Otherwise they cannot operate. If the taxpayers of Canada have an investment, should they not also have a return the same as any business?
The money for the sale of these two companies will be paid directly, as came out in the committee hearings, to AECL; but there is no guarantee that money is going to be left with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The government has already shown its hand. It has cut research and development by 50 per cent or $100 million in the 1985 budget of the Mulroney government. They lifted $70 million out of the reserve fund of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

When these companies are sold and the money paid to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited there is absolutely no guarantee-and this was said before our committee-that that money is going to remain there. They can lift it out and put it into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and heaven knows where it goes from there. We are into the ways and means of doing things here. The taxpayers of Canada are the ones who are going to be the losers.
AECL has had many years of research and development since 1952 on cancer research, Theratronics deals with the cobalt therapy unit for the treatment of cancer and all other related equipment. After 45 years of research, how can we tell a Crown corporation as large as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited today that it is going to be sold?
At a time when we are criss-crossing this country asking Canadians to donate money to the Canadian Cancer Society, we are going to sell off this program which has developed so much specialized treatment, R and D for cancer, to private enterprise with no return whatsoever to the parent organization. We say that this is wrong.
What is going to happen if Theratronics cannot be brought together under a Canadian ownership umbrella? "We are going to have a very flexible agreement or arrangement" says the government "in order to provide funds and provide buyers for Theratronics". Flexibility can mean that any American company, British company and so on can move in, buy up this Canadian taxpayer sponsored company and either stop production or take what they need to add to their own specialized product and Canadians no longer have control of it. There has to be control factors in here on both these operations.
That is the purposes of Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Your Honour will notice that there is a whole host of changes in the bill. It simply means that wherever Nordion is mentioned in the bill-and there is protection built in for Nordion-we have applied through these amendments the same protection for Theratronics International on the production of cancer therapy units and related cancer equipment as we have in the Nordion company which produces the medical radio isotopes and irradiation for the industrial community. We feel very strongly about this point.
Government Orders
I want to make one comment before I sit down. I was very anxious to have the Canadian Cancer Society before the committee, but we all know what happened. Without even having one witness, not a single witness outside the presidents of the companies, the two unions of the companies, this government with its majority members in the committee and with the Minister of State for Privatization's legislative assistant sitting behind those members in the committee room, they moved a motion that witnesses not be heard and that we move clause by clause on the bill and report the bill back to the House. This government did not want the people of Canada to know what asset it was selling off. It did not want them to know that it is selling off and privatizing two companies which have done more for the treatment of cancer in this country than any other government agency, and at a time when we are asking people to donate to the Cancer Society of Canada.
I resent the fact that the government has run roughshod over the committee system in the House of Commons. This is only one example of it. Members of the government say that they are getting a hard time with this bill on the floor of the House. What can they expect if they are not going to let Canadians have their say before the committee and if they are not going to have any input from the members of parliament concerning the witnesses whom they want to appear before the committee? It is a good educational matter for all members of parliament and for the Canadian public to know what this government is selling off, to know what assets of ours it is selling off to private enterprise. It is not like any other company paying taxes. This company has all its organization in place from square one and it just takes off and buys a profit-making company.
Meanwhile the parent organization, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, will probably end up getting no return for the 45 years of research that has gone into that company. At the same time this government is saying to that Crown corporation, AECL: "You pay your own way because we are not going to give you any more money. You pay your own way, AECL, but we are going to sell off all your profitable assets". What kind of arithmetic and what kind of business planning is that? That is not business planning at all. That is selling off to your friends

Government Orders
and looking for support. You are killing R and D in this country by doing this.
To say that privatization is the only way to go-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I have given him an extra couple of minutes. Is there unanimous consent to give him extra time?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a subamendment to Motion No. 3, section (b), which would strike out lines 38 to 43 and add the following:
"with the associates thereof, from holding, beneficially owning or controlling, directly or indirectly, otherwise than by way of security only, in the aggregate voting shares to which are attached more than 25 per cent in the case of Nordion and more than 49 per cent in the case of Theratronics."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will take the subamendment under advisement. We will continue with the intervention of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has very clearly put before the House a serious gap which exists in this piece of legislation as it presently stands.
The logic of the government tells it with respect to Nordion to move ahead and put a 25 per cent restriction with respect to foreign ownership on this company. There is, however, absolutely no restriction with respect to Theratronics.
Theratronics is, in my view, in a slightly different category than Nordion. Nordion is a company which has shown an expansion over recent years which is quite dramatic. It is in a field in which the products which it produces are moving ahead with an ever-widening market evident before it. To talk about a 25 per cent restriction is sensible. It is very much consistent with what this government claims to be its commitment to Canadianization.
However, this commitment to Canadianization is equally important to recognize with respect to Theratronics. Theratronics is not a company which has as completely a rosy future as Nordion appears to have. Theratronics is a company which, frankly, operates with a technology which is not as close to the frontier, one which faces therefore a more difficult future. I think in a case like this it is proper to look for an arrangement
which stresses the Canadianization principle with somewhat less force than is true with Nordion. It is for that reason that I suggested the 49 per cent level.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that if one is prepared to take the principle of Canadianization and to put that principle into effect with one of these companies as it is privatized, then it is equally important to put that same principle into effect with the other company.
I agree that it is important to allow somewhat more flexibility, but to do so is one thing. To ignore the principle entirely, as this present piece of legislation does, is simply not to my mind a reflection of either government policy as it has been enunciated or of the logic which has been applied to Nordion in this very bill. Nor do I believe that it is consistent with the generally held views of most people across this country. While they may or may not be in favour of seeing the first case of a company in the nuclear industry being privatized, they certainly are not in favour of seeing us put this company into a position where it is possible for it to be lost to the Canadian people who have invested in the company and for it to become a privately foreign-owned firm. My subamendment provides sufficient scope to the employees of Theratronics to be able to work out some sort of a partnership if they feel that is necessary. That partnership will nevertheless be a partnership which remains under Canadian control. That is something which is extremely important, certainly to my mind.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on the subject.
I must admit that I have been following this issue perhaps not as closely as some other issues, but there is a logic with which I am concerned. It is a genuine concern. I am delighted that I have the opportunity to voice my concern. I am speaking on the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.
Before we get to that, I do have to express my concern, which I think has been expressed by some of my other colleagues, about the general feeling about privatization of our nuclear industry. It is something I have always held dear, and I am certainly familiar with the background of atomic energy in Canada and the business of Canadians being in on the ground floor of this very important and key industry for the country. I was very

surprised when I saw that measures were being taken to privatize this key industry in Canada.
On the issue of this particular amendment put forward by my honourable colleague, I have a problem in following the logic put forward. I believe it is safe to say that Canadians watching this debate are wondering what on earth the members of Parliament are talking about What is the issue at stake here? What is being discussed?
What is being discussed is a sense of logic and certain inconsistencies that do not seem to have any reason or any basis. I think it is worth while to look at and to review the similarities between the two companies being privatized and what they do.
Both Nordion and Theratronics go back 45 years. They were created as divisions of Eldorado Mining and Refining. In the early 1950s they were transferred to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
On September 30, 1988, Nordion was incorporated and transferred to CIDC in anticipation of privatization. Nordion is primarily a radio chemical company and has two main lines of business, isotope products and industrial radiation.
Theratronics on the other hand does have the same background in the sense that it commenced operations in 1946 as part of Eldorado Mining and Refining, was transferred to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in 1952 and, similarly, on September 30 of last year was incorporated as Theratronics International and transferred to the CDIC in anticipation of privatization. But Theratronics is an organization that is concerned primarily with medical products. I think a lot of Canadians know and appreciate that Theratronics was a pioneer in cancer treatment. It was responsible for designing the world's first cobalt therapy machine in 1951 just before its transfer to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
The point made previously by my hon. colleague for Essex-Windsor was that there are some dissimilarities between the companies. The one he was concerned about primarily, and I share his concern, was that Nordion because of its product and the way it is, and because of its gross sales and the number of people it employs shows some expansion possibilities. It shows possibilities that would lend itself to one set of conditions. On the other hand, my understanding is that Theratronics for a number of reasons is not considered
Government Orders
at this point in time to be on the cutting edge of technology. The general belief is that maybe the future is not as rosy as it is for Nordion. There is therefore a requirement for a Canadianization factor here.
Listening to my colleagues I was given to believe that there was some mechanical difficulty, or that there was some question of not co-operating, or maybe even a fluke of the committee system, but the Canadianization aspect of one company was not made as important as it was for the other. I am at a loss to really comprehend why this is so.
I look at the amendment that was put forward by my colleague for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and, as I understand it, Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 relate to the several provisions to the sale of Nordion with regard to foreign ownership. These same provisions are not applied to Theratronics. I cannot understand why. I believe it should be so.
It is my firm belief that we should go forward in this regard and do whatever is necessary, whether it is a voting procedure, work of the committee, a deal that we can make behind closed doors, or some other way to deal with the Canadianization of this one company-indeed, the one that I believe needs Canadianization more than the other. We should move forward to approve these amendments to make sure this aspect is included in the consideration of this bill.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of the amendments proposed by my colleague to Bill C-13, an act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Limited.
It is known that both companies were, until recently, unincorporated divisions of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, but that after incorporation the two companies were transferred to the Canada Development Investment Corporation as a prelude to privatization.
In May 1988 the president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited stated that AECL should realize some benefits from the sale of the two companies. These two companies have been seen as valuable properties. AECL had hoped the sale of both companies would help Atomic Energy of Canada Limited through a number of difficult years. The process occurred more slowly than

December 12, 1989
Government Orders
expected and is no longer controlled by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
The president was worried that AECL would be deprived of the cash flow of these companies and would not receive any compensation from the sales. I think on that basis the rationale for Motion No. 1 was proposed, which rationale I support.
For the past 45 years the federal government, and therefore the Canadian people, have invested a large amount of money into funding, research and development of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The two companies we are discussing today have provided very profitable divisions for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and provided it with a cash flow which will be lost when these two companies are sold, unless we have guarantees of safety for the Canadian people.
In addressing Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4,1 would like the same type of conditions to be imposed on the sale of Theratronics as would be on Nordion. Canadian control is desirable if we are to retain control of their policy. If these institutions have to be used as instruments of public policy, we have to ensure that ownership by Canadians to a great extent is retained. No similar restriction is evident in the current bill on the future ownership of Theratronics, hence my support for the amendments proposed by my colleague. In this way we can ensure that ownership is not transferred beyond Canadian hands.
The medical products division of Theratronics International Limited has the technological leadership in the design, installation and application of cobalt therapy equipment. Because it is involved with this type of therapy equipment it is essential that we maintain that ability to control policies so far as this company is concerned. If we were to leave it purely to the grace of foreign hands it may in fact threaten our ability to deliver essential medical therapy to patients with cancer in this country. That we must safeguard with all our might.
Theratronics, when separated from Nordion some three years ago, was earning some $40 million in revenue. The vice-president of the Medical Products Division says it could have a 30 per cent to 40 per cent growth in revenue in the next five years. We would not like to surrender profit. We would like it to remain in Canadian hands.
Theratronics' employees have been offered a priority opportunity to purchase the company. That would seem to be a welcome message. However, if the conditions thereafter are not clear in terms of being retained within Canadian control then this seemingly welcome sale of first opportunity to the employees would lose meaning in the future. If our will is to see to it that it remains in Canadian control then we must prescribe it in the bill through amendments as proposed by my colleague.
The other aspect that I would like to indicate to the House is that Theratronics' manufacturers are involved with the process of irradiation of food. Since there is a continuing debate as to the safety or non-safety of this process, I think we first have to settle that issue before we relinquish this to foreign hands and thereby lose control over this policy question. If there was a loss of regulatory control over these companies, foreign private buyers could take irradiation technology and impose irradiated food on Canadians or, in fact, citizens of the Third World beyond our control.
Canada has to play a moral leadership role on health care for the whole world and ensure that citizens of Third World countries may not be allowed to be guinea pigs in the future.
In conclusion, I support the amendments proposed by my colleague to protect the interests of Canadians who have contributed through our tax system to the development of the company in question; to ensure the viability of Atomic Energy Canada Limited and in fact prevent a continuing loss on the part of that institution; and to ensure that use and research and development of nuclear technology remain within Canadian control and therefore properly use this institution as an instrument of Canadian public policy.
December 12, 1989


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. minister I would like to rule on the subamendment of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor.
The amendment which the hon. member from Essex- Windsor would propose to move would in fact add a new proposition not relevant to Motion No. 3. It should stand by itself as an independent motion, notice of which should have been given before the start of the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76(2).
I also refer the hon. member to Citation 437 of Beauchesne's fifth edition. Therefore I must rule the amendment out of order.


MEASURE TO ENACT
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on the amendments before the House presented by my friend from Renfrew-Nipis-sing-Pembroke and also the arguments that were presented in the amendment that was presented by my colleague from Essex-Windsor. The government has listened to the arguments for restriction of non-resident ownership of Theratronics. While it is our desire to sell Theratronics, hopefully to its employees with the fewest restrictions possible, it now believes that it would be in the interests of the company and Canadians to put some restrictions on the non-resident ownership of Theratronics' voting shares and to ensure that Canadian control is maintained.
It believes, however, that in order for the company to prosper in the future Theratronics will need to search for new technologies and new product lines. This may involve joint venturing or allowing a prospective partner to acquire an ownership interest in Theratronics. Therefore we have decided that limiting non-resident ownership to a maximum of 49 per cent of the company's voting shares would be appropriate.
I am prepared to introduce an amendment to that effect, if I have the unanimous consent of the House, and if my colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke with whom we have had discussions is prepared to withdraw his amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?
Government Orders


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horton McDermid: I move:
That Bill C-13 be amended
(a)	by adding, immediately after line 12 on page 6, the following: THERATRONICS
8. Sections 5 to 7 apply to Theratronics as if
(a)	the references therein to "Nordion" were references to "Theratronics"; and
(b)	the reference in subsection 6(1) to "twenty-five per cent" were a reference to "forty-nine percent."
(b) by renumbering the subsequent clauses and the crossreferences thereto accordingly.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker I have one all-encompassing question to ask the minister for clarification. We have not had time to look through all of these clauses. He knows that with my Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, there are a whole host of amendments contained therein to make the foreign control protection of Theratronics the same as it is for Nordion.
I would like to have him give his guarantee in the House that this new amendment which will retain 51 per cent Canadian control and no more than 49 per cent foreign control is applicable to every clause and every subclause in every part of the bill. Will he give us that undertaking?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, yes, of course I would give that undertaking. We have designed our amendment a little differently from that of the hon. member. Rather than going through and doubling, if you will, the legislation, we have just applied Theratronics to Nordion with the one exception, that is, the percentage of foreign ownership. As the hon. member knows it is 25 per cent for Nordion. It will be 49 per cent for Theratronics. But all other conditions that apply to Nordion also apply now to Theratronics.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that clarification. I want to say that it pays to put motions down on the Order Paper around here and to put these amendments forward. I say that because we have had a lot of input from this side of the House. It is very important that these companies be sold with Canadian control on them. I am glad this has been done. I think we now have half a loaf instead of a whole one, but sometimes that is better than none.

December 12, 1989
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call upon the hon. member for Essex-Windsor-we will not see the clock-but I would like to ask the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke if it is agreed by him to withdraw Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, we agree to withdraw Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 dealing with the foreign control measure on Theratronics in return for the 51-49 protection that has been offered.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there agreement by the House not to see the clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Essex-Windsor.


Mr. Milliken:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions between the parties and I think there would be agreement to continue the sitting from now until no later than 2 p.m. and that at 2 p.m. there would be an understanding that the proceedings on this bill would be interrupted and the question put on third reading of the bill. I believe you will find there is a disposition to deal with the divisions at report stage during the next hour, if it takes that long, in a way that allows them to be either passed or defeated according to the majority, but on division.
At two o'clock the proceedings would be interrupted, the question put on third reading of this bill, and any division demanded at that time would be deferred until 3 p.m., and I think it would be deemed to be demanded at that time and deferred until 3 p.m. so the division can be held at that time. I think that is the understanding reached between the parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We really cannot go to third reading until we defer Motion No. 1.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Motion No. 1 has been deferred. I believe it will be dealt with on division at the appropriate time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to call upon the hon. member for Essex-Windsor on a point of order.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my two colleagues have made some brief comments on something which is perhaps rarer than it should be in the House of Commons, but I am certainly very pleased to see a degree of co-operation which has made it possible to achieve a double objective which all of us sought, an objective of ownership restrictions to keep Theratronics in Canadian hands, plus an objective to see as much latitude within that constraint as possible for this company which has somewhat more difficult prospects than Nordion in the private sector.
I would simply like to add my support to the arrangement which has been worked out and to say that I hope it is not just a sign of Christmas cheer, but a sign of better things in the future in terms of co-operation across the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are to be withdrawn. Is it agreed with unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion Nos. 2, 3, and 4 withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, as an interested member, I just thought I would try to capsulize what my understanding of the agreement would be. There is an amendment before the House, Motion No. 1. That amendment has to be disposed of before we can proceed to any debate on third reading. We would be agreeable right now to dispose of that motion at this stage and then proceed to third reading after that by unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question has already been put on Motion No. 1 and has been deferred pursuant to the Standing Order for a deferred division.
First, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion standing in the name of Mr. McDermid?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Normally, the House should now proceed to taking the deferred division at report stage, particularly on Motion No. 1 of the bill before this House. Shall we take that on division?
December 12, 1989


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We will see, Mr. Speaker. Put the motion and we will dispose of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It has been put. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier knows it has been put. But I will naturally put it again for the hon. member.
We are moving so fast here. It is just wonderful to see such Christmas spirit.
Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding immediately after line 19 at page 2 the following new clause:
"5. There shall be paid to the Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited by Nordion and Theratronics an annual royalty on any profits of these corporations that exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars during any calendar year, and Nordion and Theratronics shall pay the Crown corporation an annual royalty as follows:
(a)	on annual profits in excess of ten thousand dollars and up to one million dollars, three per cent;
(b)	on the excess above one million dollars up to five million dollars, five per cent;
(c)	on the excess above five million dollars up to ten million dollars, six per cent; and
(d)	on the excess above ten million dollars, a proportional increase of one per cent for each additional five million dollars."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On division. Motion negatived.


John Horton McDermid: that Bill C-13, an act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Limited, be concurred in.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some Hon. Members:: Now, by leave.


John Horton McDermid: that Bill C-13 be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am going to lead off the debate on third reading by first thanking my colleagues in the House, the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing, my hon. friend from Essex-Windsor, and also my colleague for Kingston and the Islands for their co-operation today in facilitating the minister in moving ahead on this very important bill. I do thank my colleague from Essex- Windsor, with whom I have had some very interesting times over the last few years, what with the free trade agreement and after being appointed a minister of the Crown, I found out that he is critic and I enjoy working with him very much. As he says, sometimes it is a little tense, but we do work well together. I want to thank them all for their co-operation.
We are at third reading of Bill C-13 which authorizes the divestiture of Nordion International and Theratronics. These former subsidiaries of Atomic Energy have made an impressive contribution to the advancement of medical science". Products and services provided by them are helping people around the world to live longer, healthier lives.
Nordion is a leading international supplier of industrial sterilization systems and medical diagnostic products. In addition, it is a major producer of radio isotopes and finished radio pharmaceuticals for international markets.
Theratronics produces and sells two main groups of products to radio-therapy clinics, Cobalt radio-therapy treatment and computerized treatment-planning equipment.
Both of these companies are export-oriented world-class companies in the vanguard of the nuclear medicine field. The new technologies pioneered by them have created sizeable market niches around the world for their products. To stay on the leading edge, however, they needed flexibility to respond or, better, anticipate a rapidly changing market-place. Transferring Nordion

Government Orders
and Theratronics to the private sector will help make them stronger, more flexible, and more competitive. It will give them access to new capital and the freedom to pursue new synergistic relationships that contribute to the long-term growth and stability. Nordion and Theratronics already have a private sector operating philosophy. They will benefit by the opportunity to exercise it freely.
I had the pleasure of visiting both these companies and of talking to the employees. They are very excited about this privatization and look forward to participating actively in it. Strengthening these companies will benefit the employees because, as has been said many times in this Chamber, the best guarantee of jobs and future prospects for employees is a dynamic and growing company. As well, a stronger Nordion and Theratronics benefits the country as a whole because their exports are important to our future economic development.
No valid reason exists that justifies continuing government ownership of either Nordion or Theratronics. The companies serve no public policy purpose. As for concerns about safety, a strict regulatory regime controlling all aspects of manufacturing, handling and transportation of radioactive material is in place in Canada. This will not change one iota with privatization.
The legislation we are considering today sets out certain conditions under which the divestiture will take place. These conditions are designed to protect employees' interests and to maximize the benefits to the company and to the Canadian public.
Nordion and Theratronics are different companies with different strengths. Because of this, it is our intention to proceed with a method of sale unique to each company.
In the case of Nordion, we intend to offer the company for sale to a third party. Our financial advisers have recommended this approach because it provides maximum benefits to the company in terms of stability of operations, access to new capital, the opening of additional markets through the purchaser, and the synergy of
relationship if the purchaser is in a similar or complementary business.
Theratronics is smaller and its market value is less than Nordion. It is as a result an appropriate candidate for an employee buy-out. To assist employees in developing a purchase proposal the government has offered to provide them with the necessary funding to hire financial advisers. It is our plan also to give their proposal priority before the company is offered to corporate purchasers.
I must point out that Nordion employees have also expressed an interest in purchasing an ownership interest in their company. They have similarly been assisted with funding to cover the cost of hiring advisers. They will, in addition, be given a 10 per cent discount on the purchase of a minority interest.
Since 1984 my government has worked hard to build a strong new foundation on which Canadians would achieve their economic potential. A number of structural policies and reforms have been introduced that have raised the prospects for growth and higher living standards for Canadians. Privatization is one of them. By transferring Nordion and Theratronics to the private sector, we are building for the future. I am proud to say that Canadians like what we are doing. Since 1984 our economy has expanded faster than most other industrialized countries, as a matter of fact, second only to Japan. More than 1.5 million jobs have been created, some
200,000	this year alone. Our economic strategy is obviously working. To assure that we continue to make economic progress, we must be steadfast in our goals in the face of those who prefer the status quo.
Nordion and Theratronics have the right stuff to become world leaders in the private sector. Bill C-13 gives them the chance to succeed. I want to wish both companies, their executives and, most importantly, their employees my best wishes for the future. I think they have an exciting future and Bill C-13 will help to guarantee that.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting to have listened to the Minister who did not really at any stage talk about what these two companies actually do. I was wondering why he did not get into talking about the cancer therapy units, the medical radioisotopes and so on.


John Horton McDermid: I did.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: You did on that one? All right, I thank you for that, but it was not really a blazing advertisement that I heard from over here.
The next question in all this, of course, is the future source of medical radioisotopes and the isotope market in general. The NR reactor at Chalk River is an old reactor and it produces our supply of isotopes today. It is rather scary that AECL is not being provided with a budget by this government to maintain the NRU reactor for this purpose. There are repairs going to be needed to it because it is becoming an older facility but we also have in the making a Maple X reactor which will be used exclusively for the production of isotopes. The original estimate of the cost of building the Maple X was $10 million five years ago, and the government has since updated that. Today it is going to cost about $35 million alone for that facility.
There has been an arrangement between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Nordion International for the ongoing receipt from AECL of isotopes for the next 22 years. There is also a condition built into that which is the inclusion in this agreement of a provision that calls for Nordion to contribute $17 million through 1991 for new isotope production facilities.
The problem with the ageing NRU reactor has been identified. But my understanding is, and I have heard this talked about considerably, that the agreement signed between Nordion's previous personnel and Atomic Energy of Canada relating to this 22 years of guarantee of isotope production was done under pressure from the government because it wanted to sell these two profitable parts of the Atomic Energy Crown Corporation.
As a result, the agreement would show on the face of it that AECL will be losing money on that agreement for every one of those years. This is something that I would like the Minister to answer to. Is AECL going to continue to lose money every year on this agreement which now exists between Nordion and AECL for the production of isotopes and the receipt of them by Nordion? That is a 22-year guarantee.
If Atomic Energy of Canada is going to lose money on that agreement that was brought about under pressure from the government to sign it, then this again drains
Government Orders
funds away from the parent company, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Then the government's devastating program becomes two-fold. Number one, it says it is no longer going to finance AECL for R and D, that is must pay its way; and then is there indeed a loss of money each year for AECL on the agreement between Nordion International and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited? Those are the questions that the minister should answer today before the closing of this debate. He should state whether or not the government will revise that agreement to make sure that the user pays. The theory of this government is that the user must pay. So, since Nordion will now be the user of AECL, will the government make sure that it pays for that isotope production? The whole facility is in place throughout, the staff, factory and markets. It would be totally unfair to walk away and leave the parent Crown corporation with a loss in its own markets each year of that 22-year agreement.
Will the minister state to us today that he will see to it that Atomic Energy does, in fact, make money on that production when it sells or supplies isotopes to Nordion International? That is a very fair question because the government is after Ontario Hydro for greater contributions to the Crown corporation. So any products sold to any other organization or company in or outside of Canada should also more than pay its own way because it is obvious that this Crown corporation must have an income in the years to come.
It should be pointed out that Nordion has shown steady growth over the past four years and is projecting this trend to continue. It always had a good product to sell and has done very well. It has done well because it had an outstanding research and development facility on which to base its operations, namely the parent AECL operation.
The government says incorporation and transfer to the CDIC has had a positive effect on Theratronics, but it turned up in evidence in committee that Theratronics was making a profit before it was turned over to the Crown corporation CDIC. That should be pointed out because the government is trying to make people believe that this particular Crown corporation only became profitable after it had changed its status. That is not correct and there is no evidence to support it.

December 12, 1989
Government Orders
The amendment from the government today protecting Theratronics from foreign ownership and retaining ownership in Canadian hands is a big achievement.
In opposition you put forward your points and put motions on the Order Paper. With this majority government you know where you are going to end up. You are lucky if you get anything out of it. But in this particular deal a number of opposition members have taken up the cudgel and debated this bill very well. I want to congratulate my colleagues on the way they talked about this particular bill. I do not think the significance of the sale of Nordion International and Theratronics International, or what those two Crown corporations even stood for would have been known to many Canadians if this debate had not taken place.
Then, of course, we have that great theory in Canada projected by people who want to say that everything nuclear is bad. They try to relate it to nuclear weapons but there is no relation between the peaceful uses of the nuclear industry and war-time use. We must get that fact straight here in the House.
The reason I put forward the amendments on this bill and the reason we tried to highlight it becomes very obvious. It is time that we tried to educate everybody to the fact that if it was not for the CANDU reactors that have been produced by Atomic Energy of Canada over the years, there would be far more acid rain in the atmosphere than there is today.
You have heard me say it before, but I will repeat it for greater emphasis. This country would have had to spend more than $8 billion to buy coal from Pennsylvania to fire coal furnaces in this country to produce the same amount of hydro electric power in the Province of Ontario alone as has been produced over those years by the CANDU reactor. The CANDU reactor is indeed the safest one in the world. There is no relationship whatsoever to the structure of the one at Chernobyl. Of course, when there is an accident or someone who is not following the safety rules properly, it reflects on the whole industry.
It is the same thing in politics, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you have seen a few occasions over the years when one politician gets into trouble and every politician becomes condemned.
When one nuclear plant gets into trouble because people have neglected to do the right things and neglected looking after it properly or maybe the design was wrong in the first place, then every nuclear reactor becomes suspect. That is wrong and it is bad.
We have here in Canada this great base of technology in the CANDU reactor and in nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In this Canada of ours, we have one of the greatest foundations to continue to build this nation industrially. And as there is the energy to supply factories, jobs are produced. Without energy, jobs cannot be produced. As well, we have the capacity to continue the growth of that industrial and commercial base and, indeed, the tourism base and all others, including agriculture. With this we will have the jobs that are coming on stream for the future, but more than that, and this is something that is not very often talked about, is the fact that there is the industrial base, the taxation income for government to help it control its finances, if it is capable of controlling them in the first place, and to pay for those very valuable social programs for senior citizens, veterans and for those other Canadians who cannot look after themselves. Surely, that is the social conscience of our nation.
I am very disappointed that the government did not relinquish some ground on the royalties issue, because the income coming back into the major corporation, AECL, is really what is going to continue that in depth research down the road. That is needed because a great research company such as this is not one that can be judged simply in dollars and cents. It produces a great variety of activity out there. These two companies are a perfect example of it. Then, of course, Ontario Hydro has adopted the nuclear energy route and has certainly shown how great the corporation can really be.
I am disappointed that no further income has come into AECL's treasury via royalties from these two companies. I would have to say to the Minister of Privatization that I hope he will sincerely support the Minister of Energy in this House, in Cabinet, to make sure that the parent corporation is funded and that that great research and development, of which we have seen the results over a period of 47 years since the founding of the AECL Corporation in 1952, be continued as a thriving operation and continue to produce companies and great works and world famous products for Canada.
December 12, 1989

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank the science community who, over the years, have contributed so much in the 45 years to research that has gone on in these two companies and the great work that it has done in combating one of the worst diseases we have in our society today, that being cancer. I would only encourage them to continue to do more.
I hope that the Minister of Energy, the Minister of State for Privatization, the Prime Minister and others will come to grips with the fact that this Crown corporation has got to continue. It has to be the parent company that is going to produce many more products and companies and be a great asset to Canada, not only for the revenue but for the social economic good of the entire country.


Steven W. Langdon: I think this small bill in fact raises some major issues. It is a bill which has not, as with many bills which go through the House of Commons, received a great deal of public attention. In fact, it is a bill which raises in quite a dramatic way a number of important points which are quite significant for the future of our country and, to some degree, the future of our parliamentary system.
The first question is whether active parts of the nuclear industry should be privatized. I suspect that most people across this country would share my sense of unease at the privatization of parts of the nuclear industry. The president of the union at Nordion who was speaking on behalf of his workers said:
On the issue of health and safety, the membership is concerned that under privatization the major concern of the new company would be high profit versus safety. The high cost of fail-proof safety systems might be more than the new company will be willing to install and maintain.
He went on to say:
It is our membership's belief that a government-owned establishment is more responsible to its employees' needs in health and safety.
As well, he said:
-a government-owned nuclear industry must be responsible to the public and respect the public's views of the unknown in the nuclear industry. A private company is only responsible to its shareholders and its customers.
Government Orders
That was Mr. Frank Amyot, the president of Local 70367 of the Public Service Alliance of Canada who is president of the largest group of employees of Nordion International. That is a person who represents workers in this company. Mr. Eades, president of Local 70367 of Theratronics, made the point that:
Given the choice, most employees would prefer to remain a Crown corporation because of the disruption to our pensions, possible changes in working conditions and the apprehension of whether the business is viable at the present time as a private company.
I think this may be simply a misguided sense of nuclear power within our society. But, part of it has to reflect the realities of recent years within our world such as the accident at Chernobyl which only recently we have come to understand was much greater in terms of the negative impact on people and the environment than we were given to understand at that time. So there is a concern across this country with respect to the nuclear industry.
I would have to say were I a government minister searching industries for firms to privatize, the privatization of the nuclear industry would not spring to mind as something that most Canadians would feel comfortable with and strongly support. I think most Canadians, if they look south to the United States, would receive some further support for their scepticism.
The nuclear industry in the United States is by and large in private hands and because of that has been an industry which has created serious fears right across the United States. My constituents live nine miles from a major United States nuclear plant which has been identified as one of the least reliable and one of the most mistake-ridden of any nuclear power plant in the United States.
My constituents ask, why is this the case? They have come to the conclusion that a big reason for the mistake is the pressure of powerful private sector individuals and corporations who are behind this particular power plant, Fermi II, who have pushed it ahead without sufficient attention to safety and the health, not just of workers in that plant, but to the safety and health of communities on the U.S. and Canadian sides of the border.
The previous Liberal member who spoke I think made a valid point when he stated that we have a different kind of nuclear technology in this country. It is a kind of nuclear technology which nevertheless leaves us with

December 12, 1989
Government Orders
tremendous waste products. We have not yet found a solution on how to get rid those waste products.
I believe, as someone who worries about the environmental future of our country, that it is simply inexcusable that we should continue to produce nuclear waste which we do not know how to get rid of, despite the fact that we have produced those nuclear wastes now for probably 30 to 40 years in this country.
I think there is a significant question which needs to be asked about whether it makes sense to privatize the nuclear industry. Most of us on this side of the House, certainly in the New Democratic Party, have very severe concerns about the privatization of two parts of the nuclear industry for the first time, and it is for that reason that we will not be able to support this privatization.
We also think, however, that there are some very important questions which need to be asked about the whole privatization thrust of this government. Much of it is a reflection of an ideological commitment, rather than the application of any kind of common sense, the application of an economic analysis, or an environmental analysis of what should be taking place in our country.
It seems to us that this is especially the case with respect to this particular set of privatizations. With Nordion and Theratronics, the minister and his officials have tried to paint for us a picture of these firms as somehow separate from the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It seems to me that in reality Nordion and Theratronics were in the past and continue to be very tightly integrated into AECL's operations. They depend on AECL for their nuclear material. In so far as they do not depend on AECL, they depend on Ontario Hydro which is yet another public enterprise in this country.
It seems to me that to artificially take these two enterprises and to privatize them when they are caught in an excess of public enterprises is simply to a make gesture for the sake of ideology, which makes no sense from any practical perspective. I could continue to talk about the principles which are involved with respect to privatizations. I think it is perhaps especially unfortunate that this government has never at any stage given us any
principles by which it intends to assess whether a company should or should not become privatized.
It seems to me that one must have some logical principles from which to begin before one can perceive and make sensible decisions with respect to privatization. I urge this government at some stage to make a statement with respect to its principles in thinking about privatization.
I am pleased that we have at least been able to maintain another important principle, the principle that high tech industries which Canadian taxpayers have paid to build in this country should have to remain in Canadian hands.
We have maintained the principle of Canadianization. With respect to Nordion it has been maintained at 25 per cent. In return for certain agreements on our side, the government has conceded that it would accept a constraint of 49 per cent with respect to Theratronics, so far as Canadian control is concerned.
I have to congratulate the government for accepting the need to listen occasionally to the opposition, and the need to see in this case the logic of applying Canadianization principles to both companies.
I have to finish with some final words of regret. I have been occupied elsewhere as some in the House have noted. I have to say in looking back over the committee proceedings at the legislative committee stage for this bill-and I know the minister shares my view with respect to this-there was a very vast and very sad effort on the part of the Conservative members of that committee to rush this bill through legislative committee.
Legislative committee, as members across this House have seen it, is a stage that permits members of the public to express their questions, concerns and uncertainties; to have them cleared up and in some cases accepted, and in other cases rejected. It is an important part of the new approach to the development and consideration of legislation which the House of Commons has adopted in recent years. I am therefore very disappointed that the legislative committee in this case did not even give consideration to the suggested witnesses from the opposition, neither from the Liberal party nor from ourselves in the New Democratic Party. I hope that this will never happen again in the future.
December 12, 1989

I would conclude on a non-partisan note by simply quoting one of the Conservative members of that committee, a member known to the speaker himself, the member from Edmonton-Strathcona. I think the whole House should take his words very seriously for the future. He said:
I would agree with the two opposition members. Having gone to all that work, as you have done, and having phoned those witnesses, it is unfair on our side not to have notified you. It is my understanding that the government would like this through, and that is why we are proceeding.
As a member of Parliament who sits on the Elections, Privileges, Procedures and Private Members' Business Committee, I think this does a great disservice to the process of legislative committees. I would just like to sympathize with you. I understand your concern.
I would hope in the future that we would see not just an understanding of the concern of the opposition that legislative committees operate successfully and fairly, but that these committees operate with a sense of fairness for everybody throughout this House of Commons.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak again on Bill C-13, an act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Incorporated and Theratronics International Limited.
In the spirit of co-operation that the government through its minister has shown in addressing one major concern raised by the official opposition and the other opposition, that of safeguarding the majority control of shares by Canadians and thereby safeguarding the interests of Canadians, I would like to give credit to the government.
Speaking of credit, I would like to compliment my colleague for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke for his dutiful and careful study of the bill, for the detailed amendments placed on the Order Paper and for sensitizing the government to the need to guarantee majority Canadian ownership of these two companies and thereby use these companies properly as instruments of public policy.
A year ago in December when I entered Parliament I recall having said that Parliament is an institution not only for the government, but for the Canadian people. It is a forum for reconciliation of competing ideas. Today we have shown that the opposition truly has a significant and important role in our parliamentary system, if only
Government Orders
the government would from time to time and hopefully more frequently, listen to the opposition.
The bill, as amended, now allows the companies to be used as instruments of public policy. What do I mean by that? We will be able, by the continuing Canadian ownership of these companies, to use these companies as sources of revenues to finance and to allow jobs for Canadians; to ensure that research and development are undertaken on Canadian soil; to fund our many social programs such as medicare which is a program for all citizens; and to ensure the health and safety of Canadians, both consumers and employees.
Also Canadian ownership will allow us to set standards for health safety for other citizens of the world just as we do for Canadians. We will ensure that the availability of necessary nuclear technology for medical health, like cobalt therapy, will be ensured at reasonable cost and that last but not least, we will have the ability to impose environmental standards agreeable to the Canadian philosophy.
Speaking of philosophy, it should be a Canadian philosophy of approach insofar as nuclear technology and its development and use are concerned that we ought to always control it. It is so sensitive an area that we cannot let it go and pass to foreign hands.
In conclusion, the bill was amended by the government largely due I would say to the sensitization brought about by the opposition. I thank my colleague again. With the government having listened once at least, we will ensure a "Canadians first" policy. On behalf of Winnipeg North, my constituents in that riding, I welcome this amended bill and support it. Again, in the spirit of Christmas, I would like to see more of this happening for the interest of all Canadians.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, as you will know, by prior agreement we have decided to cut off the debate on this issue in about four minutes. I shall now proceed to give one of my famous short speeches. It may be my shortest speech of all. You may decide whether it is famous when I am finished, Mr. Speaker.
First I want to congratulate my friend for Renfrew- Nipissing-Pembroke. I tell the minister that I take pride in holding the record for another speech in another House.

December 12, 1989


John Horton McDermid: I remember it.


Roger Simmons: That one, too. But in the Newfoundland House of Assembly it only went 16 hours and 42 minutes. The member is lucky we have a limit today. I congratulate my good friend for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke because he has done so much work on this bill and he has finally beaten some sense into the minister and the government.
I harken back to what my friend for Essex-Windsor was saying a minute ago about the committee process. I hope the government has learned another lesson. We have made the point during debate, and there is not time to make it at any length right now, but I believe members in the chamber know exactly what I am talking about. The government tried a particular ploy. It must admit that ploy is in disarray. Sending in the parliamentary goons to shut down the committee did not work. It worked in the short term because might is right in that situation. It had the numbers to shut down the committee.
Upon reflection, what we have done here in the last two or three days in the House could easily be done in an hour. The minister knows that and I know that. The reason it took several days is because we did not get an opportunity to do it in committee. We give notice again that we are going to have our say on those matters.
I would hope we can have our say in committee. I would also hope we can allow other people to come before the committee to have their say on matters of concern to them. But if the government keeps shutting us down in committee, we give notice we will take the time it requires to do it right here on the floor of the House.
We would rather it be in committee because that is where we can bring other people, people who are not elected members of the House but nevertheless have concerns about whether the nuclear industry ought to be privatized, concerns about food irradiation, concerns about nuclear medicine and I could go on. I make an appeal again that the committee process be respected by the government.
Finally, let me comment on the question of research and development. This debate has been very revealing in
that particular regard. The government figures have been very revealing.
I saw the Minister of State for Forestry here a little while ago. I remember when he was in opposition and I was on the government side, he eloquently stated that when the Tories came to power there would be a great increase in the amount of dollars devoted to R and D. Well, he ought to look at the figures today. He will find that people are realizing from coast to coast that this government has not put its money where its mouth is on research and development. More and more of our research is being conducted outside the country, and we are the losers in many respects.
There are many other things I would like to say, but my time is up. I thank you for your usual tolerance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: According to the understanding reached earlier, the question on the motion for third reading of Bill C-13 is now deemed to be put, a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until later today at 3 p.m.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) signed an agreement with his provincial counterparts, which provides for reducing obstacles to interprovincial trade in food and agricultural products.
The diligent efforts of the Minister of State for Agriculture and hon. member for Bellechasse were also instrumental in helping this agreement materialize. This is a major step towards reducing or eliminating altogether about 170 interprovincial barriers that prevent Canada's agri-food industry from operating at full capacity. The agreement should also result in supermarket savings for Canadian consumers.
Mr. Speaker, one thing that is not working very well for Canadian farmers at the present time is the situation on the St. Lawrence Seaway and especially the fact that NDP members here in Parliament are getting their instructions from the unions.
December 12, 1989

[English\


INCOME TAX
John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday amendments to the Income Tax Act dealing with tax assistance for retirement savings were tabled in the House of Commons. By increasing the limit on the amount of retirement savings eligible for tax assistance, these amendments are largely to the benefit of high income earners; those who can afford to take advantage of the increased limits and shelter a larger proportion of their income in RRSPs.
At the same time that all Canadians are being asked to tighten their belts and pay the goods and services tax, high income Canadians are being provided with greater tax deductions for RRSPs at an estimated cost of $300 million.
Further, the principle of universality is being undermined by the clawback on old age security pensions. Our retirement income system is being privatized through tax incentives for individual retirement savings plans.
If the government were truly serious about fairness in Canada's retirement income system, it would strengthen the Canada Pension Plan. An expanded Canada pension plan would benefit all Canadians, and not just those wealthy enough to afford to purchase RRSPs.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my statement is of particular interest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
On December 4, I wrote to the minister concerning the case of Candace James who died within 12 hours after beginning her participation in a study of Volmax, a new asthma drug. I was careful not to suggest that there was a correlation between the death and the study.
Last night I sent by fax new information to the minister which indicated that a similar incident had occurred in British Columbia in January of this year, in which another individual, Mr. Gary Bizzo, almost died
within 12 hours of his participation in what appears to be a very similar study.
Will the minister indicate whether there is any relation between the two cases, whether the study has been stopped, and whether he has any further information to share with the House concerning these events?
Will the minister put an end to this study until the reasons for these events have been determined and made public? If necessary, will the minister put in place additional safeguards to protect future participants in such studies?


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, today most of the statements from this side of the House will be devoted to one very serious issue. That issue is the back to work legislation before the House.
This strike threatens Canada's reputation as an exporting nation. It puts vessels and seamen at risk for serious accidents. It penalizes Canadian farmers and businesses.
I understand that yesterday all three parties came to an agreement to move this legislation through the House, but it appears that in consultation with unions or others the new leadership of the New Democratic Party apparently bowed to their wishes.
This signals what we can expect from the new NDP leadership, that is, that the real decisions of the NDP will not be made by the party nor its members in this House but rather by others, perhaps by the big unions of this country.
Could it be true that sadly within the first month of the new leadership of the NDP, the mantle of that leadership has been subordinated to others?


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment proclaim their endorsement of sustainable development and repeat promises to put it into practice, the reality is very different.

December 12, 1989
Take the proposed massive James Bay II hydroelectric project. It would flood 5,000 square kilometres of land, contaminate water and fish with mercury, affect marine mammals and migratory birds, and damage the economy and lifestyle of Cree and Inuit people in northern Quebec. Yet the Minister of the Environment hesitates to make a firm commitment to hold independent public hearings to study the environmental and social impacts of James Bay II.
To put it bluntly, the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment are afraid of the Government of Quebec. If they mean what they say on sustainable development, they should exercise Ottawa's powers and hold public hearings before it is too late.
This government must start practising what it preaches on sustainable development.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it is a trite old adage that haste makes waste, but however archaic this government, in particular the Department of Finance, has given this expression new life.
It seems that after closure on second reading and the desire to ram the bill through before Christmas, the government has run into a terrible snag on Bill C-28, the infamous clawback bill.
We now know that all 125, I repeat 125, government amendments on a 60-clause bill have been deemed out of order. "No problem" says the government "we will pass the flawed bill now and tidy up the mess with a new bill in the New Year".
We cannot proceed this way. The amendments were flawed; therefore the bill is flawed without them. I call upon the government to halt this process now, admit its grievous error and start all over again. This time listen to Canadians who say no to clawback and no to the end of universality.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, who is running the NDP? Who in the NDP cares about the economy of our country? Who in the NDP speaks for the agricultural industry?
Does the NDP care about the dozens of ships tied up in the seaway system, ships that carry Canadian grain to foreign markets? Some 45 per cent of all products transported into, out of, or within Canada are moved by ship; 55 per cent of Canada's international trade is shipborne.
Is Shirley Carr the new NDP leader, or is it Bob White? Who in the NDP speaks for all of Canada?
The House needs to move quickly to pass Bill C-49.


LAND CLAIMS
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, late last week, federal and Inuit negotiators reached an agreement in principle on the largest aboriginal land claim in Canada. This is the claim of the first inhabitants of the central and eastern Arctic to the lands and waters of the territory which Inuit call Nunavut, our land.
Inuit first brought their proposals for political self-determination to the federal government in 1976. Congratulations are due to the Inuit negotiators who have persevered over the last 10 years or more to achieve an agreement which recognizes the rights and aspirations of the Inuit people. They persevered under different governments, different ministers and changing rules. Throughout this long and complex process, the Inuit people have displayed extraordinary patience and goodwill. Their long and patient wait deserves our recognition.
While several steps remain to be taken before a final agreement is ratified, with this agreement in principle Inuit are closer to their goal of controlling their political, social and economic destiny.


TRAGEDY IN MONTREAL
Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to ask those so-called feminists to respect the sorrow of all Canadians who were moved by the tragic events at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal and keep quiet.
I think it is disgraceful that people should use these events to vent their anger, justify their feelings of rancour and put the blame on all men, indiscriminately.
Yes, there is violence in our society. Yes, there are violent men and there are women who suffer at their hands, just as there are children and men who are victimized in certain ways. But I do not think our male population, which was deeply moved and was very sensitive to what happened should be made to pay for the behaviour of an emotionally scarred individual.
Women who use this tragedy to blame everybody they can without considering their own responsibility, do not speak on my behalf nor, as far as I know, on behalf of the majority of the women in Montreal north.
I ask real feminists to remain silent so that this time of national mourning can be experienced with dignity.
This is a time for compassion and solidarity.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina - Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the President of the Treasury Board trying to justify the government's behaviour during the current strike of hospital service workers in the Public Service, a strike which the government intends to end with back to work legislation when it could have negotiated a settlement.
Last Friday in this House I quoted figures the government has not yet contradicted which show how anxious the Conservatives are to avoid dealing fairly with hospital services workers, most of them women, who work for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
At Ste. Anne de Bellevue on the Isle of Montreal, the government is now paying $840,000 a week in overtime costs, paying $250,000 a week in catering costs, and paying its friends at Pinkerton Detective Agency $165,000 a week for extra security.
The normal wage bill at Ste. Anne de Bellevue is $385,000 a week. In an effort to break the strike, the government is paying $1,633,000 per week.
Why is the government which prides itself on its meanness throwing money away like this? Why does the government not authorize in the case of Ste. Anne de Bellevue alone an open-ended, strike breaking budget of at least $10 million?
Why is the government so anxious to spend millions bringing in Department of Veterans Affairs employees to act as scabs? Would it not be a lot cheaper to comply with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and give these hospital services workers pay equity plus a better pay raise than has been offered?



Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues I too have a concern over this serious issue of the back to work legislation which is before this House.
I am concerned over reports that pickets are impeding the access of patients to the Department of National Defence Hospital by stopping cabs. I am also concerned, along with western Canadian farmers, about the very real possibility that Canadian grain shipments could become trapped in the seaway. We cannot afford to let this happen.
We need to act, and we need to act quickly. I am very disappointed that the leader of the New Democratic Party has allowed union leaders to dictate and overrule the advice of her parliamentary caucus.
jfe *	3|e


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked to learn of the forced repatriation of about 40,000 Vietnamese boat people

from Hong Kong back to Hanoi as a result of an agreement struck between Great Britain and the Vietnamese government.
Not only are these Vietnamese refugees being forcibly removed and returned to Vietnam, but the British government is paying $620 to the Vietnamese government for every person returned. In addition, the international press has reported a threat from Hanoi that an unnumbered quantity of future refugees are criminals who "will now be forced to suffer the penalty".
Just this past October at the Commonwealth meetings the leaders asserted their belief "in the liberty of the individual" and affirmed that all human rights and fundamental freedoms must be protected. The government's passive and non-committal response to this matter has demonstrated that the Canadian Government is not serious about its commitments in Kuala Lumpur.
Will the government try to redeem itself by, first, raising this infringement of rights immediately with the UN Human Rights Commission and by, second, taking a leadership role in addressing the international problem of refugees with the international community?


THE COAST GUARD
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to draw the attention of the House and of all Canadians to the urgent need for putting an end to the work stoppage by Coast Guard employees.
Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, shipments of iron ore from the ports of Havre Saint-Pierre, Sept-Iles, Pointe-Noire and Port Cartier are unable to reach their ports of destination on the Great Lakes.
The grain terminals at Port Cartier and Baie Comeau are losing money every day because the work stoppage is holding up grain shipments from the Great Lakes.
Ocean-going vessels have been tied up for days at Port Cartier and Baie Comeau, waiting for grain shipments that are being held up on the Great Lakes.
Something must be done about the situation as soon as possible to prevent many workers on the North Shore from being laid off.
Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to the new Leader of the NDP to listen to reason, not to the unions, and convince her colleagues of the fact that they should support the back-to-work legislation now before the House.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, eight and a half months have passed since the last energy ERDA between Ottawa and the Government of Prince Edward Island expired.
This eight and a half month delay and Ottawa's late decision even to participate in this agreement has caused a great deal of uncertainty in the local alternative energy industry in Prince Edward Island.
This agreement promotes clean burning fuel, so it is environmentally friendly. It also creates local jobs. I would urge the minister to take immediate steps to see that this agreement is signed at once.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence Seaway shutdown is costing Canadian farmers millions of dollars in demurrage and lost sales.
This back to work legislation exposes the duplicity of the NDP who pretends in the west to be the farmer's friend but who, all the while, is obstructing the legislation. Why? It is because it is 100 per cent beholden to the big eastern labour unions.
Organized labour and prairie agriculture-what an unholy alliance. When the crunch comes and the choice has to be made between big labour and the Prairie farmer, the NDP goes with labour every time.
Canadians had hoped the new NDP leader might have had a mind of her own. It is now crystal clear that she, like her predecessors, takes her policy direction from the Public Service Alliance and the Canadian Labour Congress.
December 12, 1989

When the union bosses say "jump", members of the NDP ask: "How high?" The trouble is they are jumping up and down on Canadian farmers.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, the question of pay equality between government workers on the east coast and the west coast has plagued labour-management relations for several decades. Earlier Liberal governments have justified this practice.
People like my colleague from Annapolis Valley- Hants have pressed for equal pay for government dockyard workers and ships' crews. Bill C-49 provided a unique opportunity to achieve pay equity for east coast ships' crews.
What happened? The opposition stood in this House and blocked any arrangement to pass that bill and bring about pay equity for east coast workers.
Let the blood be on their hands, the Liberals and the NDP.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The plant closures announced yesterday by National Sea Products are a cruel blow to fish plant workers in St. John's and North Sydney, but nowhere will the decision be more devastating than in the town of Canso and in the surrounding communities of eastern Nova Scotia which face the direct loss of 750 jobs and many more as a result of the closure of the Canso plant.
Cansonians have been fishing for 400 years. No community has a more legitimate claim to the fisheries resource and, by virtue of Canso's location, no community is more dependent on this industry. As a shareholder in National Sea and by virtue of its disastrous management of the Atlantic fishery, the federal government is an accomplice to the closure of this community.
Oral Questions
Why has the Prime Minister allowed Canso to be written off? Why are the people of Canso being asked to bear the brunt of this government's colossal mismanagement of the Atlantic fishery?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, as we indicated in the House yesterday, no member of the House could appreciate and fully fathom the distress that the people of Canso and other communities affected by these unfortunate decisions must feel today.
That is why the special committee of cabinet, under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Externals Affairs and involving the participation of the Minister of Public Works, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, has been working on a package of response measures, both immediate response measures to help these workers when their jobs end early in the new year, as well as a larger package of economic initiatives amounting to many millions of dollars, with a view to economic enhancement and diversification in communities such as Canso.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the only answer the people of Canso want to hear is that their plant will stay open. My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who sets fish quotas and who ought to know that the plant closing in Canso will utterly destroy this community. Will the minister commit himself today to doing the only thing that can save the community of Canso and that is set aside a certain quantity of fish in his 1990 managen-ment plan for the port of Canso so that the plant can stay open? Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans make that commitment today?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with here is an attempt to manage the resource which is diminishing in terms of certain stocks, to manage the fishery resource of Atlantic Canada on a sustainable economic basis.
It is a fact, as officials of National Sea and provincial governments of Atlantic Canada recognize, that we have overcapacity in the processing sector and the harvesting sector. We have a downturn of world demand and the

December 12, 1989
Oral Questions
price for the fish. All of these factors are leading us to this current and very unfortunate situation.
When we establish quotas we do not assign them to specific plants, but I am personally looking at the possibility of the underutilized species, which amount to over 100,000 metric tons of special species, being made available to some communities such as Canso if they can come forward with a viable economic plan.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question. Will the Minister undertake to reserve a quantity of fish for the poor of Canso so that the Canso plant can stay open? That is what they want.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I have said and have always said, as has been the policy of the government for many years, that we do not identify specific quotas with specific communities. The hon. member knows that. If we did when we have such overcapacity, all plants would be running at such a low production volume that they would be economically non-viable. That is why, while we regret these difficult decisions that have been made, we are going to devote every effort to assisting the rebuilding of the economies of these communities.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As he will know, the European Community has once again thumbed its nose at Canada. Today it proposed fish catches for 1990 off Newfoundland which would be more than three times the quotas suggested and assigned by NAFO.
I ask the Prime Minister: Does he now accept the obvious, that his belated campaign, after sitting on the issue for four years, to educate the European Community has been a total flop?
Does he not agree that the time has come to stand up to the European Community, particularly Spain and Portugal? I want to ask him what steps he has in mind to stop the rape of our fish stocks while there is still some fish left to catch out there.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this government has taken unprecedented steps to remove foreign fishing efforts from within the 200-mile economic zone and to bring various sanctions and forms of
international diplomatic and political pressure to bear upon the members of the European Community that seem to defend the unacceptable practices of two members, Spain and Portugal in particular, that have been fishing vastly in excess of these quotas.
As of coming to this House an hour ago, I was not advised that the EEC had embraced any quotas for 1990. In fact I have been advised that that information will not be forthcoming for another week.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, let me advise the minister of the following, and I read to him: "The European Community, fuelling a long running dispute with quotas with Canada overfishing off the coast of Newfoundland, proposed Tuesday quotas for 1990 more than three times higher than those suggested".
I say to the minister by way of supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, that these are the facts. I heard his answer. I respect his answer, but my point to him is that that is not working. All the minister has said has resulted in one big fat zero.
Now that that is a failure, what does the minister propose to get these Spaniards and Portuguese off our backs while there is still a few fish out there?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, of course we have achieved significant progress since 1986 when the level of foreign overfishing by these countries reached an all-time peak. We have seen that level of overfishing decrease persistently these past three years, but it is still vastly in excess of the quotas that the NAPO scientific panel has been recommending.
We will continue to work. We have appointed a special ambassador on marine conservation, Ambassador Alan Beesley, and ministers are working in all of the international fora, including the Prime Minister and other ministers of this government, to bring the appropriate pressure to bear and to point out that these are not practices consistent with good international conserva-tionism.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Yesterday Atlantic Canadians were shocked to discover just how bad fisheries are getting in their area and how unprepared this government has been, even though it knew that this has been coming.
December 12, 1989

More than 1,500 employees of National Sea will be losing their jobs in communities such as Canso and St. John's. We know that Fishery Products International may be announcing another 1,200 lay-offs later this week in Newfoundland.
This past June, the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that it would be premature for the federal government to institute some kind of aid package for the Atlantic fishery similar to what it had done about the western drought for western farmers.
When is this government going to do something to save this industry, to save Atlantic communities, and when will the government commit itself to assisting the fishery and commit those millions of dollars that the minister referred to yesterday?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is exactly what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister for International Trade and I have been talking about in the last two or three days. We are focusing very closely on the workers and on the communities. We have been developing a package that includes our existing programs which are there to help people in the short term, while we at the same time work toward some long-term solutions.
Until the announcements are made, of course, it is not possible to know which communities will be affected. Each one will be treated individually depending on what are the particular needs of that community. We will be there for those communities and for those workers.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, again directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to say that the unemployment insurance cuts this government instituted certainly were not designed to help the people in Newfoundland.
Atlantic Canada is a region already hit hard by the actions of this government. At the First Ministers' Conference on November 9, the Prime Minister was warned that Newfoundland could lose up to 6,000 jobs in the fisheries related industry. If we transferred that to Ontario, that would be something like 115,000 jobs.
I ask the minister of fisheries again: When will the government stop reacting to disasters and do something to prevent the devastating collapse in Atlantic Canada?
Oral Questions


Thomas Edward Siddon: In fact, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House yesterday, because of the market circumstances and the situation of declining quotas, new tougher management measures will be required and will be introduced in the 1990 Atlantic groundfish management plan.
If the hon. leader of the NDP is asking when the government will act to deal with the dilemma of these 1,500 workers who became the victims of very unfortunate decisions yesterday, we have already acted and we will continue to act in major ways in the days ahead.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Prime Minister. This government is showing that it is continually reaction, reaction, reaction. The people of Atlantic Canada want some action on what is happening there in the fisheries industry.
Over the past four years, fishing fleets of the European Community have overfished the area adjacent to Canada's 200-mile limit by some 600 per cent. We heard today that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has not heard that there are new quotas, but the Conservative member for South Shore claims that while he was in Europe he was told there was an understanding reached among members of the European Community that in exchange for not fishing in European waters, particularly Spain and Portugal could fish in the Grand Banks off Canada.
Is the Prime Minister aware of such an understanding, and will he now tell the House what the government plans to do about the overfishing off our east coast?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party understands that Canada has been a member of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization since 1978 and that quotas are established in the areas beyond our territorial sea by international consent, that quotas of what are called non-surplus stocks are made on a first priority basis available to Canadian fishermen and we make none of those quotas available to foreign vessels which would be able to harvest such stocks within our waters.
When those countries fish on the areas known as the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, beyond our 200-mile economic limit, we have to resort to various kinds of international pressure; sanctions such as the closures of

December 12, 1989

Oral Questions
ports and representation in the various fora of the international community such as the OECD, Commonwealth and other fora.
The Prime Minister and members of this cabinet have taken such initiatives, including making such representation to members of the community of nations and we will continue to do so.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. It concerns the incident yesterday in which Her Majesty's Canadian destroyer Saguenay, on patrol off George's Bank, was repeatedly and aggressively rammed by a U.S. scallop dragger, the Concordia, out of New Bedford, Massachusetts, after being ordered to stop for inspection for fishing illegally in Canadian waters.
In view of the overwhelming difficulties our country, and Atlantic Canada in particular, is experiencing due to overfishing and the grave national concern this is causing right now as indicated by the questions we have just heard, particularly from the Member for Cape Breton- Highlands-Canso, can the Prime Minister say what positive action has been taken by the Canadian government in response to this incident?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the incident that the hon. member refers to was caused by the need for the use of ship days by the Department of National Defence for the Department of Fisheries to provide fisheries surveillance to that department.
As the hon. member knows well, probably better than anyone in this House, there are rules of engagement. It is not the practice of the Canadian navy to jeopardize civilian lives. Every effort was made in this instance to have the scallop trawler turn around. The opportunities were given to the trawler by American coast guard officials who recommended that they surrender. The actions that were taken by the captain, on directions, were appropriate but at no time, and I am sure the hon. member would agree, should HMCS Saguenay have risked the lives of those men on that ship who indeed were breaking Canadian law.
The difficulty, as he knows, is to use force without causing the loss of life to civilians and that is the appropriate action that was taken yesterday.


Fred J. Mifflin: I thank the hon. minister for his answer to my question and, yes, I am very familiar with the rules for engagement. In fact, I have had to use them occasionally.
The name of the game with rules for engagement is minimum force required to do what it is you have to do. I would remind the House of an action taken by HMCS Athabaskan in 1985 when two Spanish vessels were arrested by armed boarding parties that were sent on board. A Canadian crew was put on board and they were towed back to St. John's, Newfoundland in Canadian waters.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred J. Mifflin: It is very obvious that Saguenay was in hot pursuit of the Concordia, and by that I mean she was detected in Canadian waters and followed outside into international waters. On the basis that HMCS Saguenay has a top speed of 28 knots, why could our warship not overtake-which she could do-this particular vessel, stop it, board it, arrest it and take it back to Canadian waters and charge it, and not let it return to home port where it was going to get a much smaller penalty?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has pointed out that the rules of engagement involving violations of Canada's fishing laws also require a degree of prudence in terms of the forms of escalation that are used in these matters.
I might tell the House that had we the co-operation of the opposition parties so that our patrol vessels could be used to their full capacity by the return of fisheries patrol vessels and others to service, we might not have this kind of problem today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Edward Siddon: If the opposition would permit an answer to the question that has been raised, I want to advise that External Affairs delivered a note to the State Department in Washington.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


An Hon. Member:: Did the Prime Minister phone him after?


An Hon. Member:: Was it signed "Love, Brian"?

December 12, 1989


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the onset of dusk last evening, it was not possible to continue the pursuit with a view to boarding, in dangerous conditions, this vessel. Therefore, when it entered the U.S. territorial sea, a note of protest to the U.S. Government, to the State Department in Washington, asked that appropriate prosecutions be initiated against the U.S. fishing vessel Concordia.
Today, officials of External Affairs have again met with officials of the U.S. embassy to ensure and secure the co-operation of U.S. authorities in this matter. The U.S. Ambassador has given his personal commitment to co-operate and ensure that such measures are taken.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is Human Rights Week in the world, but here in Canada our government offends all human rights sensibility by introducing yet more policy to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. One million children in this country are living below the poverty line, basic rights deprived, yet the government imposes regressive taxes and policies, the burden of which are felt most heavily by the poor.
My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On November 20, Canada symbolically signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child at the United Nations. What is Canada doing to ensure immediate ratification of this convention by the provinces and the federal government and to establish publicly available and measurable instruments to assess our convention achievements, or better still, the lack thereof?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has indeed indicated its support for this convention. We are taking it up with the provinces very aggressively and are seeking their compliance to ensure that the provinces, which have the responsibility for the delivery of most of these services, are on side on this. It is our intention to move ahead as quickly as possible.
I am also able to give the hon. member some statistics which I think will bring her some pleasure. On December 4 of this year, Statistics Canada released new income
Oral Questions
statistics for 1988. It showed that the proportion of poor persons in Canada fell to 13.1 per cent in 1988 from 14.1 in 1987. Since 1984, almost 760,000 persons have escaped poverty.
As it relates to children, the figures are these: the proportion of poor children fell from 16.9 per cent to 15.4 per cent, a decline of some 80,000 children.


Mr. Peterson:: It's still disgraceful.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that that is still 920,000 too many poor children in this country.
My supplementary question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. The physical violence perpetrated against women students at the University of Montreal last week is symbolic of the institutionalized violations of women's basic rights in this country. Last Friday the Secretary of State promised an exciting announcement addressing human rights issues in this country. Instead, we get more talk.
When will this government commit itself to meeting women's known rights and needs, such as freedom from fear, pay equity, adequate child care, pension reform and financial recognition of women's and men's important role as parents caring for their children at home?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that there is any government which has taken more concrete measures than this government has in terms of both violence and women. I can mention the $40 million that we committed in terms of family violence, the actions that we have taken around child abuse, the actions that we have taken to ensure that maintenance support orders are kept, the actions that we have taken around pension reform and the actions we have taken around employment equity on which the report will be tabled tomorrow. The action that we have taken and the special initiatives on child care alone is directed specifically to those most in need; native children, minority children and immigrant children.
We have been working constantly for five years on things that help women and to deal with some of the violence and some of the undercurrents in our society. There is no government that can claim anything better.

December 12, 1989
Oral Questions SOCIAL PROGRAMS


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He is well aware that Bill C-28, the notorious clawback bill, is before committee for speedy consideration after closure at second reading. It was suggested by committee members that they want to rush it through as a Christmas present for seniors and families across this country. I am sorry, Mr. Minister, but the present has come unwrapped. He is also painfully aware that-


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the hon. member to put his question.


Steve Butland: He is aware that 125 amendments of his department have been withdrawn.
Explain how the bill can proceed without the 125 amendments and if the amendments were unnecessary, why were they proposed in the first place?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct, there were a number of amendments, primarily technical in nature. These are going to be handled through the technical bill that we will be putting into the House some time in the new year. There are a couple of elements that are more pressing than that and they will be introduced through new legislation at an earlier date.


Steve Butland: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one or two amendments is housekeeping and small business, but this is 125 amendments. I think this is a sign of flawed legislation. It should be withdrawn and the government should go back to the drawing board.
Will the minister withdraw the legislation and come back when it is improved?


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as I said, these are technical amendments. They have nothing to do with the thrust of the legislation to which the hon. member is referring.
I think he understands the position we have taken on this legislation. A very small number of upper-income senior citizens and families are affected by it. It is done because we have a serious deficit problem. As we said in the budget itself, we do not think that in this current situation it is appropriate to continue to subsidize upper-income people but that we should be more concerned
and are more concerned with those in lower-income brackets.
Mr. Speaker, if I might just make a comment, it surprises me that the NDP are going to bat for the upper-income people in this country. It is quite out of keeping with their normal responsibilities.


FINANCE
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, considering the finance minister's comments yesterday about the lack of agreement on the finance committee, I would like to ask him the following question. Is the minister of Finance prepared to accept the committee's unanimous recommendation to reduce immediately the Bank of Canada rate and bring it down to a level that is in keeping with the historic spread between Canadian and American interest rates? Furthermore, does the minister intend to let the value of the Canadian dollar go down, to protect the thousands of jobs that have been created in our primary industries and the export sector?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern that the hon. member is expressing about the level of interest rates in this country. It is something that has been expressed on a number of occasions.
As I said as recently as yesterday in the House, certainly last week, we do have some very real concerns about elements of the inflationary pressures that are in our economy. I think it is very important that we get these out of the economy as quickly as we can. Once we have been able to do that we can see lower rates. Until we get confidence up and we have dealt with the inflation problem once and for all, I think it would be wrong to move precipitously.
I just draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that in the late 1970s governments did ignore the inflation problem and that led us to the mess of 1981-82, and I am sure the hon. member does not want to repeat that.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, we cannot get the interest rates down and we cannot get the dollar down, but that non-criminal leak that resulted in Canadians finding out that the goods and services tax would
December 12, 1989

be introduced at 7 per cent has not really changed Canadians' minds about this tax grab.
Will the Minister of Finance advise the House if the government has entered into another agreement with Tom D'Aquino and his friends in the Business Council on National Issues to see if they can sell the GST as well as they sold the free trade deal to Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was on the finance committee. He knows the number of people who came before that committee and said that it was very important that we scrap the existing federal sales tax and move to a new type of consumption tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Government of Canada has put forward a proposal. The proposal was the subject of extensive hearings across the country. The Conservative members of that committee put forward some very worth-while suggestions and we got zip from the Liberal Party of Canada. They do not have an idea in their head as to how we should deal with this pressing problem, a problem that has been before this Parliament since 1940. We get a great big zip from the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance as well. Just two months ago, Mr. Speaker, you issued a concise critique on the government's abuse of parliamentary procedures in spending $850,000 in GST advertisements.
Last week we learned that Revenue Canada is preparing a GST proposal. An advertising blitz has been reported today. Project managers for the GST started to be hired this week. Yet the bill has not been introduced to this House. What financial and human resources have been earmarked for the sales pitch?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, every government has not only the right but indeed the obligation to prepare for any upcoming legislation. That is a longstanding parliamentary procedure, from a standpoint of
Oral Questions
both parliamentary precedents and justice and legal precedents.
So far, as I have pointed out quite openly on a number of occasions both in public fora, outside this House and inside this House, the preparations that are taking place are to reach out to the business community, particularly the small business community, to assist them with technical information in the preparation to adjust for a smooth launch.
If we were not moving in that direction we could be classified as irresponsible. We are not irresponsible. We are doing what the Auditor General recommended we do. We are doing what parliamentary precedents recommend that we do, and we are doing what is good for Canada and good for small business. That is why we are doing it.


Jerry Pickard: It appears, Mr. Speaker, we get our information from leaks from the press, not from that side of the House.
Small Canadian businesses continue to battle high interest rates and high taxation. Fifty-one per cent of Canadian businesses cite high taxes as their number one problem. A GST, regardless of its rate, will not relieve the administrative burden, the time-consuming reporting, the cost of up to $2,000 per business to participate.
Will the Minister admit that the proposed GST initiative fails the small business community? Stop this needless attack. Take their concerns seriously and introduce tax reform that will-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to remind the hon. member that Canada has the lowest rate of corporate tax of any country in the OECD and we are continuing with that. We have in fact an unemployment insurance program that helps small business. We have a medicare system that helps small business.
We do not have, though, as the Liberal government of Ontario has introduced, a payroll tax. We do not have a concentration tax for big cities which the Ontario government introduced. We are not adding that burden to

December 12, 1989
Oral Questions
the small business community. We are helping the small business community.



Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is reported as having made a decision that there be cutbacks of over $1 billion in spending in order to drop the GST to around 7 per cent. There are also reports that the government wants to set an example by cutbacks on jets and limousines.
A story that came from access to information documents last week shows spending on jets to be up many times over the estimates. Can the Prime Minister tell the people of Canada the extent of the cutback that he is willing to make in terms of spending on government jets? Can he tell the people of this country the extent of the sacrifice that cabinet is going to make?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figures for my hon. friend but I will be happy to ask the government to get them ready and provide them.
My information is that the utilization by government officials of executive aircraft is down very considerably from the previous Liberal government of five years ago, and remains at that low level. In other words, it is still down from 1984 levels.
Even with that, clearly it is the obligation of all of us, members of parliament, members of cabinet, to spend the public's money as efficiently and as effectively as is humanly possible. We will take that injunction very clearly into account in respect of all spending programs including the question of aircraft even though, as I pointed out, the utilization by this government is down very considerably from the previous government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance and is in terms of another suggestion whereby the government can save money.
It is our understanding now that big business is talking about another advertising campaign similar to the free trade advertising campaign of last year. Last year, when they spent millions of dollars to advertise during the free
trade debate, they were able to write off those advertising expenditures in terms of their income tax and thus save millions of dollars.
Would the Prime Minister instruct the Minister of Finance to bring in legislation that would disallow the advertising write-off of political messages by corporations in this country? In other words, will he bring in legislation to disallow the write-off of advertising costs for third parties in this country which is not fair to ordinary people in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will take my friend's question as a representation. I know that he would want to apply that very stringent rule to corporations, unions, to assistance of all kinds that comes from outside interests. I will take that as a representation and examine very carefully what my hon. friend has said.
In respect of the first question which he raised with regard to flights, I have been provided with the information. From September 1988 to August 1989 there were 257 flights taken by members of this government. From September 1983 to August 1984, the last year of the Liberal Government, there were 677.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REVENUE
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It has long been a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system that all government revenues are received in a consolidated manner and are not designated for specific purposes except through the annual budgetary process.
Recently we have seen some modest departures from this principle. For example, in the plant breeders' rights legislation certain royalties have been redirected for specific plant research, and in New Brunswick the provincial government has imposed a new fuel tax which is directly dedicated to highway construction.
In our environment committee, Mr. Speaker, we have had several proposals recently for a so-called carbon tax to provide funds for environmental research on atmospheric pollution or, as some would urge, to be used for Trans-Canada Highway improvements.

Is the government willing to reconsider the principles of revenue consolidation for dedicated funding purposes or user fee concepts? If not, are there other effective existing ways to direct government revenues from specific sources to specific purposes?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the government has, over the last few years, been dedicating quite a bit of effort to user fee concepts so that people who are using a service of the government are asked to pay for that fee through some form of user fee or other charge.
Moving from there to the broader concept of what the hon. member has asked about, whether there can be dedicated taxes, these are a good deal more complex and more difficult to achieve. It is something that I have not a closed mind on by any means, but I would caution him that there are difficulties in doing so and in recent years governments have been trying to move away from this type of approach rather than moving toward it in a broader sense. This is something on which, as I said, we have an open mind on.


RAILWAY ACCIDENTS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I was very disturbed to hear just now about the derailment of a CN train with 40 cars, four of which contained chlorine, at Saint-Leonard d'Aston in my riding. As a result of this catastrophe, people will have to be evacuated. Will the minister give the population and farmers of the area who are attending a congress here in Ottawa some assurances as to measures that will be taken immediately to minimize the impact of this accident?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, just before Question Period I was informed a CN 40-car train had derailed near Drummondville, and that the whole population of one village had to be evacuated because several cars contained hazardous substances including chlorine, soda and other products. We have a number of teams, including the department's hazardous materials team, teams from the private sector and others that are now on the spot. I think I can give the people in the Drummondville area, especially the villages concerned, the asurance that we have covered all aspects of the accident at the present time. I believe that
Oral Questions
everything is under control and that there is no reason to panic, because, I repeat we have everything under control.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the press release he issued at noon about the Public Service Commission and a restructuring of the entire Public Service in this country. Could the Prime Minister, considering this government's reputation for patronage, give the House and Canadians the assurance that the changes he announced this morning will maintain the Public Service Commission's traditional role, its parliamentary role, which is to safeguard the hiring process by applying the merit principle?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, of course we will maintain the merit principle throughout the system. I think it is faintly ridiculous for a federal liberal to accuse anyone of dealing in patronage. They practically invented the system at the federal level and should at least have the guts to stop making these accusations-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I could quote the Prime Minister in several statements he has made over the years concerning the intention of his party to get them to the trough, but I will avoid that and just ask him the following.
In the statement and the release put out by himself this morning we read that, "-hiring, firing, promotions and demotions will be decentralized and delegated to departments-". How does this government intend to protect the public interest and ensure that people get hired because of what they can do and not because of who they know? Will he give us the assurance that, indeed, his whole reform, so-called, will not be destroying the Public Service Commission by reducing it to nothing?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the object of the entire exercise which has been worked out very carefully with very responsible career public servants is to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the Public Service of Canada, which I think most people in this House already regard as one of the finest

December 12, 1989
Government Orders
to serve a Parliament anywhere in the industrialized world.
What we are trying to do is to further improve the conditions under which public servants function, their remuneration, their incentives to be better, more skilled managers, and to be able to exercise within their spheres of managerial responsibility greater personal leadership. We want to increase the productivity in the Public Service and its quality. I know my hon. friend would agree with that as well.
When he made, I am sure inadvertently, the reference to the intention of my political party regarding the quota-the trough as he says-it is true that I did make a reference to the trough, but in the national interest. It was on behalf of all Canadians to get the Liberal snout out of the trough. It had been there much too long.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a question of privilege from the hon. member for South West Nova.


PRIVILEGE
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that my rights as a Member of Parliament and those of other members will be directly affected if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does not allow the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee to appear before the committee.
We have been trying to get this group before the fisheries committee for a month. The new 1990 ground-fish management plan will become effective in January, 1990. We have not been allowed to see the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee before the committee on fisheries.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to intervene and press the Minister of Fisheries to allow his officials to come before the committee. Eveiybody else has been heard by the fisheries committee except representatives of the advisory committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South West Nova has raised a matter which is important and which is very much a matter on which she has spoken in the past. However, the matter is a complaint.
The matter lies with a committee. I do not think it is appropriate for the Speaker under the circumstances to intervene.
I suggest that perhaps a conversation between herself and some colleagues on the other side might bring about a reasonable resolution of the difficulty. It is not a question of privilege; it is a complaint. It is, of course, a serious matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 3.05 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions of the report stage motions of Bill C-23.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 11, consideration of Bill C-23, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-23, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof.
The first vote will be on Motion No. 1. This motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
Therefore, Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 are negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. The vote on Motion No. 6 also applies to Motions Nos. 7, 8 and 10.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there would be unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken on Motion No. 1 to Motion No. 6.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I was not present for the first vote but certainly if my vote were recorded for subsequent votes we would be in agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the House agree that the divisions just taken be recorded as applying to Motions Nos. 6 and 11?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. Therefore motions Nos. 7, 8 and 10 are negatived.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thought you were dealing with Motion No. 6 which does, indeed, apply to Motions Nos. 7, 8 and 10.1 had not mentioned Motion No. 11, yet. If you want to put that motion and anticipate the vote, then there will be unanimous consent on this side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry. I did anticipate, since it is the season to be jolly. Ho, ho!
Does the House agree that the division just taken apply to Motion No. 11?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
Therefore, I declare Motions Nos. 12 to 16 inclusive negatived.


Hon. Jake Epp moved: that Bill C-23, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof (as amended) be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Is it agreed that the division just taken be applied in reverse to the motion for concurrence?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
*
* *

[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 Theratron-ics International Limited be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to an agreement reached earlier this day the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-13, an act to authorize the diverstiture of Nordion International Inc. and Thera-tronics International Limited.
Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find a good disposition on the part of the House to apply the results of the recent votes taken to the motion for third reading of Bill C-13.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


WAYS AND MEANS
John Horton McDermid: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and related Acts, laid upon the table on Monday, December 11, 1989, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I understand that the Liberal Party was in agreement with the concept I am about to describe and that the NDP wanted to check, once more, with higher authorities.

December 12, 1989
Government Orders
I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, following the adoption of this Order, but, in any case, no later than 4 p.m. today, the House will commence report stage consideration of Bill C-49, with the Speaker allowing debate on each of five motions to amend the said bill, such motions to be tabled by the President of the Treasury Board; and that, the report stage of debate continue until completed but, in any case, no later than 6 p.m., with all questions thereon to be deemed carried on division; and that, third reading debate on the said bill then be called forthwith, with at least one speaker per party to be heard, and at no later than 7 p.m. the Speaker shall interrupt and shall put the question on the motion for third reading of the said bill, and on any amendments thereto, forthwith and without further debate. Bells shall be rung for 15 minutes; and that, following such disposition of third reading, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, December 13, 1989.
There may now be unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, for the motion to be put and voted on immediately.


Mrs. Catterall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There indeed have been discussions. This consent order refers to five motions. Members of the Official Opposition have not seen those five motions, nor another document that was discussed.
Despite every effort to assist the government, while not agreeing with its motion, there is no consent from the Official Opposition.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, we do not give unanimous consent. As the Minister of Justice, the government House leader, knows from earlier conversations today, he had indicated that he would not be proceeding with this type of an attempt to extend the hours in return for the vote that we allowed earlier. I do not know why there is this back-tracking by the government.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the motions in question are the very same motions that were discussed last night between my hon. friend opposite and the President of the Treasury Board. In any event, that can be cleared up in the 15 minutes between now and 4 p.m. We would be pleased to shorten the time for debate. If my hon. friends in the NDP would like to check with higher authorities, perhaps we could wrap
this up today in the interest of the Canadian people, the ships that are in the seaway and the veterans.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I guess there is no consent.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, since the government House leader was allowed to have some editorial comment, if the government is now willing to change the Public Service Staff Relations Act to allow reclassification to go to an arbitration board, as it is under the Canada Labour Code, then we would agree to his proposal.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House has voted on the report stage amendments and concurrence in Bill C-23. There have been discussions among the three parties and I am sure that you will find that there is consent to proceed with third reading stage of Bill C-23 at which time there will be one speaker from each party and then the vote. If there is a vote required at the end of the remarks of those three speakers, then it would be deferred until some time on Thursday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that Bill C-23, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof be read the third time and passed.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, you have already heard a description of Bill C-23 and its objectives. I would like to outline the consideration which guided the government to introduce certain amendments.
The committee of this House which examined the bill heard numerous and very competent witnesses. The government has paid heed to the substantive concerns those witnesses raised. Our amendments responded to those concerns. But I would like to point out that the amendments are consistent with the policy announced by the minister last fall.
In the original version of the bill, if the Governor in Council designated an application for a full review by the

National Energy Board, it would specify issues to be examined during the review. In other words, the Governor in Council would say to the board, "Along with whatever else you deem to be relevant, be sure you examine these areas." This measure was intended simply to let applicants and interested parties know why an application was being designated for public hearings.
However, some utilities which appeared before the committee had reservations. They were concerned that this provision could result in arbitrary criteria being imposed upon a particular applicant. In light of these comments, we have removed the provisions allowing the Governor in Council to specify concerns about an individual application.
The original bill provided that if the board approved a proposal without hearings, the Governor in Council, within six months, could order a review which would include hearings. Witnesses before the committee said six months is too long to delay an export or the start of construction of an international power line. The very publicly visible process entailed in this bill gives interested parties ample time and opportunity to formulate and submit their views before the board makes a decision. Therefore, should a difficulty arise after a board decision, it will come to the attention of the minister and the Governor in Council in short order. The government has reduced the time period in question to 45 days.
I would also like to comment upon the submission to the committee by the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec. The Cree are concerned that there be a thorough public review process for proposed hydroelectric developments in northern Quebec. Should such developments entail exports, an assessment of the environmental impacts of the export proposal must be submitted with the National Energy Board application. Further, interested parties may submit their views to the board. If the board has reason to believe that there has not been a thorough and adequate environmental assessment, its duty is clear. It recommends public hearings.
However, I am pleased to point out that steps have already been taken to ensure that new hydro developments in northern Quebec receive thorough scrutiny. Our colleague, the Minister of the Environment, presently is engaged in discussions with his Quebec counterpart to establish a joint federal-provincial process of public review. The Cree and Inuit will have a major role
Government Orders
to play in the review process. They have already been invited to assist the government in planning and setting up the review process and will participate in the review itself.
Some hon. members have expressed other reservations about this bill. These are matters to which the government has given consideration and which, upon reflection, we believe to be unfounded. Let me discuss them briefly.
Some claim that the existing National Energy Board Act is just fine as it is. Well, in 1986, the NEB held a public inquiry into the regulation of electricity exports. During that inquiry, representatives of many utilities, provincial government officials and other interested parties complained of the duplication between provincial and federal review processes.
Let me illustrate the impact that this duplication of regulatory procedures can have. An Alberta utility, which recently appeared before the legislative committee, said it would be reluctant to propose to build an international power line. It said that the regulatory burden would be too great. The utility also pointed out that the lives of those living or owning land along the proposed power line corridor would be disrupted throughout the whole provincial and then federal regulatory processes. Our policy eliminates needless duplication, while ensuring Canadian interests are safeguarded.
The NEB act also needed to be updated with a new listing of key criteria the board should consider in reviewing an electricity application. Bill C-23 makes environmental protection a priority. It also ensures Canadians will be given the opportunity of fair access to electricity supplies before those supplies are committed to export.
Some have criticized this bill because it gives the final say as to whether an application will be subject to federal public hearings to the Governor in Council. These critics argue we should retain the procedure in the existing National Energy Board Act, or leave it to the National Energy Board to decide whether hearings will be heard.
I, and other speakers, have explained the need to amend the existing act, so as to avoid duplicating provincial reviews of an application. Clearly, if unwarranted duplication of good work at the provincial level is to be avoided, some discretion must be employed in determining when hearings at the federal level are

December 12, 1989
Government Orders
required. The question is: How do we establish sound processes to govern the use of this discretion?
We have heard many views on this matter. We have heard that you cannot leave these decisions entirely with the board. It has been argued that if a regulatory agency is placed in the position of repeatedly having to decide the degree of regulation to apply to proposals, the agency will tend to over-regulate.
Conversely, some have argued that if the Governor in Council alone ruled upon what review should take place, it would tend to avoid public hearings. Others have said cabinet might have a bias in favour of holding hearings.
The procedure set out in Bill C-23 involves both the board and the Governor in Council in the decision process. It establishes checks and balances between them to ensure that sound decisions are made about the extent of federal review.
The role of the board is to make a recommendation to the Governor in Council based upon its assessment of an application and the review of that application conducted at the provincial level. The National Energy Board will examine views submitted by interested parties and whatever considerations the board itself deems relevant. The check on the board is the fact that it must back up its recommendation by publicly stating the reasons it believes hearings are warranted and those reasons must be sufficient to guide the Governor in Council.
I would point out that the process for dealing with an application for an electricity export or an international power line takes place in the full light of public scrutiny. Applications, supporting documentation, the board's decisions and the reasons for those decisions all will be available to the public. And there will be plenty of opportunity for interested parties to comment to the board before it decides whether to recommend hearings.
The role of the Governor in Council in this process is to review the National Energy Board's recommendation and to decide whether to designate an application for hearings. It is obvious that a recommendation from such a respected agency as the National Energy Board, made in such a highly public fashion, will carry great weight with the Governor in Council. That is confirmed by histoiy. Governor in Council authority over the National Energy Board recommendations is nothing new. Since the board was created 30 years ago, the approval of the Governor in Council has been required for all major
board decisions respecting oil, natural gas and electricity exports. In all that time-three decades-not once has the Governor in Council overturned an export recommendation from the board. There is no reason to believe that trend will change.
Mr. Speaker, the government found the legislative committee's work on this bill valuable. We paid close attention to these deliberations, reflected upon them and acted upon some of the concerns raised. I would like to express my sincere thanks to everybody who participated, both with speeches in the House and with work in the legislative committee.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell-Member of the Senate; the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona-The Environment; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Health.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-23, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof be read the third time and passed.
Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, we have come to the third reading stage of Bill C-23 where we debate the legislation in its final form.
I would like to explain this afternoon why I feel Bill C-23 should not be passed. There are two main reasons for this. One is that the bill does not adhere to the principle behind the bill as stated by the government. The other reason is that, as I said yesterday, I strongly disagree with what Bill C-23 in fact does. It takes the
December 12, 1989

power from the National Energy Board and gives it to the cabinet.
Under Bill C-23 the cabinet will make the final decision as to whether there is a public inquiry on applications of electricity exports and power lines.
First let us deal with how the bill contradicts the stated intention of the government. During the second reading of Bill C-23, the deputy House leader twice referred to the principle behind Bill C-23. On one occasion the deputy House leader said that the basic principle governing the new policies was that there should be no unwarranted duplication of federal and provincial regulation. "Elsewhere" he said "the National Energy Board should complement and not duplicate measures taken by provincial governments". That is the basic principle underlying the amendments contained in this bill.
The deputy House leader in his speech referred to the history that led up to Bill C-23. He mentioned how provincial regulation of electricity is much greater today than it was 30 years ago when the National Energy Board was formed and therefore why a second layer of federal regulation was no longer necessary.
That is fine. I am familiar with the provisions of Bill C-23 which accomplish these objectives, but the source of the problem is not so much in the government's desire to reduce regulations but in its desire for more power over electricity trade. It is this second motive that I think will do the most harm and which I believe could in some cases result in increased regulation of electricity.
If I can be blunt, we are setting the stage for out and out political interference by the cabinet in the electricity business. As I argued yesterday, this bill gives the federal cabinet new powers to stop a federal hearing on an electricity power line or an export application to the National Energy Board.
As we know, the present situation is if an application comes before the board for electricity export or an application for an international power line, there is a public inquiry. However, under Bill C-23 the National Energy Board will issue a permit or, if it thinks there
Government Orders
should be a hearing, it will recommend to cabinet that there be a hearing; but cabinet must have the final say.
Under this measure the federal government will be able to speed up an application through the board or, more important, shield it from public spotlight.
That kind of meddling has not been acceptable for the past 30 years ever since the National Energy Board started, and it is certainly not acceptable today. Not only is it unacceptable; it runs contrary to the stated principle behind Bill C-23.
Nowhere in the speech of the deputy House leader, or in any of the departmental policy documents is there a reason stated for giving this kind of power to the federal cabinet. The only explanation came from the minister himself in response to a question that I put to him at a legislative committee. When asked why the board was not given the power to make the call on whether there should be a public inquiry, the minister gave a farfetched explanation of why the NEB would be in an apparent conflict of interest situation.
As reported in the Minutes and Evidence of Proceedings of the legislative committee on Bill C-23 the minister stated:
There is the perception that the board would be in a conflict of
interest situation, because the board would literally be deciding how
much more work it makes for itself.
That argument is totally false, as I explained to the House yesterday. Not only is the reason false; it seems that it was something that the minister said on the spur of the moment during the committee meeting. That argument certainly does not appear anywhere in the department's documents concerning Bill C-23.
Did the department forget to mention the reason for the single most important change heralded in this Bill C-23? No, I think not. I think the answer the minister gave represents the true principle, or it is the true principle behind the bill showing through, that is, that Bill C-23 is designated to give more power to cabinet over electricity applications to the National Energy Board.
There was an article in The Calgary Herald this week which seemed to indicate that this policy would spill over into oil and gas export applications as well. The government is apparently thinking of preventing the board from holding hearings on any export applications that it deems too sensitive. Not only would that make a mockery of the

December 12, 1989
Government Orders
National Energy Board, it would result in an energy policy that suits the government's political instincts and interests rather than this country's long-term interests. It is the same political principle behind Bill C-23.
Bill C-23 is not a technical document. It is a political document that the government is trying to pass for a technical one. It may very well pass, but let there be no doubt about what we are debating and giving third reading. It is really a licence for political interference.
I conclude my remarks and recommend, for the above reasons and for the reasons which I stated yesterday during debate on this bill, that the House not pass Bill C-23.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat all the arguments we have already made on this bill during second reading debate last June and again in greater detail during meetings of the legislative committee in November. However, I do think the major points bear reiteration.
The first major point I would like to reiterate is that this bill is not about energy regulation. It is about energy exports. It is about a continental market for Canadian generated electricity. That is the principle at the heart of the bill. This entire shuck and jive about regulation is just that. It is a smoke screen and ought not to be allowed to get in the eyes of the prudent and sensible members of this House. However, more on that a bit later.
I would like, at first, if I may, to construct a little context here. The previous Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated in his speech to the board of directors of the Canadian Electrical Association on November 26, 1987: "Electricity's importance cannot be overestimated''. He was quite right. The National Energy Board went even further in its report on the regulation of electricity exports, which was released in 1987, stating that in most uses "electricity qualifies as an essential commodity". A most trenchant assessment. There is every reason to believe that electricity will become even more important in the future. It will come to be considered a strategic resource.
The United States, Canada and other countries are becoming increasingly concerned about global warming which is caused in large part by the burning of fossil fuels, and there is no question that electricity has associated with it a host of environmental problems.
These include, for example, in the case of hydroelectric facilities, the flooding of valleys and the destruction of the way of life of indigenous peoples. In the case of nuclear power, there is the never-ending problem of nuclear waste. In the case of natural gas-fired and especially coal-fired generating stations, there is acid rain and carbon dioxide emissions which contribute to global warming.
We in the New Democratic Party firmly believe that all of these environmental problems mean that how we produce electricity-and, even more important, how we conserve it-will become increasingly important in the future. The fact remains that electricity is convenient. There is also a widespread perception that electricity is clean. This reputation is mainly due to the fact that electricity is clean where it is used. In general, most of the environmental problems are associated with generating it, not with using it. But that perception of the cleanliness of electricity exists, and it means that the demand in the United States for electricity generated in Canada is bound to increase.
What has this government done in response to this new reality? Has it made changes to protect, to safeguard this strategic resource? Has the government added extra protections for our energy security just to be on the safe side, to be prudent? It is just the opposite. This government is making it easier to export electricity to the United States, and it is doing so immediately after it signed a deal that threatens our future energy security by assuring our United States customers a never decreasing supply of our strategic energy resources.
This government signed a free trade deal with the U.S. that will act like ratchet on our energy supplies. The proportionality clause, as it is known, will be, as was so trenchantly observed by my seat mate, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley yesterday, a boa constrictor around the neck of our energy security. From now on, every single proposal to build a power line or to export electricity takes on a degree of importance that just was not there before. And I say every single proposal, including those for export of the so-called interruptibles because the interruptibles too-as the minister finally admitted in the committee after I perhaps unkindly badgered him for several minutes and several questions-are included in the total energy
December 12, 1989

exports noted in the free trade agreement as being subject to the proportionality ratchet.
Every new kilowatt hour of exported electricity will, in effect, set the floor for Canadian offers to export electricity in the future. It seems inevitable that the export of this strategic resource will be jacked up and up and up over the years. In the face of this situation where every export proposal essentially circumscribes our energy future, where every export proposal sets the limit on our future .energy flexibility, this government in this bill is making public hearings on these export proposals less frequent. Indeed it is making them optional. That is right, Mr. Speaker-optional.
There will be no requirement for a public hearing on export proposals. There will be no requirement for a public hearing on the building of export transmission lines. The decision will be, in the first instance, up to whatever provincial regulatory authority may seize the power conferred on it by this bill, and in the second instance, by the National Energy Board, always subject to the cabinet saying: "Sorry, NEB, you are off base, they can go ahead without a hearing". For all but exceptional cases, exports will be approved by the NEB without a public hearing.
In those cases where the NEB believes that a public hearing is warranted, for example, in the case of a proposal to export a huge amount of hydroelectricity, this bill gives the cabinet the power to block that public hearing, and even when a public hearing is held there is no provision for reasonable intervener funding for those wishing to bring absolutely pertinent information to the attention of the body holding that public hearing.
Not only is that imprudent; it is dangerous, it is foolish, it is totally unacceptable, which is why in the committee I attempted to propose amendments that would at least guarantee that in the event of the construction of a hydroelectric export power line, or in the event of an application for the export of electricity, somebody at the provincial or the federal level, it does not matter, somebody would hold a public hearing. The government members defeated that amendment and leave us consequently with the bill before us today.
Government Orders
In an attempt to justify this bill, the government has claimed that the electricity industry is over-regulated: in the aspects of the construction of interprovincial power lines and export power lines, and in the event of electricity exported south as a commodity, there is over-regulation to a degree that must be dealt with because apparently the industry is suffering accordingly.
What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? The National Energy Board has never refused an electricity export application. Not once. Never. Is this over-regulation? This is an export holiday.
During the legislative committee hearings, no one- and I asked them all: not the minister, not the chairman of the NEB, not a single witness-could come up with an example where they or any person in the industry was harmed by this alleged over-regulation. Not one instance. Only one witness was able to point to a case where inappropriate regulation had the effect of discouraging a project, and that was in my own province.
TransAlta Utilities said that because of the current regulatory environment they would not even bother applying to build a line across British Columbia because B.C. Hydro would stomp all over them. Fine. But that is an instance not of over-regulation, rather it is an instance of inappropriate regulation. Not duplication, not excessive regulation, but inappropriate regulation. And that we have no objection to dealing with. But that is not what this bill does.
This bill, rather, eradicates the final effective control of the National Energy Board, in the public interest, to oversee the prudent husbanding of electricity in the national interest in Canada.
We agree changes to existing legislation need to be made, especially in light of the disastrous free trade agreement. But the changes should not reduce the safeguards on our energy future. They should add a greater degree of protection for our strategic-dare I mention it-Canadian energy resources.
By way of conclusion, let me highlight one last item which I think illustrates clearly the direction in which this government is headed. There was a time-there really was-when the Conservative party believed that Canadians should benefit most from our resources, that

December 12, 1989
Speaker's Ruling
most of the benefit of our natural advantages should not go to our neighbours and business competitors to the south in the United States, but should go to Canadians.
Listen to what the then Prime Minister said back in 1959. You may even remember this personally, Mr. Speaker. Let me quote from Hansard at page 4025, from a speech given in this House on May 26, 1959, by the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker:
-no longer will there be any suspicion that the Canadian consumer is being forced to subsidize the foreign markets or that Canadian industries will be asked to pay higher prices for their energy than those paid by foreign industries using Canadian energy.
The Mulroney Conservatives are selling out the Diefenbaker principles. Many Canadians know that the free trade agreement prevents our government from ever guaranteeing that Canadians will pay significantly less than American customers for our own energy resources, including electricity generated in Canada.
But what many Canadians do not yet know is that the Mulroney Conservatives will apply their new super tax, be it at 9 per cent or 7 per cent, to energy sold in Canada, but they will not apply it to energy sold to the United States. This means that Canadians could end up paying consistently more for Canadian energy resources.
Might I ask when is a natural advantage not a natural advantage? When it is left to the tender mercies of so blind and heedless a government. And what a government it is. Under the Conservative doubly whammy of the free trade deal and the GST, Canadian energy consumers will be penalized for living in Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we should be husbanding our strategic energy resources jealously. We should conduct open, public hearings when deciding whether to export electricity. We should protect the independence of the chief regulatory body, the National Energy Board. We should ensure that Canadians, not Americans, gain the most from our own Canadian energy resources. But, the government, in each instance, principally in this bill, is legislating the opposite.
This bill, even at this late date should be defeated, soundly defeated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to the agreement reached earlier today, the question on the motion for third reading of Bill C-23, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof, is deemed to have been put and a recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deemed to have been deferred until 11 a.m., Thursday, December 14, 1989.


MUSEUMS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-12, an act respecting museums, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper at report stage of Bill C-12, an act respecting museums.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2, standing in the names of the hon. member for Victoria and the hon. member for Mount Royal, are acceptable and will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Victoria, raises some concerns for the Chair; but I will give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and allow the motion to be debated and voted on separately.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-12 be amended in Clause 9 by adding immediately
after line 17 at page 6 the following:
"(2) Notwithstanding sub-section (1) the Canadian Museum of Civilization may not sell, exchange, give away, destroy or otherwise dispose of any native artifacts without written consent of the native community from which it originated."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it is in the interests of the House and those interested in this bill that we do what we can to deal with the various issues promptly so that possibly we can deal with this by five o'clock. I would be even more encouraged in that resolve if I heard
December 12, 1989

sounds of enthusiasm from the government for these very good amendments that my Liberal colleague and I have put forward. We will see how the discussion goes.
Let me address specifically Motion No. 1. The motion proposes that there be a restriction on the right of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in respect of the disposition of native artefacts and that the restriction be that those artefacts could not be disposed of without the written consent of the native community from which they originated.
The underlying point behind this amendment is an acknowledgement that the House must make as to the treatment of native artefacts over the last 100 years. In many, many native communities across this country, the non-native community, the Government of Canada, private citizens, church groups and others have treated native artefacts as not the property and heritage of native people in the communities from which they have come but, instead, as something which could just take from them. That is not only a deep injustice. It is clearly a grievance of the native community in this country.
We had witnesses before the committee from the Kamloops area who discussed these issues and had a number of proposals to put to us. At one stage I put an amendment to the committee that would have representatives of the native communities serve on the various boards that are being established under this legislation.
Regretfully, Liberals and government members voted against it. I hope, as days pass, that they will find a way to recant from that particular position. I would hope the government, in making its appointments, will consult with the native leadership in this country to see if it can find its way to appoint representatives of the native community to these particular boards. It is important that we acknowledge the historic role of native people in the development of the treasures, the art treasures and historic treasures of this country.
I would urge upon the House that, at least as a minimum, we require the Canadian Museum of Civilization to seek and obtain the written consent of the native communities when it proposes to dispose of artefacts in its possession. This is an important issue of the native community, and one that I would hope would have the full support of this House.


Mr. Friesen:: On a question, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker's Ruling


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There really are no questions at this point. I would have to ask for unanimous consent of the House to put a question. Is that agreed?	*


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question on a detail. Does the member propose that artefacts should not be sold even in Canada, or is it foreign sales that he is objecting to?


John F. Brewin: It is within the country. What I am really proposing is that it in effect be acknowledged that the Canadian Museum of Civilization holds these artefacts in trust, not only for the Canadian people but particularly within the Canadian family for the native communities, and that it cannot dispose of these artefacts without the consent of the communities for which in a trust capacity it is holding those artefacts.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, because we have debated this issue at some length in committee, I would point out to the hon. member for Victoria that certain commitments have been made in terms of appointments of natives to boards of the museums. In fact natives have served, and on behalf of the minister I gave a commitment to the hon. member in committee.
There is indeed a conference coming up on native artefacts. The main point I would make in rebuttal to my hon. friend is that this amendment attempts to deal with a non-problem in the sense that the standard practice now is that whenever the museum on rare occasions does dispose of artefacts it always secures the consent of the community concerned, with one exception, and therein lies the problem. The exception refers to those very few cases where the provenance of an artefact is unknown. In those rare cases, consent is not secured simply because the artefact has no identity with a known community.
There are numbers of examples of native artefacts from the Canadian Museum of Civilization which have now been devolved to museums and locations, many of them in the hon. member's province: 'Ksan Indian Village and Museum in Hazelton, the Umista Cultural Centre in Alert Bay, the Kwakkuit Museum at Cape Mudge, as well as the Thunder Bay Art Gallery and the Native Museum at Gleichen, Alberta.

December 12, 1989
Speaker's Ruling
The Canadian Museums Corporation, the Department of Indian Affairs and the Winnipeg Art Gallery have an agreement regarding the distribution of the Inuit art collection of Indian Affairs. Much of that collection will be going to the Northwest Territories. Indeed, the museum has the curator in residence program and curator training programs for curators from native and other museums.
In summary, the practice is that artefacts are returned and there is no disposal except by consent of the community, but the problem with the amendment of the hon. member, with respect, is that it would force consent to be obtained where consent cannot be obtained. Therefore, I am afraid that the government cannot accept the amendment.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for Victoria. The point was well made, and I think the sensitivity of the museology community and the boards of directors have been alerted by the hon. member bringing this to our attention at this time.
Debating it in committee is not as widespread as debating it within this House. I am sure that the interesting and legitimate concerns will now be far more carefully reviewed. As my hon. colleague the parliamentary secretary pointed out, there is that standard practice that does ensure no loss, no disappearance and the return where indicated. Certainly we did discuss and hear the concerns of the aboriginal and native peoples about the importance of all Canadians to enjoy then-cultural products as absolutely fundamental to the constituency of Canadians. We are in a position to appreciate them even more by having them in our national museums. I cannot support the motion but I do support the principle and I hope that it will be part and parcel of the by-laws of a museum, a board, or a method of procedure they would adopt inhouse in policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion negatived on division.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-12 be amended in Clause 18 by adding immediately
after line 5 at page 12 the following:
"(2) A person is not eligible to be appointed as a member of the Board if that person is not a Canadian citizen who is ordinarily resident in Canada."
She said: Mr. Speaker, in debating this bill on museums, I bring this particular amendment to the attention of the government because I consider that we are dealing with a very sensitive issue when it concerns Canadian cultural properties and Canadian cultural concerns.
It is my firm belief that Canadians have the talent, capacity and ability to fulfil the management positions, manage the funds, enable appropriate acquisitions, apply the mission statement or the mandate of the museum and be very creative in their approach to their responsibilities in the management of the four museums that we are referring to in this particular bill.
There is nothing more important than the historical record of Canada for Canadians, by Canadians and for the visitors to Canada. Our aboriginal people are our first founding peoples. Our bilingual nature is the result of our two founding European families who came from those nations which helped build this country. Our multicultural dimension is an increasingly important aspect of our Canadian reality which encompasses all our cultures. It is key that all of these realities be reflected in the board of directors and that they be Canadians of Canadian commitment and fulfil the roles that have been defined in this particular Bill.
I think that we have greatness in all walks of life in Canada and we can find the proper people to fill those jobs. I see no reason to have to look beyond our own
December 12, 1989

Canadian citizens in any way to fulfil the particular mandate that we have in mind.
There has been some concern expressed. While I understand that concern, I do not find it particularly well founded that those people who have chosen to come to live here in Canada but have not taken Canadian citizenship perhaps might not be enabled to sit on the boards of these four Canadian national museums.
To my knowledge, Canadian citizenship is required under the Constitution of Canada if we wish to be a member of this House of Commons. If you wish to summon someone to the Senate that person must be a Canadian citizen as well as a resident in the particular province that person is representing. If you wish to participate in the elections in Canada under the Canada Elections Act, you must be a citizen of Canada.
I suggest that there is no substantive jurisprudence and no clear precedent established that would indicate that we could not apply Section 1 of our Canadian Charter to say that it is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society to have Canadian citizens, be they aboriginal, francophone, anglophone or from any one of our multicultural communities, represent the various required skills that enable a museum board to function most effectively.
I believe that we should and can have the kinds of expertise that we need to go out and market, explain and show the world the Canadian acquisitions that we have. I ask for the acceptance of Motion No. 2, hopefully with the understanding of the reasons behind this amendment.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think the concern that has been expressed about this particular motion, which I grant is on the side of the angels, is that it might infringe on the Charter, specifically the provisions of Section 15, the equality provisions.
In a recent decision in British Columbia the Supreme Court of Canada in the Law Society of British Columbia .v. Andrews et al, the finding was that a provision which restricted the right to practise law to Canadian citizens infringed upon the equality provisions of Section 15 of the Charter. There were two aspects to the analysis that was carried out.
Speaker's Ruling
To override a Charter-guaranteed right, the objective underlying the law must relate to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society. The nature and purpose of the enactment must be examined to decide whether the limitation represents a legitimate exercise to attain a desirable social objective which would warrant overriding constitutionally protected rights.
As a second stage of the analysis, a balancing of factors must take place, such as the nature and importance of the right of the individual or group concerned, the extent of its infringement, the degree to which the limitation furthers the attainment of the desired goal embodied in the legislation, and the broader social impact of both the impugned law and its alternatives.
All that having been said, there are some practical considerations too. I believe that the language which the hon. member has taken for her motion is parallel to the language that is in Bill C-40 which is also before this House. That bill is designed to protect the Canadian nature of our broadcasting system against all kinds of assailing forces which I need not go into here.
In this case, we are dealing with Canadian institutions, which are composed of Canadian exhibits by and large. All this having been said, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to ask whether there would be consent of the House, and I ask the hon. member whether she would be disposed, to just drop the last six words of her motion. The words are "who is ordinarily resident in Canada". That would have the effect of admitting only Canadian citizens to the board but would remove the practical consideration and the practical worry of distinguished Canadians who, for reasons of health or other reasons, have found it necessary to live outside the country for periods of time. The words "ordinarily resident in Canada" might be an arguable proposition. To remove any doubt, would the hon. member be prepared to delete those last six words of her motion, and would there be the consent of the House?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, in response to the parliamentary secretary, I thank him for that consideration and I certainly would accept the removal of those last four words.

Government Orders


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, not only on our party's behalf do I accept the proposed amendment but I would indicate that we accept the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2, as amended, agreed to.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty to inform the House that a communication has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-50, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1990.
Also, I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-20, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
December 12,1989 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that Her Excellency the Right Honourable Jeanne Sauve, Governor General of Canada, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 12th day of December, 1989, at 4.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill.
Yours sincerely,
Secretary to the Governor General.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-12, an act respecting museums, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
John F. Brewin: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-12 be amended by adding immediately after line 25 at
page 14 the following new clause:
"23. The Board of each museum shall appoint an Advisory Committee which shall consist of members representing each scientific and museological discipline represented in the Museum."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the hope that we can deal with all of this, I do not want to unduly hurry, but I do want to say that this motion is intended to ensure that the boards do have on them a number of representatives of the scientific and museological disciplines representing the museums. It is a very important principle. It is very important that these boards not simply reflect either friends of the government or people who are dabbling at this business but people who are involved, who understand and who can reflect the constituency, at least a major constituency that these museums are intended to serve.
On that basis, I would urge the government to be as kind to me as it was to the Liberal critic by accepting her amendment and recognize the worth, the sense, the breadth of this amendment and, in the spirit of Christmas, agree to Motion No. 3.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Father Christmas it would be very nice if he came through the door. I just hope that we will not find ourselves with too many duplicate groups serving on the board of directors. That was my concern.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincere concern of the member in this regard. Rather than bind us with the legislation I can give him in this place at this time the assurance that every effort will be made to see that his objective is attained in the appointments. I can assure him that there will be people of definite scientific and museological competence and
December 12, 1989

distinction appointed to the boards of the various museums.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost on division.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker may I say something?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member for Mount Royal would like to say a few words she can go ahead and say a few words.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the generosity of this House is making it become a very pleasant place. I think we can-


Ross Harvey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am just wondering if we might take this as precedent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No you may not
take it as precedent.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in this House once before-
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must say to the
hon. member that we should really suspend the sitting. On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Victoria.


John F. Brewin: This point of order is an elaborate point involving museums policy in Canada. I guess we should not really indulge in such a procedure. We did try to co-operate in order to get the bill through this afternoon. I know that members do have comments that, in other circumstances, they might have been prepared to make.
I do not know if we need unanimous consent for us to ramble for a minute or two about the joys, for example, of working with the parliamentary secretary who was courteous in the way in which he dealt with it. The speed with which we concurred today is not reflective of the amount of work that went into the committee itself. It was the first legislative committee I have had an opportunity to be on and I found the experience very constructive and helpful. We had some good witnesses come to the committee in a very useful discussion. On that order, Mr. Speaker, you might consider hearing the Member for Mount Royal as well as the parliamentary secretary.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note that we are allowing a constructive use of this time. It was a pleasure to work with the new member from Victoria. It was a very courteous atmosphere for the parliamentary secretary, the other members of the committee and for the minister himself.
I hope many of the people who are watching will understand that the very confrontational Question Period is not the only business of the House. What is done in this place is often very constructive and there is a degree of friendship, co-operation and respect among members of all sides of this House.
It is in that spirit and as Christmas draws nearer that I would like to join my voice to the others and say thank you very much on behalf of the museums of Canada, the citizens of Canada who are going to enjoy those museums and their new thrust, their new mission and their new mandate. May they flourish and grow and may we find a few dollars in the treasury to enable that to happen.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I am impressed with the cordiality with which the two previous speakers have greeted the co-operation they

December 12, 1989
Private Members' Business
apparently enjoyed from the hon. parliamentary secretary opposite and can only hope, at this point, that the hon. minister opposite has been paying close attention and might hereafter conduct himself in similar fashion.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I am grateful for the remarks which my colleagues from the opposition have addressed on this particular issue.
I think that the whole domain of communications and culture has been blessed with an all-party harmony. I recall the seven or eight reports which the committee, under the chairmanship of the former member for Battlefords-Meadow Lake, John Gormley, and I had the honour of chairing, along with the hon. member for Levis in the last Parliament. All those circumstances led to a remarkable commitment to hard work and to dealing with the cultural and communications aspect of our life in Canada.
I thank the hon. member for Victoria for his words because he worked on the legislative committee on this particular bill in a way that was in the tradition of his predecessor, Lynn McDonald, the former member for Broadview-Greenwood who had a genuine commitment to this domain.
The hon. member for Mount Royal, I hasten to say my favourite Grit, did bring a tremendous sense of dedication to her work in the field of museums not only with Bill C-12 but also in the work of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in dealing with the Richard-Woodrow report, the Task Force on Museums Policy.
With respect, this is an illustration of the best traditions of parliamentary reform that the issues of the day can be dealt with in an all-party way. I think there has only been one qualified dissent among the many reports which that standing committee has brought forward. Of course, very often the members of our legislative committees are drawn in part from the standing committees for the sake of continuity and expertise.
In the spirit of the season I wish to present a verbal Elanukkah bush to my hon. colleague from Mount Royal.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, Her Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act-Chapter 22.
Bill C-50, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1990 -Chapter 23.

It being 5.07 o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 26, [DOT] consideration of the motion of Ms. Langan:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of negotiating with the provinces to provide a comprehensive Bill of Rights for children which would standardize laws throughout the country, and that this Bill of Rights include a child protection commission and an emergency hotline which children could contact in times of crisis.
Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech, perhaps I may recall that I had already started to speak to this motion on September 25,

Private Members' Business
and at the next opportunity, I was unfortunately, or fortunately, as you prefer, in Europe, which means that according to the Standing Orders, I still have ten minutes' speaking time.
Mr. Speaker, we welcome this opportunity to speak to the issue of children's rights, an opportunity afforded by the motion presented by the hon. member for Mission- Coquitlam (Ms. Langan).
This motion concerns the very important question of how we can guarantee and protect children's rights in Canada. We believe that children form the cornerstone of our society and the family, our most important institution. That is why any attempt to improve the living conditions of families and their members deserves our undivided attention as decision makers. This government recognizes the importance of protecting the basic rights of children and the need for helping families which have the primary responsibility for bringing up children.
On November 20, the United Nations adopted its Convention on the Rights of the Child. As you know, Canada played an active role in drafting the text of the convention, following efforts by both federal and provincial governments. In 1981, a federal-provincial task force was created to determine what the convention should contain, from a Canadian perspective. Several versions drafted by Canada were used as the basis for the convention itself.
The draft Convention on the Rights of the Child, proposed by the United Nations, is aimed at establishing an international standard. Its purpose is also to protect a variety of childrens' rights whether they are social, economic, political, religious or civil. The 54 draft articles guarantee the protection for children who have no family or who are exposed to abuse, and the right to social security.
This draft convention reflects a comprehensive view of childrens' rights and is international in scope. The countries that signed the convention will be monitored to ensure that progress is made on children's rights. For instance, two years after the convention is adopted, every signatory country will be asked to submit a report on the nature of the measures it has taken to promote the rights of the child.
The draft convention also provides for establishing an international panel of experts that will be responsible for evaluating the living conditions of children in the signatory countries.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, signing the international convention means that the laws of that country must conform to the provisions of the convention.
Several aspects of the international Convention on the Rights of the Child are a matter of provincial jurisdiction in this country, or that jurisdiction may be shared by provincial and federal authorities. As a result, the process of ratifying the United Nations Convention requires, in the Canadian context, the co-operation of both federal and provincial governments in order to consider very carefully the implications of this document for our existing policy and future action.
It is expected that a certain amount of harmonization will be necessary among the various Canadian provisions in order to meet the requirements of the convention. We should also remember that the Canadian government has taken a number of initiatives whose objectives have already been to promote the well-being and protection, and to guarantee the rights, of children in Canada. Such programs are also designed to help families and children experiencing difficult situations or major changes.
However, although we are better acquainted with the specific problems of Canadian families, we must not forget that most of these families, whatever their structure, take care of their members and are proud of their progress and success.
My point is that government assistance in protecting the rights of children should be complementary to the role played by families, not a substitute. Nevertheless, there are a number of very serious situations where families are unable to play that role satisfactorily.
The Minister of National Health and Social Welfare already followed up on part of the motion presented in the House, when he recently announced financing totalling $1.3 million for an emergency telephone service to be used by children in a crisis. I am referring to the "Kids Help Line". This free service offers immediate help to children across Canada, providing information appropriate to the situation and directing them to agencies that

December 12, 1989
Private Members' Business
may be able to provide longer term solutions for their problems.
In the mid 1980s, the Family Violence Prevention Division was created within the Department of National Health and Welfare to co-ordinate federal activities against family violence. The Division has a national information centre on family violence to inform the public and make it aware of this crucial issue.
In 1986, the government launched a five year $25-million initiative to fight the sexual abuse of children. This initiative includes legislation to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act and measures to prevent sexual abuse of children and for protection and treatment.
In 1988, the government allocated $40 million to a four-year national family violence prevention initiative intended to create spaces in shelters for victims of family violence. Canada is not free of child poverty. That is why the federal government protects the most disadvantaged, including families with children, through the Canada Assistance Plan. Under this plan, the federal government shares the expenses incurred by the provinces for social assistance and some social services.
This year alone, the federal government plans to give the provinces over $5 billion under the plan. Nevertheless, there are encouraging signs in the battle against child poverty. Official statistics show that the number of poor children has decreased since 1984. The rapid rise in the number of families where both parents work outside the home and the increased number of single-parent families show us the importance of establishing an effective child care program. The federal government is already contributing to child care through the Canada Assistance Plan. We plan to spend $240 million this year to create more subsidized child care spaces.
Created in 1988 with a total budget of $100 million over a seven-year period, the Child Care Initiatives Fund is used to finance innovative child care projects to meet the special and diversified needs of children.
As announced by the Prime Minister and in the Speech from the Throne, a new national day care program will be implemented towards the end of this
Parliament. In terms of additional measures to maintain the economic standing of families, I would point to the child benefit system which includes, among other things, family allowances and child tax credits.
With the advent of the new Goods and Services Tax, the tax system will become more progressive and more equitable through a number of changes which will enable low income Canadians to apply for fiscal assistance. This is why families earning less than $30,000 a year will be in a better position once the GST is in force.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, all the activities, initiatives and programs we have just mentioned are only a few examples which show that the Canadian government is committed to protect the security rights of Canadian children and to help families.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this particular motion. I am going to read it because it is a very specific request to the government. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of negotiating with the provinces to provide a comprehensive Bill of Rights for children which would standardize laws throughout the country, and that this Bill of Rights include a child protection commission and an emergency hotline which children could contact in times of crisis.
Hotlines are not particularly unknown in this country and in the few cases where hotlines have been used for children, the use has been fairly extensive.
Today, I want to spend a little time on the intent of this motion. During the two-hour debate that has gone on, our party has put on record some of the considerations that we think are important in establishing an atmosphere for the raising of children and ensuring that those children are protected in all kinds of circumstances.
Canada is a country without equal when it comes to the social standards and social justice system that we have put in place. Canada has been a leading nation speaking out for human rights, speaking out for dignity of the person, on behalf of the kind of government which allows this kind of dignity and these kinds of human rights. It is the kind of democracy that recognizes the value of the individual.

We in Canada have seldom been found wanting when it comes to speaking out about the protection of the world's children. We have seldom been found wanting compared to other countries in the effort that we have made to make it possible for world's children to be a little better off than they would without our efforts. Those efforts have not necessarily been government efforts, but they have been the efforts of the individuals and families across Canada who see the possibility of harm and the need for care of children.
These are good reasons why we as members of this House should take a good look at this motion and support it as much as possible. We should move toward a bill of rights which would, to some extent, formalize our commitment to the ability of children to survive in Canada.
It is surprising that when we look around the country, we see a great deal of child poverty. In my home constituency of Saskatoon, there are something like 1,200 people who make use of the food bank every month. These kinds of things are common right across the country and most of the people affected by those kinds of situations are children. So, we do need to have a continuing commitment to the welfare of children. That is what this particular motion speaks toward.
Events of the last few years and the direction we have been going in human rights, the direction we have been going in the care and protection of individuals, particularly children, are overtaking us. The first League of Nations adopted a declaration concerning children 65 years ago, and that seems like a long time ago, yet we have not really been more specific in the direction we are taking since then.
The United Nations adopted a declaration of rights for the child 30 years ago. Ten years ago, we celebrated the International Year of the Child. This year, the United Nations General Assembly, after considerable negotiations, will be adopting a convention which I guess could be called a bill of rights in some ways.
We in Canada have played a considerable role in drafting and negotiating this particular convention. It is imperative that to make sure this direction is sustained, we in this House guarantee that what we think is good for the international child is good for the Canadian child
Private Members' Business
as well. Consequently, we must therefore clarify what we consider are the necessities for a bill of rights for children and move in that direction.
This motion attempts to clarify what should be considered part of what is necessary in a bill of rights for children. There is no doubt, as the previous speaker indicated, that there are jurisdictional problems as far as a charter of rights for children is concerned. Detailed negotiations are going to be required between the provinces and the federal government to achieve such a charter. It is imperative, therefore, that we begin these negotiations with the provinces as soon as possible so that when Canada does become the signatory to the United Nations convention, we can say truthfully and honestly that we are doing these things at home. Consequently, when we sign the convention, we will be able to say that what we believe is good for us is good for the other people of the world as well.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and support this private member's motion introduced by the member for Mission-Coquit-lan and seconded by the member for Oshawa that, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of negotiating with the provinces to provide a comprehensive bill of rights for children which would standardize laws throughout the country, and that this bill of rights include a child protection commission and an emergency hotline which children could contact in times of crisis.
Certainly the objectives of this private member's motion are very laudable indeed.
Although it has been 30 years now since the United Nations decided that children have rights, it was not until last spring that an international legal convention was drawn up to make these rights stick. It was only last November 21 that the United Nations General Assembly did pass and adopt this convention and it will be in this coming January that the ratification ceremony will take place. Thereafter, it will require some 20 states to ratify the convention and then it will be binding, as international law, on those signatories.
It is with pride that we should say that Canada played a vital role in the design of this convention. But if this code is adopted, countries will have to change their laws and

December 12, 1989
Private Members' Business
constitutions to comply with the convention, and certainly Canada is no exception.
It is easy to understand why it has taken so long to legalize the rights of children. Children do not have the right to vote, they do not have the political power, they are dependent on others for their well-being and, therefore, the responsibility on us is even greater.
During the Year of the Child 10 years ago, Poland stated that it was an appropriate time to establish a statement of children's rights with the power of law behind it. It took 10 years to draw up this convention. The United Nations General Assembly, as I said, just recently adopted it. Shall we allow Canada not to comply with it until 1991, as the former ambassador to the United Nations said it could take that long? We cannot allow that. I think we have a duty to act and to act promptly.
The guiding principle of this treaty is to promote the best interests of the child. I would add that it also protects the child from the moment of conception. The convention spells out a wide range of economic, social, civil, political and cultural rights for children. These include the right to an education, the right of minority children to practise their own culture and language, the right to be protected from exploitation, torture, maltreatment and the right of handicapped children to special services.
The 54 articles in the convention cover three major categories or areas: survival, protection and development. Although the convention sets out rights for children, it is truly directed at adults, for it is we adults who have the responsibility to ensure that these rights are truly respected and enshrined in a bill of rights.
The need for a bill of rights for children, both internationally and in Canada, to protect the lives and normal development of children is only too clear when one examines conditions that create injustice for children. It is imperative that in Canada, and indeed in the world at large, adverse conditions that create these injustices be addressed and addressed promptly.
It is not good enough to merely implement social services after damage has been done. I think it is important to mention some of the things which affect the well-being of children. These are: war, poverty, violence, abuse-physical, mental or emotional, trafficking in children, exploitation by the drug trade and malnutrition, especially under-nutrition. All of these factors can lead to illness and even to the death of children.
Canada is not immune. Millions of children die of chronic under-nutrition each year or grow up stunted in mind and body because there is not enough food for thousands of these children and also because their parents lack knowledge of health and nutrition. The single greatest killer of children is not war or malnutrition, it is dehydration through diarrhea. This is something that happens not only in Third World countries. Unfortunately, this still happens here in Canada. All that is necessary to avoid this is a solution of salt and sugar in water, but sometimes parents do not even make use of this or are not aware of this approach.
Children have a right to the highest attainable standard of health and access to medical services. This is something which should be protected not only through an international convention but through a bill of rights in Canada.
There are other issues affecting children. They include homelessness, education, child labour, and other health issues.
Let me refer to a fact sheet publication from A Choice of Futures: Canada's Commitment to its Children produced by a variety of organizations; the Canadian Child Welfare Association, the Canadian Council on Children and Youth, the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the Child Poverty Action Group, Family Service Canada, and the Vanier Institute of the Family, institutions that truly are concerned about the welfare of children.
Six thousand children died in 1985 as a consequence of low birth weight, accidents and respiratory illnesses. Six hundred thousand children from birth to age 19 were hospitalized as a consequence, in the vast majority of instances, of respiratory illnesses. There are 275,000 disabled children between the ages of one and 14 in Canada, about 5 per cent of the child population. They are startling statistics in so far as the welfare or state of health of our children is concerned.
Canada's future will be determined by the children of today. In light of this, should we not have a bill of rights to protect our children, to ensure that they are adequately fed, that they are kept healthy, that they have access to an education? Protecting our children is imperative to maintaining the moral and ethical fabric of our advanced
December 12, 1989

democratic society. It is imperative to the economic future of our country. Most important, it is imperative to the well-being of the children themselves.
To address the bill more specifically it is important to have a comprehensive bill of rights for children as proposed in this private member's bill instead of different provincial legislation dealing with this issue. The children of Canada are entitled to standardized rights which will safeguard their access to educational services and to social programs uniformly from coast to coast. A Canadian child is a Canadian child whether he or she is a resident of Newfoundland, Winnipeg, or Vancouver. There is a need for a universal affordable day care program.
Motion C-254 states that the bill of rights for children should include a child protection commission. This would be a beneficial first step toward the establishment of a national child abuse strategy.
The number of incidents of child abuse, especially sexual abuse, in this country is staggering. This government has rejected criticism that it has not moved fast enough to counter this increasing problem. The Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that the government has acted on the majority of recommendations of the 1984 report of the committee on sexual offences against children and youth. But the first recommendation of that report calls for the office of a commissioner, and that has yet to be established, and so I suggest that it be established.
It is obvious that we must co-ordinate federal and provincial efforts to bring about programs to aid in the prevention and treatment of child abuse. A child protection commission would be a necessary first step.
In conclusion, the government could prove its commitment to the children of Canada by passing this private member's motion. Not only would this benefit the children of our country, it would ensure that the International Convention for the Rights of Children is signed and ratified by Canada and that Canada's ratification is not blocked by the refusal of provincial ministers to agree to the convention.
Private Members' Business
Children are entitled to the same rights that adults have and it is the responsibility of adults, especially adults that are in government, to ensure that these rights are respected and protected. We need political will and leadership on behalf of children. We can fulfil our commitment to our nation's children by adopting this bill of rights so that we can start the federal-provincial negotiation on this issue and make our commitment to the children of Canada a living reality.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this motion on the advisability of a comprehensive bill of rights for children which would standardize laws throughout the country and which would include a child protection commission and an emergency hotline for children.
The protection of children is one of the foremost duties of any society. We can only be as strong as our most vulnerable and weakest members. I therefore laud the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam for the concern she has shown for all children in Canada in her motion on this matter. Having said that, I would now like to turn my attention to some of the real difficulties faced by this motion.
Canada is under a federal system of government, with both levels of government, federal and provincial, having certain areas of responsibility under the Constitution. Provinces have been allocated power over much of family law, including the welfare of children. Section 92(13) of the Constitution Act of 1867 gives the provinces the right to legislate with respect to property and civil rights in the province. In the adoption reference, 1938, the Supreme Court of Canada determined inter alia that the welfare of children was a matter of provincial responsibility.
We have in Canada two basic types of legislation which afford protection to children; the criminal law which deals with the physical and sexual abuse of children, and child protection legislation which deals with the involvement of the state where a child has been abused or neglected. The federal government has constitutional jurisdiction over the former and the provincial governments have constitutional jurisdiction over the latter.
Provinces deal with child protection in a number of ways relevant to their individual circumstances and with a wide range of statutes covering such topics as adoption, child welfare, custody and access, and education. Each province has a government recognized body which has the responsibility for enforcing child welfare laws in

December 12, 1989
Private Members' Business
order to protect children and provide services to the child in his or her family. Given that these services are in place throughout this country, it does not seem to me to be advisable and necessary to involve the federal government in a long phase of negotiations to standardize these laws, removing flexibility from provincial legislatures and challenging the constitutional authority which has been in place since 1867.
Further, I am not at all convinced that a costly, central, monolithic child protection commission would or could provide better services than those now provided by each province and territory, nor am I persuaded that it would be constitutionally correct.
The hon. member has also included in her motion a reference to the need for an emergency hotline which children could contact in times of crisis. I would like to inform the House that the Canadian Children's Foundation has established a 1-800 number to serve just such a function. The number is 1-800-668-6868. It is called Kids Help Phone and it is my understanding that it is enjoying considerable success.
This crisis line handles calls from anywhere in Canada and refers children in distress to local authorities and services for assistance in dealing with their problems. This valuable service offers support and assistance to children from all across Canada. As a matter of fact, I spoke with Mrs. Heather Sproule of that agency recently. I might share with you a few statistics.
The crisis line was started in May of this year and already they have had some 75,000 calls. The average per day is about 800. On weekends they get as many as 1,000 calls. Unfortunately, they only have five lines now but with increased funding they hope to have ten. When it is fully operational they will likely be receiving as many as
200,000	calls a year.
The average age of the callers is between 11 and 14 years of age. They even have had over 100 calls from youths four years of age to seven years of age. I am told that 76 per cent of the callers are female, 24 per cent are male. I do not know the reason for that mix, perhaps it is the male ego not wanting to admit that they do need some help. Fifty per cent of the calls are from Ontario and that is partly because the start-up was there, but they will be advertising and communicating in all regions
of the country in order that they may be able to help. I believe the federal government has contributed about $1.3 million to this most worth-while agency and $650,000 of that is to be matched by other donors. We wish them every success.
Children are our most important asset and, as I mentioned earlier, our society will be judged by how well we protect them. There are, in addition to child protection laws, criminal laws which protect our children. In particular, this government can be proud of its legislative achievements in the area of child sexual abuse.
In January of last year Bill C-15 became law. This bill amended the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act to better protect children and youth from sexual abuse by enacting measures to permit more young children to testily and provide more sensitive procedures for obtaining their evidence. In addition, new offences were created and certain outdated and confusing provisions of the Criminal Code were repealed.
The Department of Justice has supported this initiative through law information activity such as an easy to read booklet for children aged four to ten that tells them to tell someone if they have been sexually abused, and a booklet for adults telling them how to proceed if a child discloses an incident of sexual abuse to them.
Concern for children is expressed not only in the Criminal Code but in the federal government's family law legislation. The Divorce Act, for example, provides that custody of a child is to be decided upon a consideration of the child's best interest only. This makes it clear that the needs and rights of the child are the central and, indeed, the only concern of the courts when deciding the difficult question of custody of a child.
The government has expressed its concern in other ways for children in situations of divorce through the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. This act plays an important role in the enforcement of child support payments as well as the recovery of children wrongfully abducted from the custodial parent by the non-custodial parent. All too often, it is sad to say, the parent who is to pay support for the child, usually the father, economically abandons his child by
December 12, 1989

not paying or by paying late or by paying less than the ordered or agreed to amount.
The Federal Government Enforcement Assistance Act allows for the garnishment of designated federal funds to enforce delinquent support payments. I understand the program has been a tremendous success having intercepted a total of $6.3 million in the year prior to June 30, 1989. In many instances, the debtor father chooses to disappear rather then to pay child support. In such cases, the federal government will search its information banks in an effort to locate the father, thereby aiding provincial authorities in the enforcement of the support order or agreement.
In conclusion, information will also be released where a non-custodial parent takes a child contrary to an existing custodial arrangement. Information has been released in a total of 6,638 cases in the period from the establishment of the program on December 1, 1987, up to June of this year. The Federal Enforcement Assistance Act is part of a larger federal and provincial initiative to provide concrete assistance to children of divorcing families.
The government's work in the areas of support and custody and the Criminal Code are simply a few examples of our commitment to the protection of all Canadian children. The value of children cannot be overemphasized. They are the future of our country. This motion, however, fails, in my humble opinion, to significantly improve the lot of children in Canada.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to stand before you today and to address the motion focusing on children. I would like to commend the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam for bringing this matter before the House of Commons. Children are the cornerstone of this country, the basis for Canada's future.
The motion refers to a potential bill of rights for children, to a child protection commission and to a hotline; initiatives which are certainly diverse. But we must remember the other means by which we assist families and children. Their rights depend not only on
Private Members' Business
laws or organizations but as well on other very practical means of support.
Families are the first form for socialization of our children, for shaping and teaching the social values vital to the well-being of children. We therefore need to ensure a positive environment for families so that they, in turn, can fulfil their nurturing and caring responsibilities for our children.
Over the past 150 years, governments all across the world have undertaken specific measures to support families and their children. The recent international report from the United Nations to establish and adopt a convention on the rights of the child is certainly evidence of this.
Domestically, Canada has established a comprehensive approach to supporting families. An important feature of the Canadian system of support is the shared responsibility between federal and provincial jurisdictions. Constitutionally, provincial governments have prime responsibility for the well-being of children and through, for example, their social services and social assistance programs they discharge their responsibility. The federal government assists or facilitates these provincial activities largely through the transfer of moneys through programs such as the Canada Assistance Plan and Established Programs Financing.
From the federal government's perspective the concept of a family benefit related to the child goes back to 1918 when an amendment to the Income War Tax Act introduced the child tax exemption. The family allowance program then came into effect in 1945 demonstrating that Canada has accepted its obligation to assist in the upbringing of children. It was established as a vehicle whereby the federal government could supplement family income in order to alleviate some of the costs of caring and raising children.
Several changes have been made to family allowance since its inception in order to make the system of family benefits better targeted to families most in need.
Currently the federal government delivers almost $3 billion in family allowance benefits to over 3.5 million families on behalf of 6.5 million children. Benefits are paid, usually to the mother, on a monthly basis. In 1989 the monthly benefit is set at approximately $33 per child amounting to nearly $400 per year. Current federal

December 12, 1989
Private Members' Business
income support for families does not stop with family allowances. In this regard, family allowances are complemented by a system of child related benefits delivered largely through the personal income tax system.
The child tax credit program which benefits lower income families is another key source of income support for families. Since taking office in 1984 this government has significantly enhanced the maximum value of the credit by over 50 per cent, with the actual benefit increasing from $367 per child in 1984 to $565 per child in 1989. Family allowances and the basic child tax credit together support families and children by almost $1,000 per child annually.
As part of the recent child care initiative, the federal government also introduced in 1988 an additional supplement to the child tax credit in respect of children six years of age and under. The supplement is valued at $200 per child in 1989 and for subsequent tax years. The federal government has undertaken other income tax support measures to assist families with children. For example, we have proposed the new goods and services tax package which, when all elements are taken together, will mean that families with incomes of less than $30,000 per year will be better off than before the package had taken effect. As part of the package, families will benefit from an enhanced tax credit under the goods and services tax package which would be paid quarterly, in advance. The maximum value of the credit would be $275 per adult and $100 per child with special arrangements to support single parents.
Families will also benefit from a proposed reduction in the middle income tax bracket to somewhere in the order of 25 per cent. This rate reduction complements the enriched credit since the benefit it provides increases over the income range where the credit benefits are declining. We also assist parents with the cost and affordability of non-parental forms of child care. Through the personal income tax system, families are able to deduct up to $4,000 in work-related child care expenses in respect of pre-school age children and $2,000 in respect of school age children.
Through the Canada Assistance Plan, a cost-sharing program with the provinces, the federal government shares in eligible provincial expenditures on child care. In 1988-89 the federal government expected to spend
some $200 million under this cost-sharing program in respect of child care. The federal government intends to enhance its support for child care through a new national child care initiative which, as reported in both the Speech from the Throne and the Budget, will be introduced before the end of this mandate.
Families with new-born babies should soon experience additional support as the result of new legislation which is currently before the House and which would completely revise the current regime of maternity and sickness benefits.
The legislation will amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and introduce a multi-tiered system of maternity, parental and sickness benefits, including 15 weeks of maternity benefits available during the period surrounding the birth of a child; 10 weeks of parental benefits available to natural or adoptive parents, either the mother or the father, 15 weeks of sickness benefits and so on. The new unemployment insurance regime will allow claimants to receive each type of benefit up to its maximum as long as the cumulative duration of special benefits does not exceed 30 weeks.
In all of this, of course, we cannot forget that the best source of social protection is a job, and parents who have jobs are better able to provide for their own children. This federal government has been very successful in its economic policy efforts and has created over 1.5 million jobs since taking office in 1984.
Nonetheless, as we are all aware, family functioning sometimes breaks down as a result of outside strains and pressures. The federal government is concerned about these problems and with ensuring that families continue to be able to operate effectively and efficiently.
We are also aware of the important role that the public sector can play, both directly and indirectly, in assisting families during times of crisis. At the federal level, several initiatives have been introduced recently in support of families in crisis situations. For instance, we have identified and are responding to the priority issue of child abuse and, more generally, family violence.
In 1986, a five-year, $25 million initiative on child sexual abuse was announced. This initiative included the appointment of a special adviser on child sexual abuse, as we have already heard, who is expected to present his
December 12, 1989

report to the Minister of National Health and Welfare early in the new year.
A subsequent announcement in 1988 outlined a new $40 million family violence initiative. Under the second initiative, the majority of the funds, that is about $20 million, were allocated towards the creation of 500 new shelter units for battered women and their children.
The federal government is committed to undertaking further work in the area of family violence. To this end, we are developing a new family violence initiative which, in co-operation with provinces and the non-governmental sector, will improve the support available to families and children facing crisis and/or abusive situations.
The federal government has also eased the problems of marriage breakdown and divorce by introducing new divorce legislation which amended the grounds for divorce and humanized its consequences. To assist with the enforcement of support, the federal government also introduced services which provide for the release of information from designated federal banks to help locate persons who do not meet their obligations to a family order. They as well to provide for the garnishment of designated federal moneys from defaulting spouses.
Other federal initiatives in respect of families include efforts to reduce the problem of drug abuse in Canada and particularly among our young through the National Drug Strategy, and financial support to the provinces through the Established Programs Financing arrangements which supports the provision of health care in the education system.
The policies which I have just outlined are major federal programs which support families and children in Canada. These initiatives have helped families to cope with an ever-changing society by ensuring access to the key services and programs; child care, counselling, health care and education.
These initiatives have also contributed to lessening the problem of child poverty. In this regard, since 1984 the incidence of low income among children has continued to drop from a high of 20 per cent to just under 17 per cent in 1987.
Private Members' Business
We all have a vested interest in ensuring that today's children are provided with adequate social and health protection. I welcome this opportunity to speak on such a fundamental vital issue as our children.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, recently Canada joined all major countries in the world as a signator to the historic UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Canada, as a result, is legally obligated to adapt our policies and our legislation to reflect this convention as it applies particularly to protect the rights of children in Canada.
This motion we are debating today, which was sponsored by the member for Mission-Coquitlam, reinforces the UN convention by advocating a bill of rights for Canadian children. I commend her for her initiative. We hope this motion will be adopted not only by this House but by all provinces and by the Government of Canada as a guideline and commitment to protect the rights of Canadian children.
When we see the plight of starving children on TV, children from Africa with their bloated bodies and eyes that we cannot bear to look into, we are moved. But do we take action?
UNICEF reported at a conference I attended last summer that 40,000 children die each day from simple childhood diseases that are preventable. The cost of curing these diseases is minimal and yet do we contribute, as citizens, to save one child?
Today it was reported on the CBC that the UN predicts 100 million children may die in the next 10 years because of lack of nutrition and neglect. It is almost unbelievable that we live in this kind of a world.
However, in our concern for the world's children we must not forget our own children in Canada. The problems of many of Canada's children are hidden behind closed doors in our cities, towns and countryside. Child poverty, child abuse and child neglect are not visible. Yet, in Canada, well over one million children live below the poverty line. Children are the fastest growing users of food banks in this country.
Many of these children are disadvantaged from birth. Child mortality rates are twice as high in poor households as in the rest of the country. Babies are born underweight and face medical complications because of their mothers' poor nutrition during pregnancy. Young brains, as a result, do not develop and progress in school is difficult. Poor kids face a high dropout rate in high school, further limiting their options. Many become

December 12, 1989
Private Members' Business
homeless street kids in their teens, with all the dangers that lifestyle entails. Verbal, physical and sexual abuse of children also are on the rise. Many children who are sexually abused grow up to become prostitutes and patients in psychiatric hospitals, and we viewed this recently, in dramatic terms, in documentaries on television.
Canada was a signator to the UN convention on the rights of the child and we are morally bound to adhere to its precepts. Article 27 of this convention states that as a member nation we, as a signator, must ensure a standard of living adequate for children's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
While parents have the primary responsibility to provide security of life for their children, this is often not within their financial capacities. This means that where there are difficulties and where incomes are inadequate in families-and there are many, many of these, one in four children are in families who are in this situation- the state must supplement incomes and provide support programs. But we are not doing that in an adequate way. Sure, we have token welfare programs, but they are far below the minimum standard that is needed to sustain a family with young children.
I think that this government has short-changed us. Our children surely are our future, and our future is in trouble. Our society creates child poverty and neglect because it is based on inequalities. Women are left alone to raise children, without adequate incomes and without opportunities for independence in the future. Many parents are unemployed or underemployed. Housing is unaffordable for many young families today.
Our Conservative government leaves people at the mercy of the market-place where corporations reap profits while people lose jobs, and of course children suffer. Instead of improving social security and family benefits, the government's tax policies have increased the burden on low-income people.
What can we do to ensure that the rights of children are protected in Canada? We need a policy of full employment so that parents will be guaranteed a job with pay equity and parental leave provisions and affordable, quality child care. We need a children's bill of rights that
will be enforced by governments, and by the federal government in particular.
I support the motion of my hon. colleague for Mission-Coquitlam that this government should begin negotiating with the provinces to provide a children's bill of rights which will standardize laws throughout Canada. I also support her motion that this bill of rights should include a child protection commission and an emergency hotline which children could contact in times of crisis.
Why do we as Canadians and as world citizens tolerate the hardship that so many of our children are experiencing?


Ross Harvey: Because others profit by it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: As my colleague says, because others profit by it. People on this side of this House, I hope, do not tolerate that. Why do we sit back in complacency knowing that a generation of children who should be the leaders and parents of the future are instead being scarred by poverty and abuse? How can we give at Christmas to assuage our guilt and then feel free to ignore and forget our children's poverty and the problems of the children of Canada for the rest of the year? Why does poverty continue to exist in an affluent country such as ours?
These are the questions we must answer with action. One of the first steps is for all of us to agree to adopt and implement a children's bill of rights.


Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the list of many other speakers who have lent their voices to the important question of children's rights in Canada. I wish to thank the hon. member from Mission-Coquitlam for placing before the House of Commons her motion on this subject.
During the course of this debate on the issue of a comprehensive bill of rights for children, a number of speakers have alluded to the developments that have taken place internationally in regard to the human rights of the child. In fact, several members have suggested that as an alternative to elaborating a new bill of rights for children in Canada efforts in this country be focused on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the

Child. I wish to express my support for this suggestion, which I believe is a realistic means to enhance protection in this country for our children.
During earlier stages of this debate when reference was made to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, it was with the knowledge that the convention had not been adopted in final by the UN General Assembly. That important step was in fact taken on November 20, 1989, when the General Assembly adopted the convention by consensus.
As a Canadian, I am proud of the leading role that this country played in both the drafting and adoption of this fundamental instrument. Now that it has been adopted, the process of examining the question of Canadian signature and ratification of the convention will commence.
As the debate on the motion before us has progressed, it has become increasingly clear that many, if not all, of the issues that would be included in the Canadian bill of rights for children are addressed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Members speaking on this question have raised a number of extremely important concerns relating to the need for enhanced protection for children.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order please. The hon. member will have six minutes the next time this bill comes up. I regret that time has expired.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38(1) is deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue which has been raised repeatedly
Adjournment Debate
by myself and other members for the last number of years. It is the issue of a safe drinking water act.
Last May 10,1 asked a question of the Minister of the Environment calling on him to act in a preventive way, for once, and to live up to this government's commitment to bring in a safe drinking water act.
The requests for this act have been more urgent than in previous years as people from Winnipeg, for example, have become alarmed, and rightly so, by the plans of Consolidated Professor Mining. This company has been testing the feasibility of opening a gold mine in Shoal Lake, Ontario, the source of Winnipeg's drinking water. They want to build this mine on Stevens Island in the middle of the lake. Their operation would involve the crushing of rocks, which contain arsenic, right on the island with the assurance, so they say, that none of the arsenic would make its way into the lake.
They say they have retaining ponds which will never, ever leak under any circumstances. We are told not to worry about their having arsenic so close to the intake for Winnipeg's water, because there will never be any accidents, nor will there ever be any spills. It reminds me of the assurances that I am sure the people of Ukraine got from the Soviet nuclear experts about the possibility of a reactor accident, or the assurances that the people of northern Saskatchewan got about the retaining ponds at Wollaston Lake and other places where we have had spills recently of uranium mining waste water into the natural environment there.
It does not take a great deal of wisdom and foresight to see that such an operation poses an absolutely unnecessary risk to the health of the people of Winnipeg. The response to this issue in Winnipeg has been strong. It has been led by the Winnipeg Water Protection Group and its president, Helen McCullough. I had the opportunity to meet with Helen last summer and subsequently on a number of other occasions. The research and effort that they have put into stopping this project has been remarkable and should be commended.
As well, I would like to commend three grade five students from John de Graff School in my riding who were concerned about this, perhaps concerned that the adult community was not doing enough. They gathered

December 12, 1989
Adjournment Debate
over 300 names on a petition about this issue. I had the honour of bringing their petition to the House last June. I commend them again for their actions.
These young people are right to be concerned that so far all that we have seen from the federal government on this issue is talk but no action. On May 10 the answer that I received from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who assured me that as a fellow Manitoban he shared my concern on this issue, stated, as reported at page 1541 of Hansard:
No approval should be given until every assurance has been given
that the water supply is safe.
This begs a question as far as I am concerned. Surely the government understands that the way to make sure that the water supply is safe is not to allow mines that leach arsenic to be built on islands in the middle of the lake in the first place. The way to do that is to bring in an act that ensures that commercial development such as this will always take a back seat to the safety of drinking water for Canadians. Surely if we have reached any point at all in our environmental consciousness we have reached the point where a gold mining company should not have a claim of any sort by which it could even think about establishing a good mine in the middle of the drinking water supply of 600,000 Canadians. Surely we should reach a point where that is not even on the table, that is not even an option, that is not even considered.
This is what I have in mind for a safe drinking water act. Such an act has been promised by the government in speeches and letters over and over again but the act has failed to materialize. My colleague from Beaches- Woodbine has been pushing for such an act for years, repeatedly bringing in Private Members' Bills to this effect. The government of the day, be it Liberal or Conservative, has always killed these bills at that stage.
Last June, Bill C-224, a safe drinking water act, was brought before the House by my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine and was talked out by a Liberal, the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls. It is enough to make a person wonder if either the Liberals or the Conservatives will ever see the light as far as the safety of drinking water for Canadians is concerned.
We have been asking the government to take some initiative for years now. The government has been promising action but none has been seen.
In November, Helen McCullough received a disturbing letter from an Environment Canada official that told her the Shoal Lake management plan "has not directly involved Environment Canada to date". Why has it not? Why has it not, given all the assurances that we have received in this House from various federal ministers? Why has Environment Canada not been involved? What is the federal government doing with respect to this issue? Where is our safe drinking water act? The government has had years to move and the safety of as many as 650,000 people now is at stake. Why the reluctance to bring in the legislation?
This matter is clearly in the federal government's jurisdiction. It is time for the government to do something and not just talk about it.
I see that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is preparing to respond on behalf of the government, someone who is also from Manitoba. Perhaps he will have some goods news for us, that for once this government will act in the interest of Manitobans. It did not with respect to Rafferty-Alameda. It got off to not a bad start. It did something right, but it has allowed that to lapse too.
Once again, in terms of the rhetoric of the government with respect to the environment, its bark has been a whole lot stronger than its bite. We would like to see some bite on Rafferty-Alameda, some bite on a safe drinking water act and some bite for the drinking water supply of Winnipegers.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of the Environment first heard about the proposed gold mine which will be located approximately 12 kilometres from Winnipeg's water supply he immediately asked Environment Canada officials to investigate possible federal decision-making authorities over the proposed mine which could trigger the application-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Why do you say "will be", Lee, is it a foregone conclusion?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: If the hon. member will wait, I think he will find that there is some information here which applies to the question he has raised of the EARP process.
December 12, 1989

The Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act were the two acts that might have served this purpose. However, a recent decision by the Federal Court with regard to the Old Man River Dam in Alberta has cast doubt on the applicability of the EARP to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Under the Fisheries Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may request plans and specifications for any project that is likely to result in the alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, or in the deposit of a deleterious substance in water frequented by fish. While such a request may require the application of the EARP, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does not consider the request to be justified in the specific circumstances of the Consolidated Professor Mine because the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act process will provide for the opportunity to address potential impacts on fish or fish habitat.
I wish to add that as a result of the expressions of concern by Winnipeg residents and as a result of discussions among the federal government, Ontario and the Province of Manitoba, Ontario decided to designate the proposed mine under its own Environmental Assessment Act. I understand the government of Manitoba is satisfied with the proposed review process. I can assure you that Environment Canada officials will also actively participate in the review of the project under the Ontario process.
The proposed mine is, as the hon. member probably knows, also subject to the federal metal mining liquid effluent regulations. Those regulations are rigorously applied.
With respect to the proposed federal safe drinking water act, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Hon. Perrin Beatty, has indicated that he intends to introduce a drinking water safety act that would establish drinking water quality objectives that would be mandatory within the federal domain. The proposed act would not directly address the issues that the hon. member has mentioned. It would permit the Department of National Health and Welfare to enter into agreements with other jurisdictions in order to solve drinking water problems of common interest. I think that is of considerable importance, Mr. Speaker.
Adjournment Debate HEALTH


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, in May 1986 the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare produced a report on AIDS. The government responded by saying it was doing everything it could.
Two years later, in May of 1988, the Royal Society produced a report on AIDS. The government again responded by saying it was doing everything it could.
The former Minister of Health said in 1987 to the UN General Assembly: "In my opinion, we in Canada are doing our utmost to bring AIDS under control within our own borders." But AIDS groups and we in the opposition have said consistently that in fact the government was doing very little while this lawless fatal disease spread.
The current Minister of Health said he agreed with the opposition and recognized that his government had done virtually nothing to control the spread of AIDS. He said in The Medical Post on May 9, 1989: "I would have liked to have inherited a national strategy, but I didn't." He also said that affected groups are not being consulted. Looking at the way we have proceeded to date he said: "Too often the communications have not been adequate."
On August 11, 1988 the Prime Minister crowed over his government's AIDS policy saying it is part of a solid record of achievement of which all members of this Parliament can be proud. We on this side of the House have no pride in the inaction of this government, and apparently the Minister of Health is not part of his own government's action either.
Further, at the Montreal International Conference on AIDS, the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his speech talked about what his government was going to do in the future and did not indicate much about what the government had done in the past, and for good reason. The government's record on developing an AIDS strategy and responding to the AIDS crisis remains a record of inaction.
Five years ago when the Conservatives took office there were 122 cases of people living with AIDS. When I asked my question on AIDS in May there were 2,736 cases, an increase of 2,200 per cent in five years. Now there are in excess of 2,900 cases of people living with AIDS.

Adjournment Debate
In addition to this massive and tragic growth in people living with AIDS are those tens of thousands-perhaps
50,000	people-testing HIV positive.
AIDS is a preventive condition. Yet many problems remain in reducing its incidence. I would like to relate a few of those problems which the government has yet to address.
It is known how the HIV virus is spread, but there remains a great deal of ignorance and misapprehension about the virus and about AIDS in general. While some have changed their behaviour on the basis of the information available, others have not. Condoms are not as widely available as they should be. Needle exchange programs have been thwarted by some provinces. Persons with AIDS or who have tested HIV positive are frequently discriminated against. The federal government has been far too slow to react to show the leadership needed. The same goes for provincial governments in Canada.
Insufficient research on AIDS and the HIV virus is being conducted and access to promising new treatments is too often hindered. Governments at all levels have funded the fight against AIDS in a totally inadequate manner.
Early testing and diagnosis in the treatment of HIV infection is critical. Yet the lack of availability of anonymous testing facilities prevents many from coming forward for testing.
Faced with inadequate government funding, leadership and co-ordination, community groups which have performed so well in the fight against AIDS are often understaffed and underfunded. The federal Centre for AIDS has not acted in such a way as to have gained the confidence of those in the field.
All these problems with the fight against AIDS should be seen in the light of the continued increase in the number of people with AIDS in Canada and should be seen in the light of inadequate funding and leadership by this Conservative government. This is in sharp contrast to the situation in other countries. Australia is a good example of this. There the federal government has shown leadership in the development of an effective strategy dealing with AIDS, including consultation with support groups. In addition, on AIDS the Australian
government spends four times the per capita amount spent in Canada.
Canada has a long way to go and people are losing their future and, indeed, dying in the process. All the while this Conservative government sits back without taking leadership in policy development and a funding role.
Canada should have had a national AIDS strategy in place and in operation by now. There has been no valid excuse for the delay. The way ahead is clear. The strategy should deal with education and prevention, treatment, care and support, testing, cancelling discrimination and research. The government should develop a policy in the near future. It has an enormous amount of information available to it to do so.
In closing, if I may, I would like to pay particular tribute to all those working in support groups, voluntaiy and otherwise, for the very important work they are performing. They deserve and need the commitment and adequate funding which this government has not seen fit as yet to provide.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, at the Fifth International Conference on AIDS in Montreal the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced this government's commitment to develop a national strategy on AIDS by the end of the year.
The development of a national AIDS strategy is an exercise which requires the participation and the involvement of all those involved in the fight against AIDS. These include the federal, provincial and municipal governments, as well as the non-government organizations in the country. Discussions with the various agencies have been ongoing and will continue.
The strategy will delineate the appropriate objectives and propose a course of action over a medium term of five years and will require input from other federal departments which will include Justice, Secretary of State, Corrections, Treasury Board Secretariat, Employment and Immigration, Labour, CIDA, External Affairs, the Department of National Defence and the Solicitor General.
The strategy will also be developed through a series of bilateral discussions and consultations. These will provide a forum for the exchange of information and activities already under way at the federal and provincial
December 12, 1989

levels in areas of education and community-based public awareness initiatives.
Ongoing consultations with the non-governmental sector are being conducted in parallel with the above process in order to obtain their input for the formulation of the national AIDS strategy.
Consultations have been held with such groups as the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian AIDS Society and their affiliates, the Canadian Haemophilia Society, the Canadian Council on Social Development, the scientific community and representatives from the educational field, including groups such as the Council of Ministers of Education, Canadian Home and School and Parent Teacher Federation, the Canadian Teachers Federation and others. The success of the development of a national strategy depends on the participation of all the partners.
The development of a national strategy on aids is a
Adjournment Debate
complex and important step in the fight against this deadly disease. It is crucial that we have adequate consultation with all the partners if we are to achieve a truly national approach. It is expected that the complete and comprehensive national strategy will be announced in the first half of 1990.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 13, 1989