1989-06-01

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the striking committee, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.[


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of the Environment) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PATENT ACT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-248, an Act to amend the Patent Act (generic farm chemicals).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to encourage the marketing of generic pesticides, including herbicides and insecticides, to farmers in Canada at the lowest possible prices consistent with fair returns to the developers of the original products.


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

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: for leave to introduce Bill C-249, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 1, 1989
Petitions


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to provide Canadians farmers with parity prices based on a production price formula for wheat, oats and barley destined for human consumption in Canada and to create optional marketing boards for pork and beef. The Bill is intended to pave the way for setting parity prices for Canadian producers.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-250, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (grain handling).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, drought and the international subsidy wars have given grain producers enough to worry about without the age old problems of slow-downs and shut-downs in the grain handling and transportation system.
This Bill would curtail work stoppages by grain handlers and those involved in the transportation of grain from farm gate to the port. Instead, both prolonged lockouts and strikes would be prohibited. The mechanism for resolution of disputes would be immediately implemented, thereby avoiding these work stoppages which are so harmful to the Canadian producer.


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

Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of over 200 Canadians of Lebanese origin. The petitioners are directly affected by the Syrian aggression in Lebanon.
They are very concerned about the safety and well-being of their friends and relatives. As Canadians of Lebanese descent they are aware that the Arab League of Nations has tried and failed on four successive occasions to guarantee a ceasefire in that country.
They are also aware that their people have to travel to Syria and Israel to be processed as refugees to Canada and that the consular office in Cyprus processes only immigration applications.
The petitioners are calling upon the Parliament of Canada to urge this Government to take steps to facilitate the immigration of those Lebanese who are being forced to flee their country and to increase assistance to those Lebanese who are forced to stay behind.
They further ask the Government of Canada to call for an emergency debate in the Security Council so that the United Nations will intervene immediately and energetically to remove all non-Lebanese forces from its territoiy-
I urge this Government to take action in supporting the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions which have been certified by the Clerk pursuant to Standing Order 36.
These petitions, which contain 1,572 signatures, call upon the Government of Canada to revise the extradition laws and to allow the Minister of Justice to order the extradition of fugitives either immediately or after they have been dealt with fully by the Canadian penal system.
I join with the petitioners in urging the Government to toughen up this aspect of our criminal justice and extradition systems.
June 1, 1989


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition duly certified under Standing Order 36 which deals with the whole question of unemployment insurance.
The petitioners urge the Government immediately to adopt the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration in its first report to the thirty-third Parliament and not to proceed with the proposed changes to the unemployment insurance fund, which will disentitle up to a million Canadians from unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I too would address the same topic. I have a petition duly certified by the Clerk under Standing Order 36, the topic being the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act and the disenfranchisement of up to a million Canadians as a result of those changes.
The petitioners are asking that the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration in its first report to the thirty-third Parliament, second session, be adopted.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to file with this House a petition signed by a number of outstanding Canadian citizens and taxpayers who are deeply concerned about the pending unemployment insurance Bill.
These citizens are opposed to the harmonization of unemployment insurance in this House to conform with the Free Trade Agreement, which will destroy the historic role of unemployment insurance in this nation.
These people have taken the time out to sign this petition and to bring it to Parliament, with the hope that every ear and mind in this House of Commons will be bent closely to listen to their pleas, along with my insistence that this become a high priority with the Government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I too want to bend the minds and the ears of the Members across the way if it is possible; I am not sure if it is. I also have a petition signed by a number of Canadians who are concerned about changes to the
Petitions
Unemployment Insurance Act which they feel will take about a million Canadians off the unemployment insurance payroll.
They are also saying that they are concerned that no reference was made to the Unemployment Insurance Act during the election campaign of November, 1988. A number of these Canadians are concerned about these changes and about the honesty and integrity of the Government across the way. They are hoping the Government will come to its senses and listen to what they are saying.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my petition is also for the benefit of the bent minds across the way. It is related to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The people who have signed this petition indicate that they are upset that the federal Government made no reference to such changes in unemployment insurance during the recent election. They want to note that the only government position of record was the reference made by the all-Party Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration which called for improvement in benefits, cuts, and waiting periods.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to move immediately to adopt the recommendations presented to it by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration in its first report to the thirty-third Parliament, second session, and to reject any proposals to fund much needed retraining programs from unemployment benefits.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of a number of people from Kamloops, British Columbia, outstanding Canadians who are concerned that the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act proposed by the Government would prevent up to a million Canadians, annually, from establishing unemployment insurance claims. There is a long list of concerns but I will not go through them all. I will use a few days to raise them, day by day.
Fundamentally, they are calling upon Parliament to move immediately to adopt the recommendations presented to it by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration in its first report to the thirty-third Parliament, second session, and to reject any

June 1, 1989
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
proposals to fund the much needed retraining programs from unemployment benefit funds.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, turning to another issue, I have a different petition from a large number of petitioners from Kamloops, British Columbia, who are concerned that the Government of Canada has failed to provide the financial resources necessary to enable VIA Rail to fulfil its promise of improved rail service. It obviously has the ability and yet it simply has never been given the resources by this Government to carry out its mandate successfully.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to maintain, improve, and modernize VIA Rail service, particularly in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economic, safe, convenient, environmentally sound, and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise hopefully to soften the hardened hearts of the Government. I am pleased to table a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of some great Canadians of Ontario. They, too, are protesting the proposed changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act which may, indeed, adversely affect one million Canadians.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition dealing with changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act and signed by a number of Canadians from across the country.
They are protesting the taking of funds from those who are unemployed and directing those funds to retraining, rather than finding new sources of funds for retraining. They are also complaining about the fact that the Government did not mention this in its election platform and are concerned about the fact that it will take one million Canadian, annually, off the unemployment insurance lists, leaving them without any means of support other than at the behest of the provinces.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, if would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 30, it would be answered today.
Due to the length of the response which is 27 pages, I would ask that it be made an order for return and that this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Karpoff: 1.	For each year since 1984, did the government sell or lease any land and, if so, in each case, (a) what land (b) was it converted to (i) housing (ii) non-housing uses?
2.	Does the government currently have title to land in metropolitan areas (a) zoned for residential use (b) used for residential housing and, if so, what is its location?
Return tabled.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could help the Chair. There is a point of order being raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops. I will hear that and come back to the Minister of State for Science and Technology immediately thereafter.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate clearly to the Minister who is about to speak that this intervention will be short and in no way is intended to keep him from making his presentation on this space centre.
June 1, 1989

I originally asked that I have an opportunity to rise on a question of privilege. I think, having reconsidered that, I am rising on a point of order. I want to just a few moments to explain my point of order.
There seems to be a misplacement on the Order Paper of a motion which I submitted yesterday. The motion reads as follows:
That it be an Order of this House that Les Mcllroy, Chief of Staff to the Minister of Finance, Bill Pristanski, Chief of Staff to the Solicitor General, and Phil Evershed, Chief of Staff to the Deputy Prime Minister attend at the Bar of the House when Orders of the Day are reached in the sitting of the House following the day on which this Order is made, for the purpose of providing information to the House concerning the receipt of information about the improper and unauthorized possession and distribution of budget material and the manner and time in which members of the Cabinet were provided with this information;
That the aforementioned persons bring with them such papers and records as may be required for these purposes; and
That the Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms of the House take all necessary actions to ensure compliance with this Order.
I recognize that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Tbmer) also presented a similar motion referring to other individuals.
In my letter to the Journals Branch yesterday, I specified that it was pursuant to Standing Order 67(p) that I gave notice of this motion, and that Standing Order reads as follows:
67.(1) The following motions are debatable:
(p) such other motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
I cannot think of a more important motion concerning the maintenance of the authority of the House than one seeking to determine whether the responsibility for making decisions of government is held by Members of Parliament and Ministers of the Crown or public servants.
It has been ruled that motions relating to certain of these categories, specifically the business of the House, are the sole prerogative of the Government. However, I cannot find any records where a motion to call witnesses to the bar has become the sole prerogative of the Government. If you reflect upon those occasions when
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
the House has considered motions to call individuals to the bar, Mr. Speaker, I submit that you will find that the privilege of moving such a motion has not been restricted to Ministers of the Crown. Indeed, in the few instances where the House has called someone to the bar, it has frequently been on a motion of an opposition Member.
In 1873, for example, several such motions were made; sometimes by Liberals, sometimes by Conservatives, and at least once by Prime Minister Macdonald.
In one example on June 7,1894, during a Conservative Government a motion to call witnesses to the bar was moved by the Chief Opposition Whip, Mr. Edgar. It was moved without notice and the House adopted the motion.
A decade later when Liberal Sir Wilfrid Laurier was Prime Minister, a prominent Conservative rose on privilege and moved that a journalist whom he considered libellous be called to the bar. Although he rose on privilege and not during Routine Proceedings, it is interesting to note the observation of Sir Wilfrid Laurier who said: "Mr. Speaker, the motion of the honourable gentleman is undoubtedly according to the rules of the House, one which is altogether within his right to move and have adopted by Parliament".
Yet it seems that this same type of motion is not within our rights as opposition Members to move and have adopted by Parliament during regular House time. I have not yet been able to find a previous instance where a serious motion to call a witness to the bar has been denied through being relegated to Private Members' Business, especially after Private Members' Business has evolved to a tag-end hour of debate of little force or effect.
It is unfortunate on one hand to have such old precedents on this issue. The House, I realize, has not been forced to consider such dramatic and unusual steps to learn the truth of the matter. There is a perception that the precedents from the early years of the Canadian House of Commons are not necessarily relevant today. Some feel it was a different world in those days, a different relationship between Parties, a different type of Parliament and with different rules.
I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will find that the fundamental question has not changed. There has been no change to the rights of the House of Commons and to

June 1, 1989
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
the rights of Members of the House to seek information and to learn the truth.


Mr. Crosby:: Yes, it has changed. We have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am at a loss to understand why Members of the House in 1989 are denied, if you like, the opportunity that was available to Members who represented our grandparents.
I trust that you will find an error has been made in the placement of Motion No. 490 in my name under Private Members' Business and will direct that it be moved to Notices of Motion.
I would like to address briefly the concerns that you and other Members have made about the risks of allowing a motion from this side of the House to be debated during Routine Proceedings. There is perhaps a genuine fear that these motions by the Opposition are an attempt to hijack the House. This argument is clearly false and trivializes serious questions that a number of Hon. Members, including the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tbmer) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) are trying to have answered in the House. If this motion and that of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition were to be placed under Motions, under the rubric of Routine Proceedings, at most three hours, and more likely two hours, of House time would be used to debate the motion. Subsequently, the motion would become transferred to Government Orders and it is only the prerogative of the Government to call it for debate. In other words, just as the Government can talk out Private Members' Hour, so too can it talk out any motion moved during Routine Proceedings. However, that does not diminish the seriousness and the importance of having such a motion debated.
This is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker, and we ought to have the right to have it moved to the proper place in Routine Proceedings so that an opposition Member may on occasion have such a motion debated.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my reply will be very brief because I believe that under Government Orders we ought to proceed with the motion that was called for debate and has been moved by the Minister.
There have been many changes in the Standing Orders from time to time. If the Chair were to examine the titles of Routine Proceedings, there is private Members' Business, Government Business and Motions. By practice, most of the items that have been handled under Motions
have been items of routine business and items where there has been agreement between the Parties that a matter would be dealt with in an expeditious manner under that heading. There has been ample opportunity for Members to put forward private enterprises or efforts.
At a later date, Mr. Speaker, I will be getting into the question of whether or not it is appropriate to flood, if I may use that word, private Members' motions and the actual text of the motions that are there. We are in the process of doing an analysis of that. I do not believe that is what Private Members' Hour was intended for. We feel, and it seems to have worked pretty well on the first mandate, that it was intended to allow Members to bring forward items which would be considered for full debate by the Private Members' committee. That has worked pretty well in the past. There have been Private Members' Bills passed right through all three stages because they were not "talked out".
The Government stands behind that principle, but I believe we will be suggesting some changes to that. As an aside, the Government's view is that the Ihble's slotting of motions has been impeccable up until now. Then-judgment has been very sound. We believe that the Right Hon. Member from Vancouver Quadra's motion is in the right place and that when it is transferred from the notice paper my hon. friend from Kamloop's motion will be in the correct place. I would submit that these matters should be treated as a Private Member's motion.


Howard Edward Crosby: I would like to make a brief intervention, Mr. Speaker, in light of the arguments raised by the Member from British Columbia with respect to the procedures in the House of Commons. I would remind the Chair and all Members that in 1981 and 1982 we made a dramatic change in the laws of Canada. We passed constitutional provisions that included the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter contains provisions that dramatically affect the way the law is administered throughout Canada and the powers of Parliament. We stood and voted in favour of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that dramatically restricted the powers of the House of Commons. When we try to rely on ancient precedents and traditions requiring people to appear before the Bar of the House of Commons in accordance with Parliamentary tradition, we forget that we have enacted a law that gives to those very people the rights and protection of the law. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that when you are considering these parliamentary precedents, you recognize the Canadian Charter of
June 1, 1989

Rights and Freedoms and its application to the people affected by our action.
What the Member from British Columbia is asking is that a person be brought before this Chamber for an inquisition by Members of this House of Commons when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects that person from such inquisition and says that they must have the protection of law.


Mr. Milliken:: They can have counsel with them.


Howard Edward Crosby: This Parliament passed a law-if you do not want to pay any attention, listen to this: This Parliament passed a law which was interpreted in the case of the Province of Ontario as prohibiting the saying of prayers in public schools in Ontario. Yet we stand every day in our Chamber and say prayers. We deprived the schoolchildren of Ontario of that right but we maintain it for ourselves.
We are not paying enough attention in this Parliament to what we did in 1982. We dramatically changed the laws of Canada by enacting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We cannot pick up our Standing Orders and say they govern in all cases. What governs in Canada is the Constitution, the rule of law. We cannot make these laws up day by day and change them as we go along.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the issue that you are being asked to rule on is not whether the procedure of calling someone to the Bar of the House is still available, but rather whether the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I presume a similar motion by the House Leader or another Member of the NDP, should be under Private Members' motions, or Motions as such.
I submit to you that this matter is of such importance, dealing as it does with the workings of the House and its role generally, that this motion should not be placed under Private Members' motions, but rather under Motions.
I do not intend to give a lengthy review of precedents in this regard. There is a Standing Order which I think you can rely on to have this matter placed under Motions. It seems to me that if the Government is concerned about clearing the air on this issue of cover-
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
ups of Budget leaks and the like, it would be delighted to have this motion placed under the regular heading of Motions and dealt with as quickly as possible.
With respect to the representations made to you by the Conservative Member who has just spoken, it does not in any way follow that if this House made a motion to summon individuals to the Bar of the House, this is in any way contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does not mean-


Howard Edward Crosby: They would not be able to have counsel.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It does not mean that a person would not be able to have counsel and would not have available to him what the Charter of Rights says with respect to individuals and their freedoms. In fact, an individual summoned to the Bar of the House would have a protection not available in any other type of judicial or inquiry proceeding. That is, before any question could be put to such individual, a motion would have to be made specifically to put that question. That motion would be debatable and voted upon by all the Members of the House. That, Mr. Speaker, is a privilege not available to any witness before an ordinary judicial inquiry or any court proceedings.
Therefore, I say to my hon. friend that it is good to hear his concern about individual rights. It is good to hear what he has to say about the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But if he is serious about that, let him bring those views to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice and let them as a result rethink what is being done or attempted to be done to Mr. Doug Small. I put him to the test on that matter. Therefore to conclude, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Halifax West.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this discussion but I just want to record what nonsense that last remark made. In this country, the administration of the criminal law lies with the provinces of Canada. Each province is responsible for the administration of the criminal laws in that province. If the Minister does not know that, he had better go back to law school. The Prime Minister has absolutely nothing to do with the enforcement of criminal law in Canada. The case to which the Member refers involves enforcement of criminal law in the Province of Ontario. It is in the purview of the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario and has

June 1, 1989
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
nothing to do with the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister of Canada. The Member must know that.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to keep my remarks in order on the point of order raised by my colleague and focus on the role of Standing Orders in this Chamber and other similar Chambers.
My colleague has given a thoroughly researched presentation to this House about the history of the use of these kinds of motions. As much as I would enjoy a debate that shifted onto an interpretation of the Charter of Rights, Standing Orders is what we govern ourselves under in this Chamber and it has nothing to do with any other laws of the land. It is a method of running this Chamber and this Chamber alone.
Without Standing Orders, we could all be subject to the interpretation of legislation across this country. The House would return to the kind of chaos that we occasionally have when Members speak about a subject without reference to Standing Orders and with no judgment, Mr. Speaker.
The Member has raised an important question here. There is no precedent in this Chamber on which the motion should be shifted to Private Members' order. The fact is every precedent given in making a decision on this matter is exactly in the direction pointed out by my colleague, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party.
If in the rare use of the Standing Order and this motion it is summarily dismissed to being another initiative of a private Member rather than the business of the whole House, we lose the whole traditional thrust of calling somebody to the bar. It is an extremely rare request. It is not given frivolously. But it should be given the proper consideration under tradition and practice and the rule of Standing Orders.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. It is an important decision aside from the substance. As much as I am tempted to stray into the substance, that serves no purpose. We can share opinions about the substance.
That is separate and distinct from a decision that has to be made under Standing Orders.
If Standing Orders are to be worth anything, they must be consistent, they must obey tradition and interpretation by example.
The Member has done a first-class job for this House in his presentation, aside from the issue. But in terms of the presentation, I see no other course than to follow the tradition of the interpretation of the Standing Order and the precedents that exist. I know that you will take that under consideration. I know how important Standing Orders' consistency are to the Chair. Thank you for listening, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I conclude by again inviting you to consider on its merits the precedents that have been cited and the relevant Standing Order, which I submit allows this motion and in fact requires this motion to be considered under Motions during Routine Proceedings.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to belabour the point, but it seems to me that Standing Order 67(p) is quite clear on this matter. It says:
The following motions are debatable: (p) such other motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days-
While it may be that the practice has arisen that the Government House Leader alone introduces motions under Routine Proceedings for these purposes, it seems to me there are other purposes besides those which may be countenanced. Clearly, the precedents cited by the Hon. Member for Kamloops dealing with the right of the House to call persons to appear before its Bar and answer questions is one of those that is not necessarily a Government motion at all. Given that the two notices of motion we have-one from the Leader of the Opposition and one from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-deal with matters that could fit under this section (p), they are clearly debatable motions and ones that could be brought under Routine Proceedings.
I want to support the suggestion that the Hon. Member for Kamloops has made and reinforce the argument that under Standing Order 67(p), it would be possible for these motions to be brought under Routine Proceedings and not as Private Members' Motions and debated in the proper way there.
They do relate to the arrangement of proceedings of the House, to the management of its business, to the conduct of its officers, maintenance of its authority, and so on. These are all items that are dealt with in the two notices of motion that we have before us. I would ask that Your Honour consider them under that heading.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops has raised an intriguing matter. It is strongly supported by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and other Members.
The Hon. Member for Halifax West has raised an issue which is also interesting and probably bears some careful consideration. That is, whether or not the orders of this
Space Agency
House ought to be examined on the basis that since the orders were originally made and then amended from time to time or added to or deleted, we now have a Charter of Rights and to what degree does that Charter of Rights affect the orders of this House.
I think I understand the Hon. Member's point that I will have to consider. I will tiy to return to the House as quickly as possible on this matter. I understand perfectly that the Hon. Member for Kamloops would want the decision made as quickly as possible. I thank the Hon. Members for their courtesy and help.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. William C. Winegard (for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology) moved: that Bill C-16, an Act to establish the Canadian Space Agency and to provide for other matters in relation to space, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today this House once again plays a part in history. We are debating the establishment of the Canadian Space Agency, an historic step in the development of Canada's space program.
The establishment of the Canadian Space Agency will play an important part in the development of a Canadian economic capability based on a partnership between industry, government, and universities. Beyond that, it is another venture by Canada and Canadians into the newest era of human development, the space age.
Since our ancestors in very early times first realized that the lights in the night sly were physical bodies, humanity has wanted to learn more about the universe. Our fascination now with space travel is not new. There has always existed the urge to travel to the moon and to the planets.
Our understanding of the heavens has evolved slowly. The history of that understanding is studded with the names of the great scientists: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein and many others.

June 1, 1989
Space Agency
It was not until the second half of our own century that humanity was actually able to send objects and humans into space. It soon became apparent that the exploration and the understanding of the universe depended on bringing together all humanity's knowledge of the sciences, all humanity's engineering and technological knowledge and skills.
It soon became equally apparent that realizing the age-old dream of travelling to the stars was too massive an undertaking for one nation and that international co-operation is as much a part of space as the application of knowledge and science.

Among those who are listening to the debate today, some may have the impression that establishing the Canadian Space Agency is Canada's first step in space. That is certainly not the case. It is a step and an important one, but it certainly is not the first one in the long and distinguished history of our presence in space!

Canada's part in the exploration of space was underlined on September 29, 1962 when Alouette 1 was launched, making Canada the world's third nation, after the United States and the Soviet Union, to have an orbiting satellite. This remarkable achievement was built upon the ground-based scientific studies carried out by Canadian scientists, carried out since the early 1930s, and upon the advanced technology developed in Canada during and after the Second World War.
Since 1962, Canada has become a world leader in a number of space-related fields such as communications, remote sensing, and the development of space technologies such as the Canadarm. Canada's 60-year-old space activity has been marked by domestic and international partnerships; domestically between Governments, industry, and universities, and internationally between Canada and the United States, the European Space Agency, Japan, Sweden, and the Soviet Union.
In the 27 years since Alouette 1 was launched, Canada and Canadians have earned a reputation world-wide as a nation that is serious about scientific effort and about space. Canada has enhanced its reputation as a nation
committed to peaceful international co-operation for the benefit of humanity.
The Government's space effort is currently housed in several federal Departments and agencies. The Government's long-term Canadian space program represents a total investment of approximately $3 billion over the 15-year period. That period is from 1986 to the year 2000.
The establishment of the Canadian Space Agency brings together under a new Department much of the space program activities of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, the Department of Communications, and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The space division of the National Research Council will also become a part of the Canadian Space Agency.
The Agency will have direct management responsibilities of approximately $2 billion of the Canadian space program. Departments which serve specific user or client needs through the use of space technology will retain that ongoing role. For example, the Department of Communications will retain responsibility for telecommunications in Canada; the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing will continue to serve its own client base with products of space-based earth observations; the Department of National Defence will continue to operate its own space program. However, the Canadian Space Agency will assist the Minister to co-ordinate those programs. Those other aspects of the Canadian space program will amount to approximately $1 billion over that time period.
The object of the Canadian Space Agency will be the peaceful use and development of space to ensure that space science and technology provides social and economic benefits for Canadians.
I must stress the concept of the peaceful use and development of space. The Canadian Space Agency will be involved in only those activities which fall within Canada's international obligations as contained in the treaties in outer space to which we are signatories. It will ensure the development, transfer, diffusion, and absorption of space technology to Canadian industry by securing their active involvement, and also the active involvement of the academic and the research and development institutions of the country.



The space program will also provide for a balanced apportionment of spinoffs across this country. The Government's policy is quite clear in this respect. Regional development objectives will be observed to the greatest possible extent. This objective is now an integral part of the Agency's planning process.
The Agency will encourage the continuing development of automation and robotics technology, satellite communications and remote sensing and ground-based technology. In addition to the retrieval and processing of remote sensing data, the Agency will also promote the development of technology for ground-based control and rocket engineering, and the advancement of space science in all regions of Canada.
More specifically, efforts will be made to develop a space-linked high technology base in Atlantic Canada.
The Space Agency will have its headquarters in Saint-Hubert on the South Shore of the St. Lawrence. Montreal is above all a city of international caliber and an important centre for Canada's aviation and space industry.

Canada's space program has already provided economic benefits for this country. We have better communication networks and improved ability to manage our resources and strong exports of high technology products. All of those translate into economic returns either in new efficiencies or in direct job creation. The program will continue to do that. The Canadian space program will also contribute heavily to this Government's efforts to create and sustain a high technology base in Canada.
The technology developed by the Canadian Space Agency for use in the total space program will be transferred to Canadian industrial sectors. The potential spin-offs already show considerable promise. For example, robotics technologies for the Canadarm have applications in harsh environments here on earth. Remote sensing technology, a field in which Canada has already set the pace for the world and the field the Canadian Space Agency will continue to develop will contribute to better management of our precious resources.
Space Agency
The legislation has set the objective for the Canadian Space Agency to sustain those benefits. It will also provide the agency with the tools to carry out that mandate.
The agency will be a department of the Government, reporting to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. The Minister will be responsible for co-ordinating the space policies and space programs of the Government of Canada. That co-ordination will be done through the Canadian Space Agency.
The agency will also manage Canada's major international space commitments. For example, the agency will direct Canada's activities in the space station both in development of the mobile servicing system and in the best use of the laboratories in which Canada's astronauts will conduct experiments in microgravity, space technology, space science, and in life sciences such as space medicine.
As well, the agency will manage the Radarsat program, a co-operative venture involving Canada, the United States, nine provincial Governments and the private sector. Radarsat is unique in the nature and extent of its co-operative aspects. The agency will also manage and operate world-class space facilities such as the David Florida Laboratory located in Ottawa. It will also be charged with encouraging the commercial development of space related technology for use in Canada by Canadians.
The agency will continue on the course Canada has already set of international partnership in space exploration, working with other nations on space and space related programs and of course making our space related technology and goods available to the world.
Dr. Larkin Kerwin, who has had a long and distinguished career as an academic and administrator, will be president of the agency. He is a former rector of Universite Laval, and I might add that he was rector of that university when I was performing a similar job at the University of Guelph. I knew him well in that capacity. As rector of that university and as president of the National Research Council, Dr. Kerwin will bring invaluable leadership and experience to his role as chief executive officer.
This new agency will work in close partnership with all other Departments with space related responsibility. Links with the Ministry, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Communications, the National Research Council, and the Department of Industry, Science and Technology will be

Space Agency
essential. This Government's priority is to put Canada and Canadians among the world players in the technological and scientific changes sweeping the world economy.

To achieve this, we must forge and maintain new alliances with the provinces, with engineers, companies and unions in order to attain new peaks in the areas of education, technology, development and innovation.

I am confident that we are building on that proud legacy with the creation of the Canadian Space Agency. With the Canadian Space Agency, we set a course for the future that will allow Canada to be a key player in a world economy based on science and technology.
We also set a course for the future in which Canada contributes its efforts, its energy, and its intellectual resources to humanity's age old quest for understanding of the universe. With the Canadian Space Agency we have taken one more firm step into an exciting future that I hope will interest many young men and women of Canada, many of our young students, to enter into the fields of science and technology and participate in not only this space program but also the general science and technology program for all Canada. We have an exciting future. The Canadian Space Agency will play its part in that future.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this morning to rise in the House and speak to the creation of the Canadian Space Agency and to discuss Canadian space programs and projects.

Every one of us in our youth have shared the fascination with space. I well remember in my own youth the fascination I had for everything I could find and read from that day in October, 1957 when we learned that the Soviet Union had launched a satellite into orbit. It is one of those days, as was the day nearly 20 years ago when man for the first time walked on the moon, that all of us
remember where we were and what we were doing when we first heard the news.
Canada as a nation has demonstrated unusual ability in the field of space. I had the pleasure very recently of visiting the Dominion Observatory in Victoria, a place that when it was built in 1916 made Canada the nation in the world with the largest telescope at that time. When one thinks of it, that is an amazing thing.
In 1916 Canada was barely 50 years old. There at the farthest extremity of Canada, in Victoria, using anything but high technology-in fact using mules to haul these heavy instruments to the top of a hill-Canada became the proud possessor of this magnificent facility which still operates today and where we can still examine and observe the universe.
The Minister, in his remarks, mentioned the launch of Alouette I in 1962. Indeed Canada, by virtue of its geography and its demography, is a country that must rely on space technology. Satellite communications are an essential part of our national infrastructure. Remote sensing is crucial to the management of our natural resources. Weather satellites have become indispensable to us.
Indeed, the industrial benefits of Canada's space program have been noteworthy, an example in fact for other areas in which Canada lags behind in advanced technology.
We now employ about 3,500 people in the space sector. In 1986 we had $350 million in sales of which about 70 per cent was into the export market. These are industries which by and large are Canadian owned and which add significant value in Canada to the production of goods that are exported. This is a model for what we need to create in many other industries and sectors in Canada.
In effect, space is a source of pride in an otherwise rather dismal scene in Canada as far as science and technology is concerned. I have addressed this House before on my concerns about Canada's science, engineering, and technology performance. They are concerns that cannot be overstated or stated too many times.
June 1, 1989



Canada must realize how important engineering science and technology are if we want to be competitive on the world market.

The reality facing Canada today is that we cannot continue merely to rely on the exploitation of our natural resources if we are to maintain our standard of living. In a world in which sustainable development has become a global imperative, in which the continued burning of fossil fuels endangers our health and well-being, we must change our way of thinking and our understanding of economic development in the context of impending environmental crisis.
We have grown up believing that our natural resources are unlimited, that our wealth and standard of living is assured. This is simply not true. Our natural resources are limited in supply and the world demand for them is changing as more and more people consider a clean and healthy environment to be the most important natural resource of all.
The question we must now ask ourselves is: Are we prepared to invest in realizing the potential of Canada's most important resource, its people? The natural wealth that we have enjoyed has inhibited an appreciation of the necessity of investing in people, in education, and in skills in innovative technologies. All we need to do is look around us to understand the importance of science, engineering, technology, and advanced education, whether it be the now common use of a personal computer, the production of information technologies, or the fusing of two atoms to create energy.
Canada is being dragged, however reluctantly, into the 21st century. Whether or not we like it, we are engaged in a world-wide race for technological leadership, a race that is daily being intensified by international trading competitiveness characterized by the rapid and, in historic terms, relatively easy flow of goods and services between nations. With regard to the explosion of information technologies wealth is no longer simply a matter of control of durable goods. Just as brains over brawn has characterized human evolution, so will the innovative use of knowledge prevail over the mining of wealth and the production of goods over the next century.
Space Agency
The activities of transnational corporations, multinational trading companies, and international financial institutions, these corporate entities with the ability to move capital rapidly between nations, limit significantly the ability of nation states to control matters within their own jurisdictions.
As far as the involvement of national Governments in major technological enterprise is concerned, the United States through defence procurement has created the greatest industrial boondoggle in the history of the world. In Canada, we have the recent example of the proposed acquisition of Connaught Laboratories by In-stitut Merieu, a corporation controlled by the Government of France.
A comprehension of these phenomena is critical for Canada if we are going to be a nation that belongs to the 21st century.
As I review this Bill, I, as well as most Canadians, have come to the conclusion that the Government's strongest asset is its ability to recite rhetoric. As we all know, rhetoric does not imply a commitment to follow through. The Prime Minister has been a model student, perhaps even a teacher. After all, it was the Prime Minister who said:
The starting line for me is the technological dimension. Either we go into the game and become important players in this major league, or we become a nation that will, during its entire lifetime, play in the Junior B circuit.
Research and development and the resulting renovations are the lifeblood of a successful economy and country.
I also remind the House of the Prime Minister's stated goal for levels of research and development expenditures in Canada-2.5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. Over the course of the mandate of this Government that level of spending has dropped. Federal government expenditures on research and development as a percentage of total research development have fallen from 37 per cent in 1984 to 30 per cent in 1988.
The National Research Council has been gutted and in that process the Government stopped the Black Brant rocket experimentation project in Manitoba. The Government shut down one of its observatories in Algonquin Park. As well, the energy division of the National Research Council was eliminated in 1984.

June 1, 1989
Space Agency
In the 1987 edition of the Canadian Association of University of Teachers' Bulletin the Prime Minister wrote:
This Government stands ready to co-operate fully with the provinces and all others involved in post-secondary education and will help create and maintain a system of higher education capable of meeting the challenges facing Canada.
How can the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe this given that only one year before his statement his Government capped the growth of Established Programs Financing, cutting support to post-secondary education? The recent Budget has once again taken a strip off an already beleaguered system of universities and colleges.
I share the frustration and cynicism that many Canadians have because of the actions of this Government in this crucial area. The Government is going to spend a considerable sum of money on the creation of the Canadian Space Agency, an institution that will derive its success from people, from an exciting convergence of ideas, the kind that led to events such as the launching of the ANIK A1 satellite in 1972, making Canada the first country to operate a domestic communications system based on a satellite in a geostationary orbit.
The frustration we feel is a result of the fact that we are losing the potential to maintain and expand our scientific expertise every time our universities and colleges are compromised by budget cuts and federal-provincial football games where education is the ball being kicked back and forth.
Even when one looks at the basic research in space science, the Government's performance clearly undermines the credibility that it hopes to gain from this Bill. The proportion of federal government space program expenditures devoted to space science has dropped from 14.2 per cent in the 1981-82 to 9.6 per cent in the current time frame. It was precisely this type of basic research in space science that led to the many success stories of which we are so proud.
It is worth noting for the record that the Prime Minister's own National Advisory Board on Science and Technology has made recommendations regarding the funding of university based research. Specifically, this board has called for the doubling of the base budgets of the research granting councils and subsequent indexing of these budgets at a rate of one and a half times the
growth of the Gross National Product of Canada. However, that advice has been ignored by the Government.
It is no great surprise, albeit saddening and maybe even infuriating, when great Canadians such as Dr. John Polyani are quoted as saying "go to the United States" when asked to give advice to young Canadian scientists.
It is in the context of this pathetic state of Canadian performance and investment in science, engineering and technology that we must consider Bill C-16. It is in the face of our poor R and D performance, our enormous trade deficit in high and medium technology goods and the permitted deterioration of our institutions of advanced education, and in the absence of any discernible strategy on the part of the federal Government to transform Canada's industry to an aggressive export oriented high value added force, that we must look at this Bill.
In the face of those things, Bill C-16 is a weak and pathetic response by the Government. To be blunt, the Government's handling of the creation of the Canadian Space Agency is nothing short of embarrassing and irresponsible.
It was back in 1986 that the Government decided it wanted to create a space agency. It did so with great fanfare in the 1986 Throne Speech. I quote from that Throne Speech:
My Government's commitment to high technology as a motive force in Canada's economic growth will be expressed in legislation to establish a Canadian Space Agency-Working in co-operation with industry, universities and provinces, the new agency will help to ensure that the benefits of Canada's role in space will be shared by all Canadians.
Here we are, nearly three years later, on second reading debate on a Bill to create the agency.
When it takes nearly three years for the Government to fulfil that kind of commitment to high technology as a motive force in Canada's economic growth, Canadians have every reason to doubt the Tory's ability to lead this country successfully through to the 21st century.
Unfortunately, this pathetic attempt at salvaging the Government's reputation and integrity is tarnished by further indecision at the cabinet level. This was demonstrated very well in comments by the Minister for Supply

and Services when he was quoted by The Ottawa Sun on February 15, 1989, as stating the following:
We have been carrying on the functions for 26 years in Ottawa, so it's perhaps an expenditure that we don't need.
That is what he said. Things do not end up with "to be or not to be". The former Minister of State for Science and Technology spent that two years of inaction telling us what the space agency would look like once the Government got around to doing it.
On March 20, 1987, the Minister, responding to a question in the House said, as reported at page 4390 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive space program is a national program. There is keen competition from several regions in the country for the head office of the agency, which is not in itself a job creation effort. It will involve about 40 or 50 people.
He also said to the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology, and again I quote:
The head office of the agency will be a very small, compact unit with perhaps 40 or 50 people. All the various components and research facilities will perhaps initially stay where they are now but will be located where they are now or in different regions and centres in the country. It is not intended to establish the space agency with all its assets and facilities in one area.
If experience is our guide, it appears that we can tell that the Government is changing its mind when it changes Ministers. The current Minister of State for Science and Technology, as opposed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology who is a different person, announced a space agency with over 200 people at its head office.
That same Minister, also the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, has shown just how arrogant the Government is when he refused to tell us exactly how much it would cost to set up the head office.
These kinds of antics give us the impression that the Government's appreciation of the importance of space technology amounts to no more than the interest a child has in a new toy.
This is not Star Trek. Canadians object to having their space program being treated like a scene from the comedy movie, Space Balls. I am sure you saw it, Mr. Speaker. It features comedian John Candy driving a Winnebago around the universe. That is the way this Government has played with this space agency issue. The Minister of Industry, Science and Technology plays the
Space Agency
role of driver, and he sometimes resembles the driver of a getaway car. He is driving the space Winnebago around the country with a big sticker on the side which reads: "Vote Conservative", and he is leaving behind it chaos.
This comedy of errors has led to questionable expectations as well as unanswered questions. This entire matter of the establishment of the Canadian Space Agency is a case in point demonstrating at once the arrogance, incompetence, indecision, and political ineptitude of this Government.
What ought to have been a relatively simply matter was dragged out through political manipulation and indecision until the whole affair became a national tragicomedy.
Instead of creating a shining star in our high-tech universe, a focus of national pride in our achievements as a small but able nation, the Government has created a symbol of disunity, pitting region against region, province against province. It has ignored the concerns of our small but excellent band of space scientists who fear that controversies surrounding the creation of the agency will jeopardize their work.
I plead with the Government and with the Minister to launch this very day a peace initiative with the scientists and technicians upon whom the success of our space program depends. These people have genuine reason to believe that the bungling over the last three years augurs very badly for the space program. They do not want nor do they need to be associated with failure.
The success of the Canadian Space Program does not depend, with all due respect, upon the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology or the able Minister of State for Science and Technology. It depends upon the men and women with the expertise, the commitment and the years of experience, and they need to be taken into account.
I would also like to reflect some concerns that must be mentioned about Canada's space program such as the level of expenditures on space science. This was a matter that raised the concern of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology in its excellent report that was tabled in the last House. Many of its concerns are still relevant and still need to be addressed. It expressed the concern in its report about the level of spending on space science.
Members of the committees note, and I am quoting from their report, "funding has declined from approximately 15 per cent of the space program budget to less than 10 per cent. This level of funding is significantly lower than that provided in the space budgets of other

Space Agency
western countries. In the United States, for example, NASA spends 20 per cent of its total budget on space science. It is crucial to us and to the future and success of our participation in space programs that we do the hard work that is necessary to develop that core of experience and expertise that basic research in space science provides."
There is our well publicized and important participation in the United States space station project. A number of concerns were expressed again by the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology, a committee whose non-existence in this House is a matter of regret for many of us.
Those concerns should be stated-the concern about possible military uses of the U.S. space station; the concern that cost overruns on the space station project on the part of Canada could result in drains on other parts of the space program budget; the concern expressed by the committee that perhaps Canada lacks some of the ability to use fully the experimental environment that will be created by the space station and for which we are paying to have access; and the possible exaggeration of industrial spin-offs that arise from this participation. There is a concern over the regional development aspects of this program.
The Minister referred to that in his speech. The objective is to create program R and D funding in the following proportions: 35 per cent to each of Ontario and Quebec; 10 per cent to each of British Columbia, the Prairies and Atlantic Canada. It is noteworthy that in the period April 1984 to March 1988 what happened was somewhat different from that. In fact, in those years Quebec received 40 per cent of the spending; Ontario, 31 per cent; British Columbia, 11 per cent; the Prairies, 14 per cent; and Atlantic Canada, 0.1 per cent. In other words, there is a lot of work to be done in order to accomplish the regional development objectives of the Government.
Committee members expressed concern about this issue, and I quote: "We question, however, if it is
practical, or at least over the short term, to attempt to distribute the limited resources of Canada's space program to areas lacking appropriate industrial infrastructure efficiently." They went on to state: "Long-term research projects which frequently are international in character must adhere to world-class standards. Shortterm research must be driven by the specific requirements of the individual client." We have yet to see or hear from the Government how it intends to accomplish the objectives it has set forth.
Then there is the concern about people. It is concern that arises from inadequate post-secondary education funding in Canada, concern that arises from the inadequate amount spent on the program on space science, the concern that we are not building that cadre of expert and capable people to carry us forward in these projects. We know, for example, of the highly competitive nature of the employment market for space science. Even agencies such as NASA have had difficulty filling their requirements for scientists. We desperately need people.
The over-all objective of a science policy has got to be the promotion of Canada's ability to participate competitively in an international economy increasingly driven by technological innovation.
First, I believe the objective should be to enhance the climate for technological innovation in Canada. Governments should be seeking to stimulate and reward innovation and should be willing to share its cost.
Second, I believe there should be an objective of training and retraining a workforce of technologically literate workers. We require a new generation of blue and pink-collar workers whose special skills will lie in the areas of working with and applying new technologies in existing jobs and in occupations not yet thought about. High tech requires trained and skilled technicians and precision machine shops. To a great extent we lack these important skills in Canada. We must have a strategy to increase in absolute and relative terms our ongoing investment in research and technological innovation. We must use our relatively small size to our advantage by encouraging co-operation between the key players. I believe that the Centres of Excellence Program, the results of which we are eagerly awaiting, will contribute to this. But I fear that the program is underfunded and has created and will continue to create tensions and
June 1, 1989

rivalries in the scientific community that did not exist before and need not exist.
We must improve existing incentives for the performance of industrial research. We must remove the obstacles to fair tax treatment of industrial consortia and wrestle to the ground the intractable problems of the definition of scientific research and experimental development in the Income Ihx Act. We must use government procurement strategically to help create a viable advanced technology sector, and I must say that the cancellation of the unsolicited proposals program sends a very negative signal to the private sector in respect of the use of government procurement.
We must apply strategies to accelerate the commercialization of domestic and foreign technologies. Research, including applied research, as well as international marketing are expensive and require government support, direct or indirect. Our advanced technology sector must receive support similar to that received in other countries if it is going to gain a foothold in the global market.
We should not use our scarce resources to reinvent the wheel. Rather, our fundamental research should be world-scale and push back frontiers of discovery. Basic or fundamental research has a key role in the development of a scientific community and in setting a standard for a science culture to develop in this country. We do need to innovate and to tinker, but in our rush to be relevant we must not abandon the pursuit of excellence in science.
In addition to a science culture in Canada we need to beget a generation of entrepreneurs. We must recognize that entrepreneurship is a cultural process and has a social value. Entrepreneurs are risk-takers, men and women who take a chance and in so doing provide a pay cheque for others. They should be recognized as economic heroes.
In recent years practically all new jobs in this country have been created in the small business sector. Working in a small business, self-employment, entrepreneurship, owning and building a company of your own, must become credible options for our young people. Entrepreneurs are not bom, they are developed.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps most important, there must be resistance to the temptation to put high
Space Agency
technology in the political pork barrel. It is too important, the sums of money too vast, and the public cannot take much more before cynicism is irreversible. Resources allocated to science, engineering and technology should be considered an investment rather than an expense. It must be invested wisely and carefully.
This is an exciting Bill. It is an exciting development in Canada's participation in space. We in our Party support the establishment of the Canadian Space Agency and look forward to it successfully pursuing its objectives and continuing Canada's success relative to the rest of the world in this important area of space. This step must be considered just a small step in the interest of science, engineering and technology. What we await from this Government is the giant leap that will bring Canada into the 21st Century.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, let me first take this occasion to congratulate my former academic colleague on his ascension to his present position of Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Winegard). His experience in the academic world and his understanding of science is unchallenged. I hope he will be successful as an advocate for science, both basic and applied, in the Cabinet.
Let me also congratulate the Minister for the introduction of this Bill. We do not intend to unnecessarily prolong the debate because we think in most respects it is a good Bill.
Let me as well congratulate the Minister for his rhetoric. Indeed, I thought we were going to hear once more about the thousands points of light but I must confess I was intrigued by what he had to say about space flight and we on this side would encourage all Members on that side to become astronauts, and perhaps not return!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I found it interesting as well to listen to my colleague from Ottawa South. I believe I heard him recall the launching of Sputnik 1.1 do not know if that is a recollection from the womb or not, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I can remember standing by my laboratory bench and hearing first about Sputnik, and subsequently experiencing the sense of panic that traversed the entire USA-because that is where I studied-over the fact that this backward, foreign and virtually enemy nation

June 1, 1989
Space Agency
should have beat the Americans and the rest of the world into space.
I also recall that there was a crash program to improve post-secondary education and research in the United States. Indeed, as usual, following the leader, there followed a great increase in investment in universities and a movement in the direction of accessibility. That, of course, can be credited in large part to Liberal Governments of the time. If we, rather than discussing specifically this Bill, are to discuss the failure of Canadian science policy, then the Hon. Member for Ottawa South (Mr. Manley) ought to recognize that the greatest blame for the deep hole in which Canada presently finds itself is attributable, at least in part, to those years under Liberal Governments in which science was virtually ignored.
We can demonstrate it just by this example, Mr. Speaker. I speak from experience. I was in university at the time, struggling to be able to do research on a pittance in terms of funding, from year to year questioning how much the universities would be provided in terms of research funding through the granting councils. Each year, I waited until February to find out what the budget would be. That was in 1979. This is not an irrational partisan here. This is a scientist concerned about research and development in this country and pointing the finger where the blame belongs.
In 1979, the Tories won the election and immediately introduced a five-year funding program for the granting councils. It was cancelled immediately upon the ascension of the then Liberal Government which followed.
When the Hon. Member talks about the need to promote science culture in this country, let us be clear that the need to inculcate a science culture is as needed in this place as it is in the country at large. We must all be devoted to it.
I am not standing before you to attribute to the Conservative Government a revolutionary impact in terms of its devotion to meeting the Prime Minister's promise, also cited by the Hon. Member for Ottawa South (Mr. Manley), that he would indeed by next year ensure that the proportion of the Gross National Product expended for research and development in this country would be doubled. Mr. Speaker, as the Member
says, it has not doubled. There are any number of areas in which we can see the utter failure of this Government to produce the commitment to science and research and development that was promised and that this country needs.
We are not today dealing with the issue of general, broad science policy. You, I know, will recognize that this Member has been on his feet many times, trying very hard to convince the Government, and indeed all sides of the House, that the kinds of considerations that the Member for Ottawa South set out before us need to become the basis for a real commitment to science and research and development in this country because there can be no doubt about it, to the extent that this country lacks economic independence, the extent to which it is unable to compete internationally are all indeed a result of too much emphasis on taking our quick crude resources and selling them off to the rest of the world where jobs are produced by selling products back to us. There is no question about that.
There is no question either that the excuse of the need to wrestle the deficit to the ground is not an excuse for the failures of this Government as exhibited until this time. Even as they say that we should not burden our youth with the mortgage for the future, this Government is in effect saying that it is better that they have no future. As sure as day follows night, if we do not turn it around, this country is going to be in serious difficulties. Although the rhetoric has been beautiful, the substance has not. You heard examples of it from the Minister on the Government's side. But no matter how grandiose the rhetoric, no matter how great the promises, if we do not meet our responsibilities in all areas of developing R and D, then this country is going to face a number of problems.
Let me for a moment iterate those problems that the Government has not addressed. They have talked about them, but not addressed them. There is of course the proportion of our GNP expended on research and development, poorest of all the industrial nations with which we have to compete. In order to turn that around, there is also the need to recognize what the root of that problem is. We have heard a great deal about too much Government expenditure on science. On the average, we spend about as much as anybody else in terms of Government expenditure on research. The fault lies in

industry. What is the factor in industry that holds us back? As was cited by the National Advisory Board for Science and Technology-that eminent board of scientists and others-it is attributable in large part to the fact that our industry is foreign-owned. More than any of the other industrial nations, foreign ownership predominates in this country. If you look at the record of Canadian-owned companies located in Canada, they match any other industry in terms of their expenditure as a percentage of sales on research and development.
Is there any possibility of turning that around? Mr. Speaker, the Free Trade Agreement raises serious questions as to whether we will be able to use those tools that every other nation has used. I refer to direct grants, procurement, special forgivenesses, and so on. These would help our own companies to build up R and D.
It has also been mentioned that we must have the necessary trained and educated personnel in order to sustain a growth policy in R and D and, therefore, a growth policy in the economy. Even as I stand here, the transfer of payments to universities has been cut.
Once again, if one wants to look at the roots of these cuts and the failure of the federal Government to provide, in terms of its responsibility, adequate funding for post-secondary education, look back to 1977. It was a Liberal Government. Look back to five and six; a Liberal Government. We are casting the blame once more. The blame has to be spread among both parties that have held office as governments in this country.


An Hon. Member:: What about NDP governments in the provinces? Tell us about that. There is no talk about their cut-backs.


An Hon. Member:: You will get your chance.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I have riled my colleagues. I have riled them. I must be getting close to home. I will repeat, Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of those of us who have worked in the laboratories of this country under two regimes and seen both regimes fail us so desperately.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa South also indicated the need for having people who are trained in the technologies on the plant floor and so on to sustain the kind of transfer of technology to industry that is necessary to this country. With this, I agree. But again, the
Space Agency
Government has failed us and has failed our youth. It ultimately will have failed this country.
Mr. Speaker, this is all background. We are here to credit the Government for at least one positive step forward. In turning to the specific legislation before us, Bill C-16-

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that my party supports Bill C-16, an Act to establish the Canadian Space Agency and to provide for other matters in relation to space. The Bill specifies exactly where the Space Agency will be located, namely the Greater Montreal area. I would like to point out that we agree with this decision, although we may have some reservations about the specific location that was chosen and the manner in which the decision was made.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-16 is of course to establish the Space Agency and to deal with certain other matters as described in the title. It is its purpose to establish an agency to co-ordinate certain Government research and to ensure the co-ordination of research which will essentially take place in the various other Departments of Government and in the private sphere. All of this is certainly necessary. It is clear that the dispersion of various functions having to do with space over so many Departments dictates the necessity of having some co-ordination. So we support this legislation in that respect.
As the Minister and my colleague from Ottawa South have indicated, Canada has a proud history with respect to space. After all, Canada was the third nation to put a satellite in orbit, Alouette I. That was followed by the Anik satellites, ending up finally with our participation in the American space shuttle program with our construction of the Canadarm which flew the Canadian flag in orbit around this earth. Canadians have a right to be proud. This was a signal accomplishment for this country. We were characterized, however, by a certain focus in our endeavours because our development of satellites has been largely committed to the need for effective communication in a vast country in which the population is widely scattered. We have continued this emphasis to

June 1, 1989
Space Agency
this day and MSAT symbolizes the modem version of that kind of endeavour.
The space agency will have primary responsibility for our participation in the American space platforms through the construction of the mobile servicing centre. As well, it will have a role in the administration of the construction of RADAR SAT. The RADARSAT project is very interesting and involves an example of the extraordinary expertise that this country has developed with respect to remote sensing. Its contribution to weather forecasting, to the environment and to the location of resources, its service therefore to the Department of Minerals, Mines and Resources has and will be signal. We regret that some portions of its functions have had to be cut back because of certain countries not signing in but nevertheless, even with the cut-backs, it is something that we are certainly proud to support.
Indeed, if one refers to the report of the former Standing Committee on Science, Research and Technology, it was the opinion of that committee that RADAR-SAT was so uniquely suited to the primary needs of this country, so much more likely to produce valuable spinoffs in this country, that it should be given priority over our participation in the American space platform.
With respect to our participation in the American project, of course that has been regarded as a particular kind of space mission. By its very nature, it attracts a great deal of attention. It has had a great deal of focus, but that focus can be described in terms of being a project particularly sexy. One of the things that has to be said about that is that it is part of an American mission and not a Canadian mission. I remind the House that when this project was announced, there were a number of us, including members of the board of the National Research Council and this Member, who warned that the projected expenditures of $800 million for that project would unquestionably be exceeded. Since then, the projected expenditures between the beginning of the project and the year 2001 have now been increased to $1.2 billion. We are warned that perhaps another $200 million will be necessary to ensure the downstream benefits of this project, such as would be desirable given the high priority accorded the project in terms of industrial spin-off. What was said was if those expenditures very much exceeded the $800 million original projection, there would be concern about that project
depriving other perhaps higher priorities within the space envelope of adequate funding. Of course, the committee warned about that and expressed concern about that. Indeed, it was in consideration of the relative merits in terms of spin-off and industrial benefit that led that committee to identify RADARSAT as a preferable project.
In addition, Mr. Speaker-and this is edifying-many scientists felt that it was really unlikely that the over-all level of government expenditures for science would increase, that inevitably these overruns, mis-estimates of the cost of the project, would lead to the deprivation not only of space-oriented science, but all science, of necessary funding. As well, it would perhaps, indeed most likely, deprive those kinds of research and development that are more likely to make a significant contribution and produce the benefits that we hoped we could look forward to.
One of the benefits already mentioned with respect to this and other projects is the amount of spin-off that would be produced, the kinds of technologies that would be produced by private enterprise and the kinds of technical jobs and other jobs that would be produced as a consequence of this. This is where the real merit of the space endeavour will be shown. It is important to understand the significance of procurement in that respect. This is one of the reasons why so many of us talk in terms of the need for a unique Canadian scientific mission. We re-iterate that this is not Canada's national mission. This is an American mission and has not been defined in terms of benefit but in participation with their project for obvious reasons.
This gives me an opportunity to say that if Canada is going to have a national mission, it should seek missions which are uniquely Canadian and seek the participation of others. RADARSAT in part meets that criterion but our mission need not be in space. We should begin to look for national missions in terms of scientific endeavours that are more oriented to the particular needs of Canada on the ground. My hon. colleague mentioned the priority of the environment. We have a special advisory council recommending a special Canadian mission in hydrogen technology. This is a very promising area and one that, with a lot less expenditure, would through the process of procurement and so on have led to a great deal more benefit for Canadians than this

project-that is the space platform or even RADAR-SAT-could ever provide. We should seek out those kinds of national scientific missions which are consistent with sustainable development and would contribute to cheap fuels which are environmentally neutral, which are renewable and sustainable so that Canada can make a real contribution to the needs of the world as well as itself and help reconstruct industry based on science.
To get back to the question of procurement, we recognize the great value of procurement in connection with space projects. This morning in committee I had great difficulty understanding what are the limits on procurement given the Free Trade Agreement, that it opens up procurement equally to both Americans and Canadians. What mechanisms will we use to ensure that Canada and Canadian-owned enterprises will benefit, that Canada, once having developed those technologies, will be able to keep those technologies?
I see that you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker. I will have to take a recess for now. I know you are disappointed but come back later and we can resume the audition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cook):: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair (Mr. McCurdy) has 17 minutes left for his remarks if he chooses to use them when we return to the debate.
It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my dismay that a few days ago the Government saw fit to pass the Order in Council that removed oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian
Wheat Board, in spite of the fact that a survey commissioned by the prairie pools showed that 63 per cent of the farmers in western Canada opposed that move and that only 32 per cent supported it.
An overwhelming 76 per cent considered the Government's consultation with the farmers to be inadequate and only 18 per cent considered the consultation to be sufficient. There was nearly a two to one response in favour of the Government reconsidering its oats marketing decision. The Canadian Wheat Board has the confidence of 80 per cent of the farmers surveyed.
I am shocked that the Government would ignore the wishes of the producers and throw this industry to the laws of the jungle, in particular at a time when some United States producers were allowed to plant oats on set-aside acres without penalty.



CHALLENGE '89 STUDENT EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, university students have been out of school for close to a month and in a few weeks high school students will join them.
It is time for those employers across Canada who have not already hired a summer student to give the idea serious consideration. Those students need the opportunity to gain valuable experience in order to prepare for the workforce. The Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) and the Government have once again led the way with the Challenge '89 Student Employment Program. This year's focus is to provide career related experience for post-secondary students and also practical work experience for students at the secondary school level.
In my riding of Regina-Wascana the Summer Employment Experience Development Initiative has provided wage subsidies that allowed for the creation of 194 summer jobs with 72 employers. These projects will result in 2,254 weeks of employment.
I call upon all employers, including Members of this House, to make a difference and hire a student.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, it is not customary in the House to question investigations by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I was quite simply amazed to hear the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Kingsway (Mr. Robinson) say that the Government should have intervened with the RCMP or the Attorney General to prevent charges being laid against journalist Small as a result of the budget leak.
Mr. Speaker, since when does the Government tell the RCMP or the Attorney General not to charge someone but to charge someone else? Is that the true face of the NDP? Should we create two classes of citizens by telling the judicial authorities what to do for some and not to do for others?
Mr. Speaker, I oppose that kind of procedure.
A responsible government cannot and must not intervene in the judicial process.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the first day of the Presidency of Alfredo Christiani and the Arena Party in El Salvador. This event causes great concern for those who cherish human rights.
We have good reason to be concerned. In April, raids carried out against over 30 popular and community organizations by military and security forces led to the arrest and detention of over 100 people. As recently as last week, the national university was encircled and entered by machine gunning troops. More arrest were made and innocent people assaulted.
The violence is not restricted to Salvadorans. In January, after months of intimidation and threats from the military, Evan Fox-Decent, a Canadian aid worker,
became a victim of the war in El Salvador. In the dark of night a grenade was lobbed into his dwelling leaving shrapnel in his arms and legs.
Church groups, development workers, and many nongovernmental organizations are demonstrating today to voice their opposition to the tactics of the Government of El Salvador.
I call upon the Government of Canada to listen to those pleas, to cease bilateral aid to El Salvador, and to ensure that Canadian aid workers are protected.



FISHERIES


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, on May 16, in answer to the Hon. Member for Burin- St. George's (Mr. Simmons) who asked him what emergency plans he had to deal with the Atlantic fisheries crisis, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) said that he would appear the following week before the Forestry and Fisheries Committee to describe the Government's special program.
On Thesday, the Minister finally appeared before the Committee, but he had no plan to deal with the crisis that now affects the cod and crab fisheries, other than the already existing programs, which his own Government has cut.
In New Brunswick, the federal Government is delaying spending its share of the joint $5 million program created by Ottawa and Fredericton to help the region's factory workers.
The Conservative Government has brought on a recession in the Atlantic region, which was already hit with drastic reductions in cod and crab stocks, and it is wondering whether the existing programs, which it has ravaged, are adequate.
Atlantic fishermen told the Government that there was no more fish; the Government did not listen! They are now saying that they need help and the Government does not want to hear about it.
I ask the Government to stop turning a deaf ear, recognize the problems of all those involved in fishing for cod and crab and act right away.
June 1, 1989



TRANSPORTATION


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Canadians are anxiously awaiting the verdict on the future of passenger rail service in the region.
Atlantic Canada is rural in nature and its residents have come to rely on VIA Rail as their major source of transportation to the rest of the nation.
In 1985 the VIA Atlantic Line was reinstated by the Government with the stipulation: "Use it or lose it". Atlantic Canadians have done this. More than 240,000 persons rode the rails in 1988, a quantitative increase over previous years.
Atlantic Canadians have kept their end of the bargain and are now looking to the federal Government to honour its commitment of 1985 to keep the VIA Atlantic Line open.



MUNICIPALITIES


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to join the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) in wishing all the people of Ville de Leiy a happy anniversary because the town was founded 75 years ago, today.
Ville de Lery is a municipality in the riding of Beau-hamois-Salaberry, on the banks of Lac St. Louis. Ville de Lery is proud of its history and proud of its residents. Thanks to careful management, the town has enjoyed balanced development, without incurring any debts, a rare exception in the annals of municipal history in Quebec and Canada.
I wish all the people of Ville de Lery a very happy birthday party, and especially His Worship Mayor Jack Goodfellow, councillors Danielle Beauchamp, Arlette Vincter, Jean-Pierre Pilon, Jean-Louis Faubert, Richard
Plamondon, and the chairman of these festivities, Mr. Yvon Gendron Junior, also a municipal councillor.
You may be sure that your Member of Parliament is proud of you and will take part in the festivities!



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend the community of Desbarats and the Townships of Johnson and Tarbutt are celebrating their one hundredth anniversary.
The community is named after George Pascal Desbarats, a prominent Montreal businessman and Queen's Printer in the 1800s who had mining rights in the area.
His great-great-grandson, Peter Desbarats, a noted broadcaster, author, and now Dean of the School of Journalism at the University of Western Ontario, will be our special guest to officially open the centennial.
The community of Desbarats has had a long and colourful history since the pioneer days. It is an important agricultural centre in the Algoma district and has been judged by Time magazine to be one of the best tourist locations in North America.
Today, many people commute to work in Sault Ste Marie. In recent years, it has become a centre of education with the establishment of the Central Algoma Secondary School there.
The people of Johnson Township have a long tradition of working together to improve community services and have built one of the finest arenas in the district for recreation and social events.
However, most of all it is noted for its community spirit. I have been proud to call it my home for the past 30 years.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I made a statement urging members of the Opposition to cany on with business other than the budget leak. They did not listen.

June 1, 1989
Day after day, members of the Opposition use the entire Question Period on the budget leak.
Surely Members from Prince Edward Island have a question or two about Summerside. I know that they do. Surely Members from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have a question on the fishery. Surely Members from New Brunswick can think of a question on forestry. Surely Members from Quebec have a question on language, and I am sure Members from Manitoba can think of a question on defence. Surely someone in Canada has at least one question on VIA Rail, interest rates, or the Budget, but there are no questions.
While we spend weeks discussing who knew what in a two-hour period, issues that affect the entire lives of whole communities are being ignored.
Yes, ask some questions about the leak, but address some of the issues that are of concern to regular people too, not just the politicians and the media.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) changed the mandate of the task force on cost benefits for northern and isolated areas to remove the mandate that its report be revenue neutral and that the important recommendations it can make when it reports this fall neither increase nor decrease the fiscal burden on the Government of Canada.
The task force has toured the country and heard representations from individuals and community groups expressing the desire for a tax program that is fair and equitable to the residents of northern and isolated communities. The change in the mandate now asks the task force to consider the Government's new-found agenda of budget restraint which can only restrict the task force's options for recommendations.
I want to suggest and encourage that the task force remain true to its original mandate of preparing a report that is fair and equitable to the people in northern and isolated areas and strives to improve, not remove, that beneficial program.



CANNES FILM FESTIVAL-TRIBUTES TO DENYS ARCAND AND GILLES CARLE

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, two Canadians distinguished themselves at the Film Festival in Cannes. For his film Jesus de Montreal, Denys Arcand received the most prestigious prize ever awarded a Canadian.
Once more, Denys Arcand returns to this country, after earning the esteem of his peers and receiving the praise-not a frequent occurrence-of the critics who judged his film as the best of all 22 films that were competing.
But there is more! Gilles Carle won the prize for short films with his 50 arts de VONF. In only two minutes and forty seconds, this filmmaker gave us an emotional and creative celebration of the National Film Board's anniversary.
Some Hon. Members may think Denys Arcand should apologize, but we prefer to congratulate these enormously talented Canadians for their contribution to the cultural life of our country and for making us so proud.
We wish them every success and urge movie theatre owners across Canada to screen these films, and we also urge Canadians to go and see 50 ans de I'ONF and Jesus de Montreal.



ORDER OF CANADA


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in times that many people consider too materialistic, it is comforting to meet people like Jean Vanier, who is about to be awarded the most distinguished award in this country, the Companion of the Order of Canada.
The founder of 1'Arche, a project that integrates the mentally handicapped in society, Jean Vanier has earned admiration and respect wherever he established his 90 homes. These mentally-handicapped men, women and children, whom a famous author lovingly nicknamed God's jesters, are treated by Jean Vanier as his own sons and daughters. L'Arche, which should be referred to in the plural form because there are so many today, has proved to be a haven of happiness and serenity, an oasis
June 1, 1989

of peace and well-being in a world that is so often indifferent to the fate of the disadvantaged.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Canadian. I am proud to belong to the same country as this man with heart, Jean Vanier, a great Canadian. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the founding of his work, and I hope that this extremely modest man will, for a long time yet, continue to prove the incredible power of love.



THE HANDICAPPED


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, this year National Access Awareness Week will be held from June 4 to June 10. This week gives us an opportunity to step back and reflect on the lives of 3.4 million Canadians, one out of every seven citizens in Canada, who have disabilities.
What disabled persons want is to participate in community life as fully as all other Canadians. They want equality and reasonable access to facilities and services.
Thousands of Canadians have decided to work together to improve conditions for people with disabilities. Their goal is to remove the barriers that prevent disabled persons from being fully independent and reduce their opportunities to become actively involved in community life. The work accomplished by the various committees at the provincial and community levels has been tremendous, and the many activities they have planned reach far beyond the bounds of this particular week.
Rick Hansen is just one of these thousands of Canadians who are striving to help the disabled. Rick is both a distinguished Canadian and a gifted athlete who, through his world tour and his work with the community, has served as an example to all of us. He is in Ottawa this week to help make all Canadians aware not only of Access Awareness Week but also of the potential of all disabled Canadians.
I call on all Members present to recognize the work of Rick Hansen and all those other Canadians who will make next week possible. Mr. Hansen and his charming wife have joined us today in the gallery.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, a little over a month ago, the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled his annual report in this House. Some of the conclusions of this report, I hope, have got Hon. Members and their constituents thinking about the state of our official languages.
It is our responsibility to do everything in our power so that these two languages can develop and citizens can use them as much as they wish.
As Mr. Fortier said: "Everyone has the right to remain unilingual if he wishes. But I believe that we should leave our children a country where a better knowledge of our two official languages will be an asset that will enable us to communicate better and will help us overcome our two solitudes."
Mr. Speaker, these words of wisdom seem to have been forgotten by some of our provincial governments. According to the findings of this same report, it usually takes a legal decision or substantial federal assistance for them to do something to develop the other official language.



FREEDOM OF THE PRESS


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, in this past month the House has witnessed not only leaks in the Budget but also leaks in the Government's judgment and credibility. With the statement yesterday by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) that the RCMP erred in charging television reporter Doug Small, we are witnessing leaks in the Government's solidarity as well.

Oral Questions
However, the Member from Annapolis Valley is not the only one with a distaste for press harassment, for disagreement exists within the Prime Minister's Cabinet as well. In 1983, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare made the following remarks in defence of freedom of the press after the RCMP charged The Toronto Sun under the Official Secrets Act:
The Government has made an attack on the basic freedoms of Canadians-In no area is that more conspicuous than in the case of freedom of the press in Canada-Lip service is paid to the right of freedom of speech. Lip service is paid to the right to a free press. Indeed, the two are inseparable. In many ways what this Government has done is to attack one of the most basic liberties of Canadians, one of the most essential rights any Canadian must have if our democracy is to survive and flourish.
In view of these remarks I call on the Government to clarify its position concerning freedom of the press in Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Ever since the charges were laid in connection with the budget leaks, the Government has been distancing itself from political responsibility for these charges by saying that the legal advice to the RCMP came from the Department of the Attorney General of Ontario.
This morning we learned from the Commissioner of the RCMP himself that advice came also from Doug Rutherford, a senior federal Department of Justice official. Why did the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General give us only half-truths about these facts?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise my hon. friend that any discussions between the RCMP and officials of my Department were under the normal course of events during the normal investigation of the matter.


POSITION OF SOLICITOR GENERAL
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, we learned as well this morning information about an important point that the Government has been making to excuse itself from telling the Canadian people about the Mutual Life leak for 28 days. The Solicitor General himself confirmed that the RCMP had never asked the Government to keep secret the fact of the second and much more serious leak.
My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that the real reason for keeping that information secret was that if it had been made public it would have destroyed the Minister of Finance's Budget?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I must unfortunately make a slight correction to what my hon. colleague said, because I was there this morning, I appeared before the Justice Committee. I clearly stated that if this notification had not come from the RCMP- I did not ask for notification because automatically, when a police investigation is begun by the RCMP, the day before the events that happened on television, a police investigation, a criminal investigation was already under way, and we did not need notification from anyone that all information received should be turned over to the RCMP so that it could conduct a full and complete investigation of the events.


CHARGES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, nevertheless, the answer from the RCMP Commissioner was no. He did not ask the Government for that.
I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister the following question: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were able to charge Doug Small, although all Canadians knew that he was the one who had leaked the Budget on television.
How can the Government have us believe that if the general public had also been aware of the Mutual Life leak, it would have made it difficult to charge other individuals?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has

referred to a specific case which is before the courts. We are in no position, either in our preambles to questions or in answering questions, to interfere with a fair trial.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it might be helpful for Hon. Members and also for the public to have the Chair again remind the House that there has been a long-standing convention-and it is not a rule but a convention, one which we have imposed upon ourselves-that in a criminal case reference to the case itself in such a way that would cause unfairness or prejudice to the proper prosecution of that case is not accepted in the Chamber.
I have been listening very carefully to the questions. It is of course especially up to the Attorney General of Canada to take whatever position he ought to take when a question is put. The Attorney General of Canada will know more about these matters than the Speaker. I have to listen to the question.
However, I do ask Hon. Members to keep this in mind. As I say, the convention is there in respect to fairness of the proceedings.
I know Hon. Members will assist the Chair. I ask that they keep this in mind for the rest of Question Period.


INSTRUCTIONS TO SENIOR DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE OFFICIAL
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. We know that Doug Rutherford had conversations with Crown Attorneys and with the Office of the Attorney General for Ontario and that Rutherford brought forward considerations to the Attorney General.
In light of the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Solicitor General that the decision to lay charges rested solely with the RCMP and the Ontario Attorney General, did the Minister of Justice instruct Doug Rutherford to consult? If so, what did he instruct him to do?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there were no instructions to my officials to consult.
I quote from the Canadian Wire Press story of the interview with the provincial official who said that the call was no more than normal consultation. He said: "This is a normal consultation to give us some of their considerations". He then went on to say that it is
Oral Questions
ultimately up to the police whether or not they want to lay a charge.


POSITION OF SENIOR DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE OFFICIAL
George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything normal in this situation at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Saunders Rideout: When these discussions would be taking place I do not believe that either side would consider that they were just normal, routine questions or inquiries on criminal matters.
It would appear that Mr. Rutherford is acting on his own. Did he request the RCMP or the Attorney General to lay charges?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I refer once again to the transcript of the interview with the individual who referred to them as normal consultations.


Mr. Tobin:: He works for you.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: He went on to say that it is ultimately up to the police whether or not they lay the charge. It is ultimately up to the police.


BUDGET LEAKS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, on the same subject. Since the original Budget leak, the Government has refused to take the responsibility and has been trying to hide behind the RCMP, as it did yesterday and is doing again today.

Following up on what has just been said, my question to the Minister concerns his claim that a person said that these conversations were just routine. That is not what the official from Ontario said. The official from Ontario pointed out that the call originated from a senior person in the office of the Minister of Justice and that this senior official said he was calling on behalf of the Ministry of Finance. Ontario did not say that this was routine.
My question to the Minister is very direct. Will he tell the House what was the nature of that conversation? Was there a request coming from the federal official, for

June 1, 1989
Oral Questions
example, to have his provincial equivalent take action to have charges laid? It is very pertinent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I have advised the House, the consultations were in the normal course of events. At least my understanding is that in fact the call came from Ontario to the federal official in question. However, I would advise my hon. friend that they were no more than the normal consultations which took place between the two officials.
POSmON OF GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO OFFICIAL


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we have a matter I would suggest of considerable importance here. The Minister of Justice-and we have to accept his word in the House-should do some checking. His senior official, or someone, is telling the opposite to what the spokesperson for Ontario is saying.
The senior person representing the Government of Ontario in this matter, Mr. Hunt, has claimed that the conversation originated from Ottawa, not from Ontario, and that the person calling from the office of the Minister of Justice said he was calling on behalf of the Ministry of Finance.
Will the Minister confirm what he has just said, that the conversation did not originate in Ottawa? Does he stand by that? If he is not sure of that, would he find out and report back to the House? If it did originate from Ottawa what was the nature of that conversation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to find out who made the first call. I will undertake to do that.
I can only go back to the transcript of the Canadian Press interview to which I referred earlier and in which the provincial official said that the call was no more than normal consultation. He then went on to say: "This is normal consultation to give us some of their considerations. It is ultimately up to the police whether or not they will lay the charge".


TRANSCRIPT OF CANADIAN PRESS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the same transcript which the Minister has. What the Minister did not read out is that when the provincial official was asked whether it was routine, he replied by saying: "You would have to ask Mr. Rutherford"-i.e. the federal official-"if it was normal procedure".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: In other words, he is saying that it is the federal person who made the call, and he was implying at least that this was not a normal call.
Since the Government has not been frank from the word go, why is it that here we are at 2.30 in the afternoon and the Minister does not seem to have the facts straight yet on this important matter?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I take my hon. friend at his word that he has a transcript stating that it was on behalf of the Department of Finance. I take him on his word there.
I repeat, and it is suggested in the wire service report from which I read, that they were normal consultations which take place. At the end of the consultations-and this is the important thing-it is the RCMP that makes the ultimate decision to lay the charge.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. He just said in answer to a question from the Hon. Member for York Centre that he cannot give an answer that would interfere with a fair trial.
If that is the case, then why did the Prime Minister say yesterday in this House during Question Period, speaking of the leak to Doug Small: "The evening before there had clearly been an unlawful dissemination of a very important federal document"?
I ask the Minister: How does that contribute to a fair trial for Mr. Small, or anybody?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, because of the reference, as my hon. friend will
June 1, 1989

find if he consults Hansard and not the front page of a newspaper here in Ottawa, that there was no reference made either to a network or to an individual.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Who else was charged in the media? There was only one person charged.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, my hon. friend is wrong. He says there was only one person charged.


Brian Vincent Tobin: One reporter.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There were a number of people charged. That is exactly the indication that I was conveying. Everything that I said was perfectly consistent with the facts and my hon. friend knows that.


DISREGARD FOR JUSTICE ALLEGED-RESPONSE BY GOVERNMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to again ask the Minister of Justice, the chief law officer of the Crown, how there could possibly be a fair trial for Mr. Small or anyone with these words on the record of the Prime Minister and in their context-and I am quoting from Hansard-they can only refer to one person. Why is the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister showing utter disregard for justice in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this has been the course of the pattern in the House. The Hon. Member begins with a question based on prefatory remarks which turn out to be absolutely false. When the falsehood is pointed out, rather than withdraw and apologise for those remarks, he then moves on to another. What was said yesterday is in Hansard. Contrary to what the Member suggests, there was no reference to an individual. There was no reference to a network. There was a response to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the best traditions of the Canadian Parliament.


MUTUAL LIFE BUDGET LEAK-RCMP INVESTIGATION LAUNCHED
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. It concerns statements that he made yesterday about the second or the Mutual Life Budget leak. Yesterday, in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said about his own reaction to the first Budget leak, and I quote:
- I instructed the Minister of Finance to make the budget measures public immediately.
Oral Questions
Given how quick on the draw the Prime Minister was in reacting to the first Budget leak, does he still expect us to believe that in the second and far more serious leak, he did nothing for two hours, and once he did find out he never bothered to contact his Cabinet colleagues that day? Does he still maintain that? Does that not stretch credulity just a little bit?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this would have to be probably the tenth or twelfth time that question has been asked. My hon. friend-


Brian Vincent Tobin: And never an answer yet.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will reply again and perhaps give an answer that might satisfy the opposition Members who are asking questions. I said that I instructed the Minister to make the Budget public. That is quite right. I also indicated yesterday in response to the question from the Leader of the Opposition that apart from that instruction I requested immediately that evening that a full Royal Canadian Mounted Police inquiry be launched. Once that inquiry was launched that night there should never have been an attempt by anybody to interfere with the proper conduct of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police inquiry. Everything that was done from that moment on until today has been in keeping with that tradition.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister that he has selective amnesia in terms of what he said and what he did not say.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: have a supplementary. On May 23, the Minister of Finance explained his 28-day silence on the second Budget leak, saying that the second leak was a mere allegation. Yesterday, the Prime Minister informed the House that Mr. Gorbet, the Deputy Minister of Finance, received the call on April 27 and checked the information. I would like to ask the Prime Minister which truth is the right one. Was it information that had been checked or just an allegation? Which was it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I point out for the House and those who care to observe, the clear double standard that my hon. friend and others are engaging in. When the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducts police inquiries pursuant to objective criteria that result in charges being laid against Members of this Government, my hon. friend says that is terrific. When the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,

June 1, 1989
Oral Questions
using the same personnel and the same standards, lay charges against somebody else, the Member says there has been political interference by this Government. You cannot have it both ways. The evening of the budgetary leak, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police received the instructions. From that moment on all matters relating to that particular incident were being investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and all information was imparted by public servants and others in the pursuit of justice by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY AS TO TELEPHONE CALLS-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General. We learned this morning that the Senior Deputy Associate Minister of Justice initiated calls to his counterparts in the Crown in Ottawa and in Toronto. We learned this morning in the Justice Committee that his senior deputy sat in on a meeting with the Commissioner of the RCMP.
I want to ask the Minister, how can he defend this blatant interference in the administration of justice by his senior deputy? Who was the senior deputy acting on behalf of? Was he acting on behalf of the Minister of Finance? Was he acting on behalf of the Minister of Justice? Why, according to the Commissioner of the RCMP, did he not bring to the attention of the RCMP the fact that to charge Doug Small would constitute a very serious attack on freedom of the press in Canada? Why did he not do that?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly willing to answer the first part of the question. I draw the Chair's attention and the Assembly's attention to the fact that any discussion of that case is sub judice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be one standard for the Government and another standard for other Canadians, when the Prime Minister through his
accusation of criminal wrong-doing prejudiced this investigation from the very beginning.


CLARIFICATION REQUESTED-CAUTION BY MR. SPEAKER
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again for the Minister of Justice. It is extraordinary that this Minister still does not know at 2.30 this afternoon whether his official initiated conversations, or whether he was called. The Minister is either totally incompetent or he is deliberately covering up what happened in this-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the Hon. Member could put his question, please.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister this: Will the Minister clarify, in view of the fact that his senior deputy was apparently acting on behalf of the Minister of Finance, what advice did his senior deputy give to the RCMP? Did he advise them that it would be a serious mistake to charge Doug Small, that it would be an attack on freedom of the press in Canada? What did he do-


Mr. Speaker:: I am trying to be very careful in dividing two things here. There are questions that have been asked about what happened prior to charges being laid. Members are I think properly keeping away from questions and comments on what happened after the charges were laid. The Hon. Member is getting into a difficult area here because the question seems to go to the issue of whether or not a charge should be laid. That, it seems to me, is something that perhaps the court will have eventually decide. I think that I will have to, under the circumstances, not allow that question.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Privatization. Geologists in Canada are some of the world's best. Their dedication and expertise have attracted international respect and have created a demand for their

consulting services. This demand for Canadian geologists is particularly strong in the United States energy sector.


An Hon. Member:: Question.


Al Johnson: The Free Trade Agreement has however left out these highly qualified Canadian professionals. Schedule II of the Free Trade Agreement provides a list of-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the importance of the question. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Al Johnson: I would like to ask the Minister, when will geologists be added to the list provided in Schedule II of the Free Trade Agreement?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, the Member's interest in this matter is very much appreciated. Indeed, I am aware that geologists, especially in Alberta, are interested in being included in Chapter 15 of the Free Trade Agreement. Their inclusion will be raised by Canada at a consultation later this year, which is allowed under Section 1503 of the Free Trade Agreement.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. KAJ EGEDE, MINISTER OF FISHERIES, GREENLAND
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Kaj Egede, Minister of Fisheries, Greenland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS FROM MALAYSIA, PHILIPPINES, SINGAPORE AND BRUNEI
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of parliamentary delegations from Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Brunei, members of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions CRIMINAL CODE


FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It concerns the Criminal Code, clearly a matter of federal jurisdiction. Yesterday, no fewer than five members of his caucus were critical of the charge laid against a member of the press gallery. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants said it was a total error in judgment. In fact, a member of the Prime Minister's cabinet, a former journalist, said that he has used leaked documents, to use his words, "as a journalist would".
My question is this: When has using leaked documents "as a journalist would" become a criminal offence in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for a very important question because it goes to the heart of the issue of freedom of the press in which I, and I am sure all Members of the House of Commons irrespective of political affiliation, believe very deeply. It has been a concept that in many ways distinguishes our society and we are all very proud of it. It is a value that is in our Constitution, was in Mr. Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights and has been endorsed by all of us.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: Overstepped by the Government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am attempting to respond to a serious question by your colleague.
Given that deep respect that we all have for the freedom of the press, it will be up to the courts to consider this matter fully, as they shall, and to render decisions based on Canadian law, custom and the values that we all support.


CHARGES LAID AGAINST MEMBER OF THE PRESS-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may have deep concern about freedom of the press, but we cannot ignore what has happened in the last couple of days in this country.
Now that the door has been opened to laying charges against members of the media for embarrassing the Government, where does it all end? Will Canada be-

Oral Questions
come a country where journalists are tossed into jail for doing their work?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that this matter is now before the courts and should be kept there.


CONSULTATION BY RCMP PRIOR TO CHARGES QUESTIONED
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Canadians are having trouble with the idea of prosecuting a journalist who was simply doing his job. Will the Solicitor General, who has responsibility for the RCMP, tell the House if he had been consulted by the RCMP prior to charges being laid?


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to allow that question, but I am going to remind Members and the public, as I commented the other day, that there is a distinction between the administration of justice at the federal level and the administration of justice at the provincial level. I want that kept clearly in mind when questions and replies are given in this matter.
I will hear the Minister of Justice.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, any discussion of the actual charges or their propriety, either in this House or outside, is contrary to our traditions and since the case is before the courts I am not prepared to comment.


GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN CHARGES QUESTIONED
Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister telling us that the Government did not encourage the RCMP to lay charges, after the Minister of Justice told the House on April 27 that this reporter acted in a responsible manner?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my answer of yesterday. The RCMP were called in immediately to investigate the case. The RCMP investigated it. They discussed their findings with the officials of the Province of Ontario.


Brian Vincent Tobin: And?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: They came back and the RCMP laid the charge.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: And?


THE BUDGET
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Justice. I noticed in Question Period a few minutes ago he was referring to a CP transcript and a news story about a senior deputy, Mr. Rutherford. We have now had several hours, of course, since that newspaper was circulated. Has the Minister of Justice since this morning had a chance to speak directly with his senior deputy? Did he ask him directly whether or not he initiated the call to officials in Toronto? Did he ask him whether or not he was calling on behalf of the Minister of Finance?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: If I give an answer in this House I want to be speaking from fact and that is why when the Leader of the New Democratic Party asked me that question, I undertook to find out who initiated that call. I don't have that in front of me. I have in front of me a transcript of the Canadian Press interview-


Brian Vincent Tobin: What was the advice given?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -in which it was very clear from the comments of the provincial official that it was normal consultations which took place between the parties.


David Barrett: Don't you know what happened today? What have you been doing all morning? It is unbelievable.


An Hon. Member:: It is all part of a cover-up.


EXPLANATION SOUGHT AS TO CONFIRMATION OF TELEPHONE CALLS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister of Justice now has had several hours to check out the facts with his senior Deputy Minister. I want to know now why the Minister of Justice did not speak with Mr. Rutherford. He has had several hours to do so. He knows this issue is important in the House today. He knows it is an important issue across the country. Why has he not picked up the phone and called the Deputy Minister into his office and said to him, did you call the officials in Toronto and who were you calling on behalf of? Why has he not done that?
June 1, 1989


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, because from the very start I realized that one could get into a great deal of trouble by becoming actively involved in this discussion and-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: And-


Mr. Simmons:: More, more.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: From the very start the consultations which have taken place between the officials at the provincial level and the federal level have been nothing more than normal discussions.


An Hon. Member:: How do you know?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Because I instructed my officials to do nothing abnormal, just conduct normal consultations.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the Budget and directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He will know that the tax on a carton of cigarettes increased by $4 in the Budget. Would the Minister indicate the implications for the health of Canadians and for Canadian health care systems as the result of that measure in the Budget?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to because it is a very important step which has been taken by the Minister of Finance. Tobacco remains the single greatest cause of preventable disease in Canada, costing the lives of between 30,000 and 35,000 Canadians a year. Indeed, the World Health Organization estimated yesterday that one individual dies every 13 seconds as a result of tobacco use.
Members opposite may not find this important, but I think Canadians do. Studies have shown that the use of tobacco, particularly among young Canadians, is extremely price sensitive. The action taken by the Minister of Finance should help to save lives in Canada, something which is important to us, even if it isn't to Members opposite.
Oral Questions


ATTITUDE OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE TOWARD HOUSE
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, this morning in La Presse, Frederic Wagniere referred to the Government's increasingly astounding negligence. I would like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. We now know that on April 26 at 5.30 p.m., Mr. Small called the office of the Minister of Finance about a Budget leak. We also know that the Minister of Justice, Leader of the Government in the House, tried unsuccessfully to extend the business of the House by moving a motion to that effect around 5.50 p.m. that afternoon, without any explanation. Why didn't the Minsiter speak frankly, to the House? Why didn't he tell the House then and there that he had reason to believe there had been a Budget leak? From the very beginning, we have been hearing the Minister answer as though he wanted to hide something. Why didn't he say what was on his mind at 5.50 p.m. on April 26?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I reject out of hand the comment that the Minister wants to hide anything. I have made it clear to his House Leader. I believe I discussed it with the House Leader for the New Democratic Party. When I came into the House at about 5.30 or 5.40 on that particular day, Wednesday, April 26,1 had an indication from the Minister of Finance that there might have been a Budget leak.
I made an effort to keep the House open in order that we would have a vehicle through which to tell the House of Commons and the public what had happened. Unfortunately, I did not get the approval of the House at that time and, later on, both Parties refused to let us come here and tell it.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that the Minister of Justice took a sleazy action at that time to protect himself.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could find another way to put his position.


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will indeed rephrase my remark and say-

June 1, 1989
Oral Questions


ANSWER FROM THE MINISTER INSISTED UPON.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has just acknowledjed, perhaps by accident, that he knew more about it that he wanted to admit. I would refer him to Hansard of Thursday, April 27, at page 1012, at the bottom of the page, where he said, and this is the Minister speaking: We were aware of that story on the wire.
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister was aware of the story, why didn't he say so clearly and frankly in the House of Commons at 5.50 p.m. on April 26?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, I have to be a little bit of rhetorical and ask why did the Opposition Party, when they saw it on television, not agree to coming back and opening the House so that we could present the public with it in the House of Commons?


ACCOUNTING OF DELAY REQUESTED-GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, within one hour from the call of the President of Mutual Life of Canada to the Office of the Minister of Finance, he claims to have been informed. The Prime Minister, who believed his version, said that it took more than two and one half hours before he was told of a second, more serious leak.
We wonder sometimes who is in charge here. My question is this: Did the Finance Minister or the Prime Minister ever bother asking their public servants, the people who work for them, why the delay? Why were they were not told immediately upon receipt of this serious second leak?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have given my hon. friend and Members of the House a full and complete accounting of the time that was involved, the intervention of the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Gorbet, the intervention of the Clerk of the Council, the advice that was provided to me after Question Period. That is fully on the record.
I have also indicated that I believe on the evidence that the Deputy Minister of Finance and Clerk of the Council acted in a timely and appropriate manner and
given the fact that the inquiry had begun the night before it was entirely consistent with the ongoing and independent process of that inquiry.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: God
help this country, Mr. Speaker, if a declaration of war comes upon it.


REQUEST CONCERNING KNOWLEDGE OF SECOND LEAK BY SOLICITOR GENERAL
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if we are to believe the Government's hypothesis, disclosing any information about the RCMP's investigation would have been tantamount to interfering with or jeopardizing the investigation that was under way.
On May 17, the CBC's English network reported that a company in Toronto had the Budget in Brief, and the next day, on May 17, the Solicitor General rose in the House and hastened to give the House the assurance that Norman Inkster, the RCMP Commissioner, had informed him that although the investigation was not yet finished, there was every indication that so far, no one had benefited from the leaks.
Had the Solicitor General also been kept in the dark? Was he aware on May 18, 1989 that there had been a second Budget leak?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the question of war. The last time that word was heard there was the invocation of the War Measures Act by the previous Government where 419 people in the Province of Quebec, including journalists, were thrown in jail without trial, without accusation, without benefit of-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this will interest all Members, including my friend from Winnipeg who just asked a very important question, because on October 16, the Leader of the Opposition, who was the Minister of Justice who authorized the invocation of the War Measures Act, said this when pressed for information as to why. I ask the Members to listen carefully. "It is my hope", said Mr. Thmer, "that some day the full details of the intelligence upon which the Government acted can be made public because until that day comes the people of Canada will not be able to fully appraise the course of action that has been taken by the Government". You
June l, 1989

threw journalists in the slammer with neither trial nor presumption of innocence-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ACTIONS OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but say that my father, who was then a Member of this House, was one of 16 Members who had the courage to stand up and oppose the War Measures Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John F. Brewin: It was the Conservatives who did not have the political courage to join with the New Democrats on that occasion and vote against the War Measures Act.
Let me turn to the issue at hand. We have heard today an amazing admission from the Minister of Justice to whom my question is addressed. The Minister of Justice has said in the House this afternoon that despite a most serious claim emanating from Toronto about an intervention by his senior deputy in this unprecedented case that he has simply refused to find out what that conversation was about, who said what to whom and what was done. Are we to conclude then that it is the philosophy of this Government simply to hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, is the policy of this Government not to interfere in police investigations.


FREEDOM OF THE PRESS-DIRECTIONS TO RCMP
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, was it the policy of this Government even before this investigation started? Let us go back to the night of Wednesday, April 26. You were there. We were all there. An RCMP investigation was launched. I want to ask whether at the outset of that investigation, this Government directed the RCMP that whatever else happened, it was not to interfere with the freedom of the press and freedom of Canadians in this investigation?
Business of the House


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that any comment on the particular case in question would be sub judice.


ANNOTATED STANDING ORDERS
Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to the attention of the House interventions from the floor of the House by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on April 27 and on May 30 by the Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis). They may have caused some confusion on the question of whether annotations from the Annotated Standing Orders may be quoted in procedural arguments. I have also received private communications on this subject from Members.
It has never been my intention, even in private discussions, to imply that the text of the Annotated Standing Orders could not or should not be quoted. Members may find that an annotation supports their interpretation of a particular Standing Order and may choose to quote the annotation in their argument. On the other hand, a Member who may want to argue for a different approach than that contained in the Annotated Standing Orders is entirely at liberty to do so.
In brief, just as other parliamentary authorities, for example, Beauchesne, Bourinot or May, are invoked by Members to support their arguments, so too the Annotated Standing Orders offers Members a rich new source of information on Canadian parliamentary practice to draw from.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Government House Leader to give us a statement of business for the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I would like to indicate that the business plan is as follows: Tomorrow, Friday, June 2, we will deal with second reading of Bill C-13. That is the Nordion Bill. We will follow that up with second reading of Bill C-16, the Space Agency. On Monday, June 5, we will deal with a Bill in the name of the Minister of Energy, Bill C-19. That is second

Space Agency
reading, I should add. We will then follow that up with second reading of Bill C-21, the Unemployment Insurance Act amendments. On Ihesday, we will deal with second reading of Bill C-22, a Bill amending the Environmental Protection Act and we will follow that with second reading of Bill C-5, the Railway Act. On Wednesday, I expect we will continue, although it may in fact go very smoothly, debate on Bill C-21, the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: With respect to the Minister's statement, I would like to ask him if he would consult with me about the time to begin debate on second reading of the unemployment insurance Bill. We want to have available our senior spokespersons on this. There may already be commitments made in that regard that cannot be changed. I want to ask him if we can meet and discuss that aspect of his report.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Definitely.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Government House Leader would be so kind as to indicate the intentions with regard to the copyright Bill. We are in the last few weeks now of this session. Does the Government plan to proceed with that, or is there any thought being given to circulating a draft of that copyright Bill so people can have a chance to review it prior to it being introduced in the House?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, unless I have missed something, I do not believe that Bill is on the Order Paper yet. Right? We are not talking about a Bill presently on the Order Paper. Okay, fine. I will take that matter up with the Minister and get back tomy friend.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-16, an Act to establish the Canadian Space Agency and to provide for other matters
in relation to space, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair had the floor.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, just to remind the Chair of where we were, we were talking about the establishment of the space agency as provided in Bill C-16. I had indicated that my Party supports this legislation. We approve of having such an agency to co-ordinate the Canadian space program. We are aware of the significant areas of responsibility that it has to co-ordinate in the space program as it is scattered among the various Departments such as the Department of Communications, the National Research Council and Energy, Mines and Resources. We understand its important role with respect to acting as Canada's representative and co-ordinator with respect to Canada's involvement in collaboration with international space enterprises such as NASA, the European Space Agency, and so on.
When I paused earlier, we were giving some consideration to the importance of the procurement aspects of the space program in building Canadian technology, which is a very important function of any mission which is to be construed as a national mission; for example, Canadian participation in the space platform through the mobile servicing centre. One of the examples of the importance of this is RADARSAT which has run into some difficulty, Great Britain having withdrawn from the program. The project has been slowed down. Although I understand that an off-the-shelf technology to replace the platform which was supposed to be constructed by Great Britain is possible and will mean a cut in the over-all cost by about $50 million. Another fly in the ointment has reared its ugly head in that Ontario is now pausing in making its commitment to the RADARSAT project because of what it perceived to be favouritism to the Province of Quebec.
The original intent was that there was to be a 35-35 per cent split between Ontario and Quebec with respect to contracts associated with RADARSAT. Whatever one may think of the role of space technology or the space program in respect to regional development, or the notion that perhaps it would be better to consider sharing the benefits of research with the entire context of science rather than specifically in the space areas, nevertheless it is clear that Quebec has a 40 per cent share as compared to Ontario's share. I make no specific
June 1, 1989

comment on that, except to say that that fact, in addition to placing the space agency in Montreal has evidently led to quite considerable difficulty in getting Ontario to make its commitment. Ontario has cut its proposed contribution from $29 million to $22 million in reflection of the fact that, in respect to RADARSAT, while Ontario's share has been cut quite dramatically down to the level of $60 million, Quebec has an expenditure or contracts worth approximately $140 million.
We have a problem here, and I want to refer to the effect that this is having on one of the companies that is supposed to be benefiting from contracts as a result of the RADARSAT project. It is reported that Spar Aerospace is having considerable difficulty continuing its operation on a reasonable keel. In fact, attributable to that delay in RADARSAT, there has been a decrease in profits for the last year. It- is of great concern that the RADARSAT project go on in terms of a reasonable schedule. I have been assured by the Minister that the RADARSAT satellite will be launched in 1993, although recently we have heard reports that it may not be launched until 1994.
Many of those involved in space research are concerned about the difficulties recently, including squabbling among various jurisdictions, and the failure by Great Britain to be a participant has delayed the project.
I cite RADARSAT because it is regarded by many, certainly the Committee on Research, Science and Technology considered that we should put our highest priority on RADARSAT because it is inherently more beneficial to Canada, both in terms of addressing specific Canadian needs, as well as having a higher probability of significant industrial and technological spin-off than can be attributed to Canada's participation in the space platform.
In respect of this, it is interesting to note that the committee called attention to the External Affairs suggestion for Paxsat, in effect the peace satellite. One of the recommendations of the committee was that the technology associated with RADARSAT be expanded to include a function which would allow it to be used for arms-control surveillance and verification. This is a very
Space Agency
important recommendation and one that would be supported by most Canadians, and one that is reflected by what most Canadians think should be the highest priority for Canada in respect of its involvement internationally, and that is helping to aid the peace process. It is in quite considerable contrast to how the military sees space activity in terms of activities which could conceivably get us involved in somewhat untoward American notions of how space should be used.
Another area concerns not only Canada but the entire world, and I note that the committee was very forward looking in respect of it, because it preceded the international recognition of the dangers of the greenhouse effect. The committee further recommended, with again a slight expansion of the technology employed, that RADARSAT should be used as a component in the global change project which is specifically directed at looking at the physical, chemical, and biological processes affecting the whole earth. Now people are more familiar with the issue, that could be used as a euphemism for a study of the greenhouse effect. I hope that one of the highest priorities that would be accorded to the space program by the space agency would be those two functions. Those of us on this side of the House would consider that type of involvement in space of such high priority and of such importance to Canada and the world that perhaps it should be supported in lieu of some other aspects of the activities in which the space program would be involved.
Earlier this morning we were talking about the general issues surrounding science policy. I would like to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Recommendation 17. In that recommendation it states: "The committee recommends that the Canadian Space Agency in consultation with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council carry out a comprehensive study of the training and supply of space scientists and engineers and develop mechanisms to ensure an appropriate supply of qualified personnel for future years".
In part, the need for such personnel could be encouraged by ensuring, as the committee recommended, that increased funding be provided for space science. The answer to the question, whether there will be an appropriate supply of such engineers, scientists, and technolo-

Space Agency
gists is clear. The cuts in post-secondary education and in general university research certainly is not a contribution to ensuring that there will be the appropriate personnel to ensure that the space agency will be successful. We have to be concerned about the considerable deterioration and erosion of morale in the scientific community, particularly in government laboratories.
I do not choose now as the time to reflect upon the correctness or otherwise of decisions that have been made with respect of the location of the space agency because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, my Party supported the location in the Montreal area. However, parenthetically, the number of jobs that will be produced by the location of the space agency itself in any area has been exaggerated to a point of communicating a message to almost everyone that huge numbers of jobs will be produced in any location where the space agency is located. Let us put that impression to rest.
On a number of occasions we have attempted to ascertain what were the considerations that went into the decision to establish the space agency in the location in which the Government has decided. Such questions were posed as, what are the relative costs in this location as compared to other locations? What will be the additional operating costs in one location versus another location? How many scientists will be lost to the project because of relocation?
If we are going to ensure that our scientists are completely devoted to a program such as the space program, or any other program, it is important to recognize that there has to be reasonable consultation. Regrettably, it turns out that a survey taken of scientists associated with the spare program indicated that a number of our top scientists are refusing to go for a number of reasons. For example, the absence of corn-mutability from Ottawa to elsewhere, long establishment here, and what they see as being an inconvenience in the working conditions, and so on. There are 50 per cent in association with the space program who are saying that they will refuse to go. This is not a discussion of the merits of their point of view. However, it certainly does call attention to the utter failure of Government to provide reasonable evidence that the decision it took was a reasonable decision to have been taken, and evidence
that there had been reasonable consultation with scientists to ensure that it would work.
It is not going to work if we lose scientists to the United States. They say that in the circumstances once they leave, they will leave the country. That is certainly not a contribution to the enhancement of our efforts in space research, space technology or science in general.
We support this legislation and do not intend to impede its passage. It is good legislation with respect to the specific matter, and we look forward to the successes that it will motivate in Canadian laboratories in universities and industry.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I would like to formulate a wish for the Hon. Member. I say a wish, because I wouldn't want to force a promise on him. We all know that promises- In any case, my wish is certainly the wish of a large part of Canada's scientific community. It is that this Government should stop looking at space and come down to earth long enough to realize that here in Canada there is an urgent need for investing more in the future and enabling researchers and future generations of researchers to continue their work. If the Government keeps cutting transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education and forcing the National Research Council to do more with less, we will never make it.

It is important to see the space program within the context of the over-all scientific research and development policy in Canada. We look forward to signals from the Government that it will address all of those shortcomings that must be addressed if Canada is to mount to a position higher than it has heretofore occupied in the world of research and development, and therefore in economic competitiveness in the world.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise in the debate on Bill C-16 to establish the Canadian Space Agency.
Allow me to refer to Clause 4:
June 1, 1989

The objects of the Agency are to promote the peaceful use and
development of space and to ensure that space science and technology
provide social and economic benefits for Canadians.
Clause 5 provides a more specific definition of the objects of the Canadian Space Agency, but still I should like to emphasize the significant fall-out from the creation of the CSA and particularly its future impact on Canada's technological progress.
Our national space program already has a number of outstanding achievements to its credit. Our success in space technology dates back to the days of space research when balloons and space probes were first sent aloft. The 1962 Allouette I launch signalled Canada's entry into the space era. After this initial scientific success we concentrated our efforts on practical space technology to meet our specific requirements. Two examples which readily come to mind are the transmission of telephone and television signals from coast to coast and to the northern regions, and the use of teledetection data in resource management. The new Canadian Space Agency will enable us to derive further benefits from space research.
The advent of the Agency marks the opening of a new era of challenging space exploration and development for Canada. By gathering under one roof the main components of its space activities, Canada will indeed be in a better position to benefit fully from the economic, scientific and technological fall-out from space experiments.
As I said a moment ago Canada's reputation in the realm of space science and technology is second to none. The specific mandate of the Agency is to work with the space industry, universities and provincial governments to keep Canada in the forefront. Canadian companies already compete successfully with world leaders in teledetection, communication satellite systems and space automation.
Mr. Speaker, the establishment of the Agency is just another proof of our Gouvemment's commitment to promote high technology in this country. It simply confirms the fact that in the coming decades our space research activities will continue to be a major source of economic benefits for Canada.
Space Agency
To that end, I would like to quote Dr. Larkin Kerwin who yesterday, at the official signing of a ten-year co-operation agreement with the European Space Agency, had this to say:
The Canadian space industry could get up to $500 million worth of contracts from the European Space Agency over the next ten years, which for Canada would mean some $2 billion in overall spinoffs.
That significant agremeent signed yesterday renewed two five-year ones that enables Canada to take part in certain programs of the European Space Agency.
Over the last ten years, some 15 Canadian corporations were awarded contracts for some $100 million with the European Agency. But Dr. Kerwin, the president of the Space Agency, predicts that over the next decade, contracts to the Canadian industry should increase to $500 million. Also, a study done in Europe showed that the overall spinoffs in the aerospace area are estimated at 3.7 to 4.5 times the value of overall contracts, which leads Dr. Kerwin to suggest that spinoffs would be in the order of $2 billion.
Here, Mr. Speaker, you have a good example that the establishment of that agency will generate significant spinoffs for Quebec and Canada, while ensuring this country remains at the leading edge of that important industry with a future.
We needed a space agency, Mr. Speaker, because it will be the vital linch pin in the future growth of Canada's space program. It will help co-ordinate the various activities that are currently pursued in a number of federal Crown departments. This is what had been recommended by the Standing Committee on Research Science and Technology, of which I was a member, and which made recommendations in its report titled: Canada's Space Program: Voyage to the Future tabled in June, 1987.
The Agency will enable us to more efficiently manage our space resources, improve Canada's technological image internationally, but the industry in a position to improve its international competitiveness and also encourage young Canadians to make a career in science and technology. The Agency will be responsible for the space station program, RADARSAT, the space science program, Canadian astronauts, co-operation with the European Space Agency-whose first results were felt yesterday-, the David Florida Laboratories, space technology research and development, co-ordination of civil

June 1, 1989
Space Agency
space activities entrusted to other departments such as weather, remote sensing and communication services, as well as relations with foreign agencies.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the entire Canadian space program but, since time is limited, I will confine my remarks to some aspects of that important strategy.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in May 1986 the federal Government announced the creation of a new Canadian space program focusing on the economic impact of space research in terms of job creation and additional revenue for the industry. The new program met Canada's needs by allowing us to manage our natural resources, improve communications throughout the country, exercise our national sovereignty and exploit industrial resources in every region.
The main element of the program is the development of an aeronautical mobile system or AMS for the American space station, as well as the creation of a development program centered on potential space users. Among others must be mentioned the maintenance of the Telesat Canada MSAT satellite, which serves a new satellite communications network for mobile users; the theoretical and practical design of advanced remote sensing techniques, especially continued planning work on the RADARSAT remote sensing satellite, strengthening cooperation with Europe through our participation in the ESA and European space projects; continuation of the program to train Canadian astronauts and finally, increasing funding for the space sciences program.
The U.S. space station is one of the most complex and ambitious technological enterprises ever conceived. This station, once in orbit and permanently manned, will have a useful life of 25 years and will be the base for many activities.
Along with other countries, Canada was asked to take part in this huge enterprise and we will contribute to the mobile service system, MSS. The part of the system in space, the mobile service centre (MSC), will be involved in building the space station, which will give the first stages of the plan a leading role.
The mobile service satellite is particularly important to the everyday life of Canadians. Indeed, most of our fellow citizens would have trouble imagining how they would live if they could no longer pick up a telephone receiver and call almost anywhere in the world. However, that is exactly the situation in which more than
100,000	homes in remote and northern regions of Canada find themselves.
Distance, uneven terrain and atmospheric characteristics especially in the Far North make conventional radio communications unreliable and sometimes impossible. For the police and those responsible for fighting forest fires and for medical services, the limited range of mobile communications systems, even some of the most modem, raises serious difficulties. The same goes for companies operating oil-drilling platforms and fleets of cargo ships and trucks.
The mobile service satellite, the first internal communications satellite in the world for traveling users, solves this problem. So there is no need to add how timely and important it is to develop such a tool!
The Space Agency will also be responsible for the important space station program. Indeed, you will recall that about a year ago, the federal Government approved the participation of Canada in the international space station project led by the United States as the main element of the important Canadian space program. Canada will provide the mobile maintenance and repair system, which is based on the CANADARM teleoperator system technology. This system will play an essential role in the assembly and maintenance of the space station and its instruments. Moreover, it will handle payloads such as satellites and space vehicles and will dock, load and unload shuttles that will bring supplies to the space station.
In the 1990's, when the space station is in operation, industry, government and universities in Canada will be able to use those facilities to further scientific, technological and business interests. They will be able to do research in astrophysics, earth sciences, life sciences and material processing in conditions of quasi-weightlessness possible only in space laboratories. The space platform will also be used to assemble and service other platforms and related vehicles and to explore the solar system.
June 1, 1989

By participating in the space platform project, Canada will be able to put to use its know-how in robotics and artificial intelligence. Great benefits will flow from this project, a cost-sharing venture with our partners, that is the United-States, the 13-country European Space Agency and Japan.
All regions of Canada will benefit from this project. The Canadian project manager, Spar Aerospace Ltd, has set up a group of Canadian companies from Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia who will supply equipment and services. Canada's contribution to the space platform project will generate economic spin-offs of more than $5 billion over the next 15 years. The design and construction of the mobile servicing center will enable Canadian industry to develop many advanced technologies which will be applied and adapted to traditional earth-bound industrial activities.
In 1982, Canada made some preliminary studies on the spin offs generated from our contribution to the space platform project and the robotized service centre I just mentionned, which is being built by the National Research Council. Those studies concluded that Canadian industries and universities along with the federal government would gain major scientific, technological, economic and social benefits from this project.
I can assure you that today, perhaps more than ever as we are on the threshold of the 21st century, that conclusion still holds true.
Through another aspect of its impressive space program, the RADARSAT project, the Canadian government is opening up to the world.
Canada acts as the project manager on the final building stages of RADARSAT, a sophisticated satellite scheduled to be launched in 1994 and to collect, using radar equipment, sharp pictures of earth, even in the dark or during cloudy periods. It would give us reliable up-dated data on ice floes, navigation in the Arctic area and along the shores, humidity at ground level and caused by vegetation. This data could help develop new methods for farm control and forest development. RA-RADSAT is a Canadian initiative also involving the United States, several provinces and business enterprises.
RADARSAT will be the most sophisticated of its kind. Its distinctive feature would be its synthetic aperture
Space Agency
radar, a powerful instrument capable of emitting and receiving very high frequence signals through clouds and darkness. Through RADARSAT, Canada will confirm its position as a leader in the field of remote sensing and its applications.
At close to 800 kilometres above the surface of the earth, the satellite will have a polar orbit, surveying the entire globe along 500 kilometre bands and producing high resolution images of lands and oceans.
The spin-offs will be felt worldwide. For instance, SAR is particularly useful in the tracing of geographical maps of areas under dense vegetation or heavy clouds. So RADARSAT will prove to be an invaluable instrument for tropical countries where the jungle and persistent heat haze make it very difficult to collect data through conventional methods.
Once again, the economic spin-offs of this project will be most important. The development of this system should require 10,000 persons-years in Canada and bring benefits of $1 billion to the private and public sectors.
The Canadian industry will therefore become a leader on the world market of radar data and services in the twentieth century. It is an achievement we can be proud of because, according to estimates, before the year 2000, this market should represent 30 percent of the space world trade.
Mr. Speaker, although I only touched upon some aspects of this ambitious space program, you realize how important it will be for the development and the future of Cnada.
In addition, the establishment of the space agency that will ensure an effective and strong co-ordination of all those programs will allow Canada to reap benefits as yet incalculable.
March 1, when the federal Government announced that the Canadian Space Agency would be located in Quebec, in the metropolitan area of Montreal, should be remembered as a very important day for Quebec and Canada, because on that day, we ensured that Canada would attain new peaks of excellence in space and technology. With a budget of $3 billion for the next decade and a staff of 300, the Agency will become a focal point for the development of advanced technology that will help Canadian industry make the switch to the twenty-first centuiy.

June 1, 1989
Space Agency
Before I finish, I would like to congratulate Dr. Larkin Kerwin on his appointment as president of the Canadian Space Agency. He is an excellent choice, and we can only applaud this decision because it means that we will benefit from the talents of a well-known, respected and experienced scientist. Under his direction, there is no doubt that the Canadian Space Agency will bring benefits to Quebec and Canada, even beyond our present expectations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa West on a question or comment.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member spoke for quite a while about a lot of things. She spoke very little about people, about ideas and about from where the space program in Canada has come. I cannot help but wonder if she and her Government are aware that the space program is more than hardware and circuit boards. It is people, ideas and intelligence, and that is the fundamental component.
My main question to the Hon. Member is, can she tell the House what studies, background papers and analysis were done to provide the scientists with an explanation of the step that is now being taken and the details? Can she provide assurance to the House and to the public of what the costs are associated with the establishment of the agency and where in the Estimates those costs are provided?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: First of all, if the Hon. Member had listened carefully, she would have realized what actually led up to the creation of the Agency. I am referring to a study conducted by the National Research Council in 1982, which concluded that it was important.
As for the costs, President Kerwin will certainly tell us how much he intends to spend on construction of the building and on the Agency's facilities. He has a general budget, and he has to remain within that budget, and it is not up to us to say how much he should spend on what. And when the Hon. Member refers to brains, I don't know what she is referring to, but I will wait for the next question, because hers was not very clear.


Mr. Harb:: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the Hon. Member on her speech. I think it was clear that she supports Canada's role with respect to research and development, and she deserves to be congratulated for that!

Mr. Speaker, I have a statement as well as a question for the Hon. Member. When we talk about the manufacturing aspect, one of the most important elements is the research and development component; in particular, the research geared toward the development end of the product.
In the National Capital Region, we have in excess of 500 companies which deal with certain aspects of the research component. Some of them deal with the manufacturing end of it. We have the National Research Council and we have other agencies. We also have the presence of the international community which is represented by the embassies, including the Embassy of the United States. The United States is one of our major partners in the industry.
My question for the Hon. Member is the following one. Can she list five companies which would be considered as a support element to where the space agency is going to be located? In doing so, can she tell me what the rationale was when it came to the idea of putting the space agency in the location it was put in?
I have heard quite a bit about the discomfort that is taking place within the manpower that is going to be the brain behind the space agency. Could she elaborate a little bit for us?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his kind words. However, in reply to the question put to me earlier by the hon. lady, I could have mentioned that it is based on my experience as a member of the Committee on Science and Technology which travelled everywhere in Canada and made recommendations dealing with science and technology.
With regard to Montreal being chosen as the location for the space agency, I should like to remind my hon. friend that long before the Government made a decision, this choice had been approved both by his Leader, the Righ Hon. Mr. Ttimer, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (M. Broadbent). In reply to his question concerning companies in Montreal which could provide support elements, I am pleased to list such

companies as CAE, Mitel, Oelirkon, Aerospace, Pratt & Whitney, and several other companies. There is also Spar which is one of the most important corporations which will be involved with the Space Agency.


Mac Harb: What is their involvement in research and development?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member rise when he wants to ask again question or make a comment, because I suggest that shouting as he does across the floor is somewhat strange. Do you not think so?


Mr. Rocheleau:: Mr. Speaker, none will deny that we need a research and development agency. I, for one, am delighted that the Govemement has finally come to a decision. But I was somewhat concerned to hear the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) state that the Government does not have to impose on Chairman Kerwin any budgetary envelope for capital or operating costs. I think it is much too easy to turn over the responsibility of Government management to a corporation, something I should like the Hon. Member to comment on. Has the Government set up a budgetary envelope for that corporation? What is the amount? And what are the estimates?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to the Hon. Member that the Agency will cost $3 billion over ten years, but it will be left to Mr. Kerwin and his board to allocate the funds. We have no intention of telling him what to do. In any event we already know exactly our share of the cost to build the CAN AD ARM, our share to build the Canadian cybernetic engineer, and our share to build the space platform. Mr. Kerwin and his board members have full discretion as to how the funds are spent. Neither I nor the Government will interfere with the Agency's activities.


Gilles Rocheleau: What has me worried, Mr. Speaker, is that a few years ago a contract was awarded for the construction of the Museum of Civilization in Hull. The estimated cost was $80 million but now they are talking in terms of $250 million. This is why I would like the
Space Agency
Government to give more specific instructions to the board or to Mr. Kerwin concerning the $3 billion which have apparently been earmarked for this project. I would like to have more details just so we will know the real construction costs for that building.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that Mr. Kerwin and the board have a very specific mandate to set up the Agency in the Montreal region, and that is the major consideration, Mr. Speaker. Besides, his allegations and the way he put his question cast doubt on Mr. Kerwin's competence. This is a man who was at the helm of the National Research Council for years and ran the ship in an extremely dignified and efficient manner. The way the Hon. Member phrased his remarks does raise questions, and it is altogether deplorable that a Member would want to imply that one of these days Mr. Kerwin might find that he has spent a lot more money than he was allowed to build the Agency's headquarters.
Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat to my colleague opposite that Mr. Kerwin was given a specific mandate to set up the Agency over a ten-year period. I, for one, am sure that a man of Mr. Kerwin's competence and outstanding intellect will indeed be able to discharge his responsibilities.


Gilles Rocheleau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Rocheleau) on a question of privilege.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I have never questioned Mr. Kerwin's skills. I have rather asked that the Government tell me what their projections were from a cost management standpoint and how they intended to spend the money. I think that the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) is considerably mistaken when she deals with-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think that the Hon. Member straightened out the facts concerning Mr. Kerwin.

June 1, 1989
Space Agency



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-The Budget-Budget cancellation suggested appropriate course/Responsibility of the Minister of Finance; the Hon. Member for Mission-Coquitlam (Ms.	Langan)-Child Care-Government intention
respecting legislation/Minister's position respecting child care; and the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Burnaby (Ms. Black)-Employment-Closure of processing facilities/Employment insurance-Qualifying period.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-16, an Act to establish the Canadian Space Agency and to provide for other matters in relation to space, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering the Bill to establish the Canadian Space Agency which was promised in the 1986 Speech from the Throne. Almost three years have gone by and at long last Parliament is about to create this famous Agency. In the meantime we witnessed the dispute between Ottawa and Montreal, and then, ridiculous though this may sound, the dispute between Montreal and the South Shore. Hon. Members, the media, and the public were mostly interested in the location of the Agency. That was of some importance, Mr. Speaker, but definitely not to the undue extent given the whole matter!
The location of the Agency itself entails the creation of relatively few new jobs. By that I mean the Agency will bring 100-odd new jobs to the city where it will be
located. That is certainly a plus for the city, but it does not necessarily follow that getting the Agency headquarters comes with a whole slew of subcontracts. The mere presence of the headquarters does not automatically create the industrial capacity required to seek contracts. Moreover, the exaggerated emphasis put on the matter of the agency's location prevents us from looking at what must be done to create an industry that is competitive internationally, and that would create thousands of jobs in every region and every province throughout the land.
What benefits should accrue from the space program? There is almost no reference to that. What is the significance of the Canadian industry? What are its strong and weak points? What policies encouraged the establishment of that industry? What support is the Government currently giving the industry? Is it adequate? Is it well distributed? Does our participation in the American space station meet our own Canadian needs? Are we not in danger of putting all our eggs in one basket? And are we not thereby in danger of neglecting other needs?
How many jobs would occrue from the Space Agency? Are the estimates put forward by the Government accurate? There is almost no debate on those matters of vital importance to the country.
Too often, Mr. Speaker, political debates sidetrack the issues, which are not addressed.
If I had one wish today, it would be to invite Members who intend to rise in this debate to read the study on the Canadian Space Program prepared in 1987 by the Standing Committee of the House on Research, Science and Technology. It shows what is really at stake in the Canadian Space Program.

For example, one question that was dealt with by the committee which studied Canada's space program in 1987 was that of space science. The Committee on Research, Science and Technology heard considerable testimony about the need to support space science which about 15 years ago used to account for 15 per cent of the space program budget. But by 1987 this had dropped to less than 10 per cent.
Space science is the base or the foundation on which all industrial activity is built. If you do not have a base in space science there will be no industrial activity and there will be no jobs to fight about between Montreal and Ottawa or Montreal and the south shore of Montreal. It is absolutely vital to maintain a strong base in
June 1, 1989

space science upon which the rest of space activity is built.
In the early 1970s the Canadian space industry included almost 100 researchers in government labs and universities. But for the last 20 years we stopped hiring space scientists and the physical infrastructure supporting this activity has deteriorated. Since 1971 not a single Canadian scientific satellite has been launched. This decline in support for space science has discouraged many high calibre graduates from seeking a career in space research. As a consequence Canada is faced today with a critical shortage of space scientists and engineers. The House committee recommended that the budget for space science be increased from less than 10 per cent to 15 per cent of the space program's over-all budget. This would put it at a level comparable to that in some other countries.
Indeed, I understand that in the United States approximately 20 per cent of NASA's budget goes to space science. We recommended that the Budget should be increased from less than 9 per cent to 15 per cent. Yet the recent figures I have seen indicate that the committee's recommendation has not been followed, that funding for space science will remain at less than 10 per cent of the total budget of the space program in the next five years.
What kind of program or industrial activity will we generate if we do not encourage young people to pursue a career in space science?
I cannot participate in this debate on this Bill without saying a word or two about science and technology in Canada in general. We simply do not do enough research and development in Canada.
Larkin Kerwin, the head of the new space agency and the former President of the National Research Council, often refers to the terrible factor of two. He refers to the fact that on average we do only half as much R and D in Canada as our major competitors like the United States, Japan, West Germany, France and Sweden. A number of other industrialized countries come into that average as well.
Further, we have only half the number of scientists and engineers in our workforce than the average of the industrialized countries. Now that should tell you that
Space Agency
the situation is serious, Mr. Speaker, when we are only doing half of what our major competitors are doing. But saying we spend only half and reciting these averages really understates the magnitude of the problem, because averages often mask reality and in this case averages mask the grim reality.
While there are some outstanding R and D performers in Canadian Industry and many indeed in the space industry which we are talking about today, by and large there are whole industries in Canada and whole sectors of industry which do no R and D whatsoever.
Figures from the National Research Council tell us that only about 2 to 3 per cent of Canadian firms which depend on technology for their future and for their ability to compete actually do any R and D.
In much of Canadian industry, there is simply no capacity to do research and development. There are no scientists and engineers working in these companies. The officers and managers of most of these companies in Canada have no background in science. They lack familiarity with what science and technology can do for them or for their company.
In my comments, I have referred to Larkin Kerwin, the former President of the NRC who is taking on the job as first President of the Canadian Space Agency. What did he have to say about Canada's R and D performance very recently? I would like to quote from an article which was first printed in March of this year in The Globe and Mail but which was recently published in Canadian Chemical News. I quote Dr. Kerwin:
Canadians must face some very unpleasant facts: among the industrialized nations of the world, we rank as technological illiterates; we have become incompetent in the unfolding scientific civilization.
We cut down more trees than any other country yet we import chain saws. We have an elaborate health-care system yet we import stretchers. We import 76 per cent of our machinery, 40 per cent of our electrical products, 80 per cent of our health care equipment.
In an attempt to balance these deficits-
He referred earlier to the deficits in trade of manufactured goods. He said:
-we continue to export relatively raw natural resources at at a time when there is a surplus of virtually every commodity in the world, including food.

June 1, 1989
Space Agency
Simply put, we are not able to compete because we lack the knowledge to do so effectively.
That is the assessment of Dr. Kerwin, the new head of the Space Agency.
There are many reasons for this dismal state of affairs, but it is generally agreed that there is one major reason for not having developed a knowledge-based economy in Canada. That is precisely our wealth in natural resources. Because we have plentiful natural resources, we have not been forced to rely on our wits. Other countries like Japan, which have no or relatively little wealth in natural resources, did not have the choice. They had to develop their intellectual resources, their human resources.
The world of today is one in which wealth in natural resources is becoming much less important and where knowledge is the critical factor in creating wealth. What we have to do in Canada is develop a strategy or plan which will increase our research and development capacity.
Canadians are told by the Conservative Government that there is such a policy to increase our research and development capacity. They will refer to the federal-provincial agreement signed in 1987, but I would maintain that this agreement is in fact only a statement of objectives. The objectives in this agreement are good, but to have an adequate policy, we do not just need a statement of objectives. We need specific targets. We need schedules for reaching those targets. We need an implementation plan.
It is one thing to say one is going to do something. It is one thing to say that we are going to increase the research and development capacity in this country. It is another thing to come up with a method and plan to do it and then actually do it. What we have now from this Government is not anything more than wishful thinking. Try cashing that in at the bank.
The Conservatives have been in power for about five years and over-all research and development spending in Canada has actually gone down since then, despite the promises of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to double our national output in research and development within his first mandate.
I admit that it is very difficult for listeners or for Canadians to make sense out of this debate because we
have a Government which will refer to all of its policies over the course of the past few years. It will refer to its $1.3 billion fund. It will refer to the creation of this new space agency. It will refer to the Centres of Excellence Program. It will talk about funding that it has have given to the granting councils like the National Science and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. We in the Opposition and even some critical people in industry will tell you that it does not all quite add up. It really amounts to a shell game because the increases do not make up for even increases in the cost of living. They can talk about spending $1.3 billion. It sounds very impressive, but one really has to look at it in terms of percentages of national output or percentages of what existed before to get a real handle on it to understand what it actually signifies. As I say, the public has difficulty sorting out these conflicting arguments.
I would suggest that there is one way of sorting out this argument. That is to look at the bottom line, which businesses generally regard as the criterion of success. What does the bottom line tell us? If one adds up everything that the Government says it has done, the bottom line tells us that spending on research and development has gone down since this Government took office. It all adds up to zero.
I am reminded of what one of my colleagues referred to the other day in a debate in which she was referring to foreign aid spending. She gave us a demonstration in arithmetic. She said that zero plus zero is zero. This is what the situation is when it comes to R and D spending. When one adds up everything that this Government has done and looks at the bottom line and in terms of an internationally recognized indicator, one finds that spending, as a percentage of our Gross National Product, has gone down since this Government has taken office. That is the record it has to show for all of its magnificent statements, for all of its glossy brochures and pictures that it has put out in the last four years.
The bankruptcy of the Conservative policy is well illustrated by the recent statements of the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology (Mr. Andre), who now has taken to berating industry for not doing enough. Sure, industry is not doing enough. I referred to this in my comments. I referred to the very profound reasons why we have not developed a knowledge-based economy in this country.
June 1, 1989

The question that has to be put to this Government and to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology is what solutions does he have? What strategy does he have to increase research and development spending in this country to increase our industrial capacity to perform research and development?
When I say that we want a strategy, we do not just want a lot of objectives and glorified statements. We want a policy with targets and schedules for reaching those targets. We want an implementation plan. When the Minister takes to criticizing industry, I would suggest that what one has is proof positive that he and his Government are at a loss for ideas. This again demonstrates that the Government has no plan to correct the situation. So while I take pleasure in participating in this debate and while I welcome at long last the establishment of a Canadian Space Agency, I suggest to Canadians and to my colleagues in this House that we have to put this initiative and the rest of the Government's initiatives firmly in perspective. It is only in that fashion that Canadians will be able to take stock of where we are and throw out a Government eventually which is doing nothing to improve the situation.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to commend the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount (Mr. Berger) for his speech this afternoon. However, there is something I would like to remind him, because I listened throughout his speech and he is in effect stating the Government is doing nothing in the area of research and development.
I would like to remind him in the first place that what this Government wants for Canadians is a prosperous country, a country with a good life, a country where the quality of life is excellent, and we believe science and technology may be the best means of reaching that goal.
It has not always been easy, Mr. Speaker, as you well know. First, we had to raise provincial awareness. Everyone in the country had to be on the same wave length, so we implemented a science and technology policy that
Space Agency
was supported and prepared by the science and technology ministers throughout the country.
So now no province is behind the other. They are all on the same footing. Moreover, it was so important for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government that he decided to set up a science and technology advisory board. It makes extremely important recommendations that are absolutely essential for the future of the country, Mr. Speaker.
Also, we held a conference for industry in Toronto attended by some 200 industrial leaders and decisionmakers. There were union representatives as well. There were representatives from many parts of the country and they were made aware of how Canadian industries could increase their profitability. They were also asked to upgrade and improve their products. They were also asked how to encourage more high tech industries to be established.
This exercise was repeated throughout the country, with five other conferences. So we can now say that we have laid the foundations and Canadians are aware. It was not easy, you know, to change Canadians' mentality and make them aware how the quality of life of all Canadians depends on the results of high tech research and development.
So, Mr. Speaker, we also identified strategies and fields of activity where Canada could be a leader. Among them were artificial intelligence and biomaterials. Companies, industries and Canadians were told what fields to go for, that it would be better to have specific fields where Canada would be really competent and could then compete throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that Canada is not alone and that we have to face world competition. We are so aware of the importance of developing industry and increasing research in Canada that instead of keeping the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, we changed its vocation. We even created a department that is now called Industry, Science and Technology.
Mr. Speaker, of course we won't be able to see all the results within a year. The seed has been sown, and in the long run we will see how important this will be for the entire country. When the Hon. Member says we have done absolutely nothing and that the Space Agency is only a tiny step, I disagree. It is a major step, Mr. Speaker. It is a major step because we are giving Canadians a new focus. In this area, at least, we are able to draw on some absolutely extraordinary skills. The Hon. Member says: Of course the Government says that

June 1, 1989
Space Agency
the private sector is not doing its fair share. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the private sector is not doing its fair share. And when he compares our Gross National Product with that of other countries, we see that the private sector in the United States, Japan, Germany and France invests a lot more money than the private sector here in Canada. So, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is so smart, suppose he tells us what kind of new ideas the Liberal Party has in mind to promote a really sound policy on science and technology. I wouldn't mind hearing him expand on his Party's policy!


David Berger: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert for confirming everything I just said in my speech. She referred to what the Government has done. It was necessary to bring the provinces on the side. She said that an advisory council was set up, that a national conference was organized and that five conferences were held across the country. She mentioned artificial intelligence and new materials. But looking at the bottom line, what was the result? As I said in my speech, when we consider this country's expenditures on research and development, spending has dropped since this Government came to power. The only way to measure everything this Government has done is to calculate total spending as a percentage of our Gross National Product. Again, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for enumerating everything her Government has done, but she admitted that as far as the bottom line was concerned, nothing happened.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend's comments and found them to be very accurate and to the mark. I want to ask my hon. colleague whether or not it is rather discriminatory in terms of a research and development policy in that the Government is focusing more attention or increasing the expectations on private sector research and development when there are regions of Canada where corporate research and development would by definition take place at a different rate and have a different opportunity for success than in other regions? I am talking particularly about the North, the West and the eastern parts of our country. By the Government indicating that we will now
rely more than ever on the private sector for research leadership, it is really saying that we are going to focus more attention than ever in terms of developing a knowledge-based economy on central Canada and once again at the expense of the regions of the country.


David Berger: I thank the Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) for his comment about industry but, as I referred in my comments, it is really an industry where there is incredible weakness in Canada and an industry where the emphasis has to come. That does not mean that the Government can take comfort from that and sit back and leave it up to industry. There is a tremendous leadership role for Government to play and a tremendous leverage to be exerted by the Government in creating this capacity in industry. I have visited companies in Newfoundland, in Saskatchewan, in Ontario, in British Columbia, in Quebec, small towns, larger cities, not just hi-tech companies. I am talking about companies in the agricultural sector in Winnipeg or in Saskatoon.
There are tremendous research institutes in fisheries and in aquaculture in St. John's. There is tremendous potential out there. Much can be done with the right policies and incentives from Government. One program I have referred to on previous occasions in the House is the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program. It has permitted many small and medium-sized companies across the country to build a capacity in research and development with minimal contributions on the part of Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Edmonton Southwest.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the consciousness of North Americans, we became aware of space with the launching of the first sputnik in 1957. The impact was not truly driven home to the average person until we saw those remarkable pictures of earth from the moon orbit of Apollo 8 in its Christmas mission in 1968. Our imagination was triggered, and Canadians, together with all other neighbours in this global village, began to think of the opportunities in space and the manner in
June 1, 1989

which the peaceful utilization of space could change our lives and expand our future.
So there came the realization in Canada that, as we often do, we should build on our strengths and we began to exercise Canadian ingenuity in two fields, the most prominent of which was space communication, and the second of which was the famous Canadarm project.
We have before us today a Bill which will set up the Canadian Space Agency, and which will give the opportunity to Canadians from all parts of our nation to participate. The location of the Agency will be in St. Hubert. I as an Albertan welcome the announcement and the opportunity for the expansion of the Alberta aerospace industry as a result of this development.
Historically, Alberta, along with the greater Montreal region, has been the cradle of aerospace activity, both during the Second World War and in the years immediately following. Indeed, in the last few years there has grown up in our province a number of industries that have relocated from central Canada in order to realize the benefits of regional economic diversification.
In the creation of the Canadian Space Agency, the Government of Canada is making a strong commitment to building on a world-class record of success in space technology.
Through the leadership of this agency, Canada is destined to reach new heights and excellence in space and scientific achievement. It will be a focal point for the development of key technologies, with broad application to Canadian industry, that will carry us proudly and strongly into the 21st century.
Canada's long and impressive history in space is, in large part, a reflection of the effectiveness of the Canadian space program. I would like to focus my remarks on the program in the context of this legislation.
Our national space program, as expressed in the long-term space plan the Government introduced in 1986, is tailored to meet Canada's special needs. We are a country with a small population spread over a large area, and in our country factors such as distance, rugged terrain, and atmospheric conditions, hamper normal ground-level methods of communication and resource monitoring.
Space Agency
Our current plan builds on the early efforts of the space program which focused on communications and remote-sensing applications and encouraged the growth of world-class firms in those areas. It continues to support Canada's high technology industries to ensure that our national needs in those areas will be met. An outstanding firm in that field which has recently relocated to Alberta is Amtek Testware Limited, a leader in our nation.
In recent years Canadian experience with the Canadarm has led to the growth of new firms working in the fields of automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Those are the critical high-technology areas of the future.
Through all of its various elements, the space program enables Canada to contribute to the international effort to extend human knowledge about our planet and about our place in the solar system.
Careful planning has ensured that the space program strikes the appropriate balance among the various components needed to meet our national needs and to reinforce our industrial strengths. Proper weighting is given to different program areas, to spending in different stages of each project, and to the relationship between ongoing basic research and large-scale operational projects.
The long-term space plan including RADARSAT and Msat and our contribution to the space station, recognizes the need to continue a national commitment to the growing space sector. Five years ago, spending on space projects was about $100 million per year; today it is about $150 million. By the year 1992 it is expected to double. By all measures the Canadian space program has produced outstanding results. In the last 25 years we have developed an industry that sets world standards in communications, remote sensing, and space robotics.
Canadians are among the world's largest users of space technology. Our once small community of space scientists and engineers has become an extensive national resource rich in technical capability. Our space industry has done remarkably well in a highly competitive field. Canada is one of the few countries in the world where the space industry sells more than the Government spends on space. The industry is made-in-Canada with over 90 per cent Canadian ownership. More than 70 per cent of Canadian space products and services are sold in export markets, and the industry has a growth

June 1, 1989
Space Agency
record averaging 20 per cent per year over the past decade.
The history of Canada's space program confirms the experience of other countries such as Japan, the European Community, and the United States, that a well integrated and balanced space program attracts much of a nation's best talents and resources. There is the imagination factor, Mr. Speaker, that was first kindled by those pictures of the tiny planet earth, that blue orb in a black setting.
Our space industry has been a significant force in offering Canadians the opportunity to earn a living from their own ingenuity and their imaginations. The challenge for the Canadian space industry today is finding new ways to couple space-related research and technological development with other sectors of the economy where national needs and commercial activities can benefit.
The Canadian space program is composed of numerous major elements, monumental world-class research, scientific and technological projects which place Canada at the leading edge of development on a number of fronts.
For example, we are the leaders in the development of RADARSAT, a sophisticated satellite scheduled for launch in 1994, which will use radar to obtain detailed images of the earth, even in darkness and through clouds. The development of this system is expected to generate 10,000 person-years of employment in Canada, and provide more than $1 billion in benefits to the public and private sectors.
Canada is a partner in Space Station, the largest international development project ever undertaken. We will be contributing the mobile servicing system, which will play a main role in Space Station assembly and maintenance, moving equipment and supplies around the station, releasing and capturing satellites, supporting astronauts working in space, and servicing instruments. Again, the potential benefits to Canada are substantial, more than $5 billion and 80,000 person-years of employment.
The benefits flowing from the Canadian space program do not end there. The space science component of the program serves as a breeding ground for new ideas, inspires students to pursue technical careers, and provides a stimulating environment for the training of tomorrow's highly skilled space scientists and engineers. As well, there are program elements such as the Canadian Astronaut Program, the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, MSAT which is the world's first communications satellite for mobile users, and a large range of space technology activities.
I could continue to describe the various elements of the Canadian space program and the substantial wide-ranging benefits they provide Canadians from coast to coast. However, I believe I have given the House a fairly thorough understanding of what we are dealing with.
As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, the creation of the Canadian Space Agency will allow us to build on the excellence we have achieved in space technology. It will serve to enhance the effectiveness of the Canadian space program in a large number of ways.
First, space program activities have until now been managed by separate government departments. For example, the Department of Communications was responsible for satellite communications, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for remote sensing, and the National Research Council of Canada for space technology such as Canadarm.
An interdepartmental committee on space has, since 1969, provided for the co-ordination of the disparate activities. It was successful, especially when one considers the inherent difficulties of management by committee. Still, the committee had no over-all management powers or budget.
Things have changed. Today there are more players involved. Projects involving international co-operation, a cornerstone of the Canadian space program, are becoming more complex. International competition is becoming increasingly formidable. A new approach is needed to ensure Canada's position in the space arena as we move confidently toward the 21st century.
Now we have an opportunity to create a single agency, the Canadian Space Agency, which will bring it all together. It will co-ordinate under one Minister the whole of the Canadian civilian space program. The advantages to be gained are numerous and will benefit Canadians, Canadian universities and the Canadian space industry across the country.

The agency will provide for more efficient management of the investment we are making in space, including centralized planning and monitoring. We will be able to make more effective use of resources, to ensure that all regions of the country benefit. We will have the means to strengthen efforts to promote the commercialization of space and the the spin-off of new technologies into other ground-based industries.
In conclusion, Canadians will get better value for each dollar invested in our space program. I might add that the Canadian space program is one part of our Government's commitment to strengthening Canadian capabilities in science and technology and building a competitive, prosperous Canada for future generations.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite spoke in laudatory terms about the Government's support for high technology industries. I wish it were so.
In my riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands there are many high-tech industries. They are small firms that are being jeopardized by the Government as a result of its budget cuts to the Unsolicited Proposals Program.
As the Hon. Member pointed out, there is an imagination factor in science and technology support work. The work done by one small firm will contribute to the work of another small firm, as is happening with the small firms in the Saanich Peninsula. The development of science and technology is improved as those companies help each other.
That type of work is seriously jeopardized as a result of the Government's cancellation of the Unsolicited Proposals Program. Many of the things those firms are doing on the Saanich Peninsula have application for the Canada space program. While they are particularly interested in the work associated with the Institute of Ocean Sciences, the Hon. Member will no doubt realize that deep ocean research has applications to space research.
I ask the Hon. Member if he would do as I did, and plead with the Minister responsible that the Unsolicited Proposals Programs be reinstated? It is crucial for research and development work in Canada.
Space Agency


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Hon. Member's question. I think it is an important and significant question which deserves a proper response. I will try to give it.
The Hon. Member asks about the Unsolicited Proposals Program. I suggest to her that she offer to those aspiring firms and research incubators, if you like, in the Saanich Peninsula to do what is being done in my Province of Alberta, which is networking. The Hon. Member may be familiar with that in another context, but I think it would be entirely appropriate that she take a leadership role with those organizations and suggest they form the kind of collaboration that exists in Alberta with the Alberta Aerospace Council. It recognizes the reality of the funding difficulty as a result of the Unsolicited Proposals Program not being with us at this time.
She could seek to determine whether there is common cause not only among the firms in the Saanich Peninsula but also those firms in other areas of the country. This is an area in which all Members of Parliament in their own way can play a leadership role. I am sure her constituents would welcome her doing so.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this topic today.
The history of Canada is one of forging links, beginning with the voyageurs braving the rivers, then the spanning the nation by railroad, by radio communication, by air, by television and a host of other technologies that have drawn Canadians closer together over the years.
By developing the technologies that have allowed us to build a country in spite of geographic and natural forces, we have contributed vastly to the development of human knowledge and the development of technologies that are important not only to Canada but to the world.
Canada's contribution to space technology began many years before the launching of Alouette I at Vandenberg Air Force Base in 1962, and before Canadian scientists studied the ionosphere during World War II. Canadian space science began in the 1930s with the study of the upper atmosphere using ground-based instruments.
This history has established a strong foundation for Canada's contribution to exploring the stars with other

Space Agency
space pioneers from around the world. We have established such an enviable international reputation that Canada is the only non-European nation involved in the European Space Agency.
But that history has also shown us the direction in which we should go. The frontiers are no longer geographical, rivers or mountains or prairies to be crossed, they are now the frontiers of the human mind and spirit. Canada is in a position as no other country in the world to make a unique contribution to the ability of the human race to survive and thrive on this planet.
I want to refer to the report of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology on Canada's space program. It is called "A Voyage to the Future".
Very little has been said today about the future of that program. We have heard much about bureaucracies, budgets and administration, but nothing about vision. I want to talk about how our past can show us where we should go.
The committee stated in its report that the space program could provide challenging opportunities for our space scientists and at the same time be consistent with Canada's concept of its position in the world community.
That comment is made in the context of an initiative for Canada to participate in developing space-based remote sensing for verification of multilateral arms control. I have heard nothing this afternoon of our ability to make a difference to peace in this world and to divert our resources from arms production and destruction to productive uses.
I refer to the next page of the same report and the option for Canada to participate in the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme: A Study of Global Change. We have heard a great many words about environment but we have heard nothing about this unique opportunity and what it means to the commitment and the concern of all our citizens to the environment. The report states that the objective of this program is:
lb describe and understand the interactive physical, chemical and
biological processes that regulate the total Earth system, the unique
environment that it provides for life, the changes that are occurring in
the system, and the manner in which they are influenced by human actions.
Among the technologies needed for this complex understanding is the ability to examine the Earth as a planet from space.
It is in this context that the RADARSAT program was cited as a valuable technology for providing some of the: data that will be needed -
What we are talking about is some of the data that will be needed to save the world.
This should be a proud day for Canada. It should be a day of commitment and vision for the future, not only of our country and of our scientists but of the world and of the universe. I have heard very little with regard to that. I have heard more talk about commercial ventures, something which disturbs me greatly. If that is the motive, the driving force behind what will be done over the next few years to establish this agency, I fear for its future.
What is fundamental to the program is that labs do not function on their own, ideas do not come to fruition in a vacuum and technological miracles are not achieved without the lifeblood of a program, which is the dedication and commitment of talented individuals.
In its own personnel management manual Treasury Board states that in the development of policies and programs, human resources are no less important than financial and material resources. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in this program they are more important.
In 1986, the space agency was introduced as a means to enhance space science in Canada by co-ordinating and managing the space program and the space industry. Yet, since then, we have seen three years of numerous delays. It was two and a half years ago that the media releases were already prepared to announce the space agency.
In those two and a half years not only the scientists involved in this program and the programs themselves, but the very industry has been in limbo. Long-term investments by industry were put off. Initiatives were shelved.
In November, 1987, a physics professor and interim director of the Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science at York University called the delay a disaster from a scientific and technological point of view.
June 1, 1989

Canada's competitive position in the world of sophisticated space science depends on careful, timely and long-range planning, financing and implementation. Delays threaten competitiveness because they focus constant attention on today and stifle a focus on future goals.
The Canadian Space Agency was to be a co-ordinating body of 50 people. Now it will encompass laboratories and offices which will house as many as 300 workers. The Government has not clarified the reasoning behind such a dramatic change in plan from what was originally announced to the people of Canada.
In December, 1988, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) told the House that the programs would not be moved. He said that there was no question of moving any facilities, and that it was never on the Government's list, never even studied. It is not much wonder that the people who have made up Canada's space program for the last 30 years are wondering where they really stand with this Government.
We asked about costs today. I think the answer confirmed the worst fears of the scientists who are wondering now whether they have a future with Canada's space program. What the Hon. Member said was that there is a global budget, that it has not been enlarged and that money dedicated to space science, space research and space technology will now have to be stretched to the building of a new space agency, and to all the other costs associated with establishing a new agency.
A former Member of the House alluded to the depletion that is taking place in the commitment to space science in this country. I want to point out that from the same report that commitment to space science as a proportion of the space budget has dropped from 14 per cent to 9 per cent. That is not a commitment to the type of science or the commitment to the scientists who have made this program and made Canada internationally famous.
It is disturbing that the very Minister responsible for the program refuses to tell Canadians what the program is costing them. The Minister refuses to make clear what the long-term commitment of the Government is and refuses to justify the basis for decisions leading to the
Space Agency
Bill today and leading to what will happen in the next few years.
I want to talk now about people because I have heard virtually nothing about people today in the House from Members opposite. The space program is not technology. It is not hardware. It is not even laboratories. Nor is it satellites. It is the brilliance, the talent, the dedication and commitment of scientists and the people who work with them.
We have now passed exactly three months to the day since the announcement of the space agency was made on March 1 of this year. Those people are still waiting to understand what their future careers and their personal futures will be. The answers they need to make those decisions are not available to them yet.
I suppose all Hon. Members of the House have read the newspaper speculation about who will go with the agency and who will not go with it. Those decisions are being made not only for personal reasons but for program reasons. As they are being made, program decisions are being made.
I am sure there are some Members who sit opposite who believe that the scientists in this program are an expendable commodity and that their families are an expendable commodity. I am sure there are Members opposite who think that the technicians and technologists and the support people who work with them are an expendable commodity. I will let one of those people speak for themselves about the agony that the lack of information, the lack of clarity, the lack of commitment by the Government over the last three months and over the last three years has caused them.
"We were told the space agency was formed to make us more efficient. Does moving half our program people and leaving the other half here make us more efficient? Does losing half the people in the Space Mechanics Branch, some with 28 years experience, make us more efficient? Does losing all four members of the program we work with closely make us more efficient? Does losing Roy VanKoughnett, Director of Space Research Operations, a man who is probably the best manager in the Public Service, make us more efficient? People love their work. We are an efficient, effective organization where people come early, stay late, and don't charge for overtime. All that is gone now". It is not much wonder, when a letter from the Minister responsible for the program states that those groups going with the agency represent administrative and project management personnel. I wonder if the Minister himself knows who these people are and how valuable they are. Perhaps he thinks they are expendable.

June 1, 1989
Space Agency
Let me give you a few figures which tell you that they are not. When NRC tried to staff its Space Station Program, it took it over a year, from beginning to end, to fill 15 positions. The very people that we are undervaluing are in demand around the world. NASA is seeking to hire 1,500 people. These are jobs and career opportunities that these people can have when they simply say they want them. At the same time, we had our own Government in the Environment Department cutting atmospheric research that is related to the research program by 18 people in the last year.
I want to go back to the committee's report because it was such an excellent and thorough report. Here is what it had to say about the people:
-the picture I am painting is one of an aging, over-committed group of researchers who have, in the past, served Canada and their science well. They are, however, being asked to do all the tasks they have done in the past plus many others and are lacking the infrastructure of support so necessary to the successful discharge of their responsibilities. The lack of career positions in the space sciences-has led to a significant drop in the number of young people prepared to pursue a research career-
The report was equally damning of our ability to train and attract new people. Canada is facing a critical shortage of space scientists and engineers in the years ahead. We cannot ignore the warning signs. Without our scientists, we do not have a space program. Without our scientists, we do not have their technicians and their support staff.
Yet we want to take them now through this Bill and through the establishment of this agency, remove the professional status that many of them have at the Canadian Research Council, and their freedom to progress in their careers according to their ability, and put them in a classification system under the Public Service that is neither suitable nor adaptable to the kinds of training, qualifications and experience.
For three months, they have been unable to get answers as to how those situations will be handled. The Bill tells us that it will not be handled. Astronaut scientists will be given that special status but the space program scientists will not.
One of them said to me when I talked to him: "I don't want to spend the next two years of my life being a mover. I am a scientist." They want to know why they have to move into temporary quarters, disrupt their work for two years and then move again. For three months these people have been getting unclear answers and half answers which do not allow them to make decisions. All of this is undermining their commitment to the careers on which they have spent a lifetime.
Whatever happens with this Bill, the Government has to wake up and deal with these people with the respect and with the appreciation that they deserve. It has got to do it quickly or we will not have a space program. There is a serious crisis of confidence among these people. They are only a handful of people but they are all this country has on which to build its space program. Without them, there is no technology, bureaucracy or industry. There is no Canada in the 21st century out there protecting the environment of the earth. We have the best ability in the world to do that.
This is more than a career for them. This is their life work. For many of them, it is the life work of themselves and their families. This is a completely unacceptable way to deal with the employees that this Government hopes will become the employees of the Canadian Space Agency. It is urgent that these problems be dealt with or we will miss the opportunity to make the contribution to the development of human knowledge which Canada has been preparing itself to make for over five decades.
Personal decisions are being made, and as personal decisions are being made, programs will either continue or not continue. The integrity of the program must be maintained. The respect and the confidence of our scientists and the people who work with them in this Government's commitment to our future and to the future of Canada in space must be maintained. It must be done quickly or it will be too late.
June 1, 1989


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. Debate. Question, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to debate on the Bill, however, at this time, considering the few minutes left, perhaps it is more appropriate to ask a question.
The Prime Minister some time in October, 1986 stated that he intended to establish a Canadian Space Agency, which he would have working in co-operation with industry, universities and provinces. This new agency would help ensure that the benefit of Canada's role in space would be shared by all Canadians. My concern is that he said, "by all Canadians". In the Bill there is a change in terms of how the employees will be governed in terms of employment by the Public Service Employment Act, which is different from the usual way that landed immigrants may not benefit from employment opportunities. Does she see in this Bill an indication from the Prime Minister that in fact he will consult with the universities?


Marlene Catterall: I certainly do not want to speak for the Prime Minister. I suggest that might be asked of the Government. I see a very token consultation in the establishment of an advisory board. Frankly, I think the far greater indicator of the commitment to consultation is what has happened in the last three years. A lot of consultation took place in the production of this report on Canada's space program which is called "A Voyage to the Future". We knew at that time what the space industry wanted and what universities wanted, and it was the quick establishment of a space agency. It was a long-term, financial and program commitment. It was a commitment to science in space. In fact, over the intervening three years, we have had the betrayal of that consultation. We have had the delay of the establishment of the space agency. We have had a reduction of over one-third in the amount of money going into space science. I do not think the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to have to interrupt the Hon. Member.

It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Atomic Energy Control Board


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD SAFETY OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT EMPLOYEES
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should instruct the Atomic Energy Control Board to conduct a public review into the safety of nuclear power plant employees working twelve-hour shifts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is self-evident and is prompted by the fact that in nuclear power plants in our country and, more precisely, in Ontario and New Brunswick, we have a practice of working shifts that span a 12-hour period. The shifts include workers, engineers and operators. The support for the present regime of 12 hours has been forthcoming from the unions because of the social advantages that this shift offers to workers, namely, that it allows a better arrangement of free time and time with families. Support for this is undeniable and understandable.
Up to this date, as we all know, no serious problem can be attributed to the length of the work day or to the 12-hour shift. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency, in its 1984 guide book on nuclear power, says on the subject of plant personnel that most nuclear power plants in the world use eight-hour shifts.
It is interesting to note that at the seventh symposium on training of nuclear-facility personnel held in April, 1987, a paper prepared by Dolores S. Morriseau, Paul M. Lewis and J. J. Perensky, entitled "Improved Human Performance Through Appropriate Work Scheduling" notes, and I quote:
Numerous reports on non-nuclear industries indicate that fatigue increases after eight hours and increases rapidly after 12 hours.
The authors go on to say that the reading speed slows after four hours and after eight hours a pilot's performance in flight simulators declines. In actual on-the-job situations, after eight hours aircraft accidents and occupational injuries increase and drivers take a greater risk.

June 1, 1989
Atomic Energy Control Board
The authors also cite one nuclear plant in the U.S. without identifying it by name which abandoned a 12-hour work day because the operators became too fatigued. As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, nuclear power plants are very complex installations. The incidents at Three-Mile Island in March, 1979 and Chernobyl in April, 1986 have altered the attitude of the public considerably and, in particular, to the potential dangers of nuclear accidents. Both accidents are still clear in the minds of the public and they raise questions, including matters related to operating safety. This is the purpose of this motion today.
It is a matter that directs the Government, through the AECB, to conduct a public review and to look into the safety of nuclear power plant employees' working shifts when extended, as it is now, to a period of 12 hours.
The public concern is one which not only prompts this motion but prompts the question as to what is our energy future. It is appropriate in the debate on this motion to raise the question as to what Canada's energy future is, because we really do not know what it is. We seem to be operating in a policy vacuum in this respect. No longterm plan has been proposed and no consultation preceding it by way of a parliamentary initiative, if you like, with the public and interested sectors as to the future.
We know, though, that in recent times because of the greenhouse effect and the pollution from carbon dioxide, the Canadian Nuclear Association has been promoting the notion that we should find the answers to the greenhouse effect through the construction of additional nuclear plants.
This is why it is extremely crucial at this stage that we approach the question of energy in its totality. I am using this motion in a way to piggy-back into the House the larger idea, namely, to call on the Government because we do need urgently some clearly defined plan which will lead us to the articulation and definition as to what will be the energy future for our country. We should pay attention to it because energy is an extremely important issue. It has environmental as well as very important economic ramifications.
I believe it is also dangerous to leave a vacuum at the present time and to allow the notion that nuclear power is going to be the answer. That is not the solution and there are many reasons for that.
First, there is the question of cost. A nuclear power plant is extremely expensive. The Darlington power plant, which will reach completion by the fall of this year, will start operations with one nuclear reactor and gradually, over time increase to four, is estimated to cost some $11.6 billion. This for one plant, Mr. Speaker. The cost, therefore, of a nuclear future for Canada is staggering.
Second, we know from experts who have studied this matter that if we want to tackle the question of carbon dioxide pollution in order to slow global warming, we are told that for each dollar that we invest in energy efficiency, namely, in ways of using the energy we already have and producing it in a more efficient manner that we can displace seven times as much carbon dioxide than with each dollar invested in nuclear power. The authors of the paper on the subject, Bill Keepin and Gregory Kats, estimate that even if 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants could be built every one to three days over the next 37 years, carbon dioxide emission would continue to grow.
I referred to cost and effectiveness. Let me now tackle the question of waste. A parliamentary committee worked on the question of nuclear waste in the last Parliament. It proposed a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear plants. Why did we do that? Because we felt that it would be better to have a moratorium until the matter of safe disposal of the used nuclear rods is established. At the present time when the nuclear-spent rods have to be disposed of, they are placed in water as a temporary measure. It is not their final destination. Of course once final disposal of the spent rods is established, a considerable expenditure will be required. As we know, studies are on their way in the Canadian shield to establish at what depth and to what degree of safety these spent rods can be disposed of. That final disposition has not been finalized. It is yet to be determined. It is a cost that is not yet known. It is an indication as to how this particular source of energy relies on a cycle that is yet to be completed. We therefore do not know the final cost of the final phase of disposing of the waste.
That brings me to the matter of decommissioning. When a nuclear plant goes out of business, so to speak, it has to be decommissioned. We do not know what exactly the process of decommissioning implies and what the
June 1, 1989

cost of decommissioning is. All we know is that it is another very high cost. If one combines the question of waste and the question of decommissioning, one realizes how uncertain and how costly the nuclear future is if the entire cycle is taken into account of the utilization of nuclear power.
Needless to say, there is the whole question of risk related to potential accidents. There is an increasing amount of studies and reports that are reported mostly by newspapers and the printed media where we leam that children living near nuclear power plants suffer from a higher incidence of leukemia than children living a distance away and with whom comparisons have been carried out.
Combining the question of health risk, particularly in relation to children with the cost of decommissioning and of final waste disposal, we see a future shaping up for nuclear power that we would not like to pursue. We therefore want to look at alternatives in the interest of public health, the environment and the economy.
If the future is not to be nuclear, then what are the energy options for Canada? Obviously, efficiency and conservation are the most immediate and least expensive opportunities that are being offered. The International Energy Agency, in a study on how Canada uses its own energy, has concluded that we are inefficient in the use of our own energy to the degree of 30 per cent. That means that we could be using the same amount of energy that we dispose of at the present time by 30 per cent more with a utilization that is 30 per cent higher than at the present time if we only were to adopt certain measures that relate not only to conservation, but also to more efficient equipment, machinery, appliances, motors, and the like. That is a big percentage. It is a considerable figure that has been identified for us by the International Energy Agency.
Then there is the question that is increasingly knocking at the door as an opportunity and that is the necessity of finding ways of using renewable sources of energy which we have virtually abandoned as a result of budgetary cuts, the most recent one last April when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced the closure of 12 renewable energy offices under the auspices of the Department of Energy Mines and Resources.
Atomic Energy Control Board
Of course the picture is much broader than the opening or closing of offices. The potential of renewable sources of energy which range from solar, to wind, to biomass, to small hydro initiatives is enormous. If we were to put our subsidies and incentives behind renewable resources to the same extent that we have so far put behind the non-renewable sources of energy, we would be crossing the threshold of tapping this renewable opportunity very soon. Unfortunately, we are not as close as we could and should like to be.
In order for us to make decisions about the energy future of Canada which implies also making decisions about the environmental future of Canada, this whole matter of planning and of devising an energy policy is becoming more and more urgent by the day. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is by means of this motion and through you that I urge the Government to put its resources and available skills to work in order to give Canadians an idea as to what our energy future ought to be.
As I said, the process ought to start with a countrywide consultation which would then provide the main elements for an energy plan. It then could be the subject of debate in this House, finalized by way of perhaps a vote or deliberation that would give the final stamp of approval to initiatives of this kind. I know that my time is up. I will conclude by saying that it would be in our collective interest, in the interest of our economy and the environment to launch this process of designing an energy future for Canada at the earliest possible time. It is for this and for future generations that we must do it and I urge Members to support this concept.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to reply to the motion of the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), that motion being:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should instruct
the Atomic Energy Control Board to conduct a public review into the
safety of nuclear power plant employees working twelve hour shifts.
May I say before I get into the meat of the matter that it is always a pleasure to listen to the Hon. Member for Davenport in this House and elsewhere. He was an environmentalist long before it was fashionable to be one. Now every politician in Canada is an environmentalist. Even the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Vander Zalm and this Government are born-again environmentalists, except when some action is required. They like to talk about it but not act on it, but that is not true of the

June 1, 1989
Atomic Energy Control Board
Member for Davenport. He is always worth listening to, especially on the environment. He does everything well. I will point out that I once beat him at a bocci game, an Italian bowling game, in the Commercial Drive section of Vancouver. I know he would never want me to tell that to anyone. So I will keep it to myself after this.
This is an important motion because it focuses on human error, not that we do not have wonderful employees in our nuclear power plants. We have some excellent and decided employees. But thank God we have not had any real big accidents. We have had some excellent dedicated employees. David Suzuki is the environmentalist who appears frequently on television and in the media. He also is from my home province. I remember David Suzuki telling me that the problem with this wonderful new technology in the world that is supposed to be safer and safer, is that most of it is run by human beings, by us, and we make mistakes. All it takes is a problem with your spouse or with the kids or perhaps there was drinking the night before or you are tired or your mind is on something else. Then there is a Chernobyl or Bhopal or Valdez.
We have seen accidents in the past and unfortunately we are going to see more of them in the future. We should be trying to do everything we can to cut down on human error. It is not going to be totally possible but there are some instances where we can improve. That is why health and safety for Canadian workers is so important. That is why health and safety measures to make sure those workers do not make mistakes are so important for the rest of us.
What the motion does, as I see it, is to have the AECB, the control board-in Canada there is the AECB, the board, and AECL which is the company that operates the Government's atomic energy research and atomic energy industry in Canada-to have the board in this instance do a public review into safety. I would like to see a bigger public review. The Conservative Party, when they were in opposition and when they put forward their Party platform for the 1984 election, said that there should be a royal commission into the future of the nuclear industry in Canada.
The nuclear industry has been troubled for some time. It has been a vast spender of public money. We have not been selling nuclear reactors abroad. So it has been virtually bankrupt for a number of years. The Conservatives in opposition proposed an inquiry into the future of that industry.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and myself a couple of years ago went across the country to hear delegations and to visit nuclear power sites. I visited Point La Preau in New Brunswick. We went right down into the Canadian shield. It was the most amazing trip. In White Shell, Manitoba, we went down an elevator into this mine that the AECL was experimenting with to look at water that was going through the Canadian shield. We asked one of the engineers down in the bowels of the Canadian shield, how can you tell the different water and he said, well the water that has been here thousands of years will not be radioactive but any water that is radioactive came in the earth after 1945. Therefore, all the water in the surface of the earth has a certain amount of radiation in it that is detectable. It is only the old water that is still pure.
The whole point of that site at White Shell, Manitoba was to research what the Hon. Member for Davenport talked about, the problem of the storage of spent nuclear fuel. I have seen at reactors in Ontario and New Brunswick swimming pools with this eerie blue colour where the rods are being stored. They are stored in this country and in other parts of the world. We have to do something with them. What are we going to do with them? Perhaps they have to be stored in the Canadian shield. It raises an interesting point. I am sure the Hon. Member for Davenport, if he had more time, could have talked about this and that is the whole ethical concept of the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry is now advertising that it is actually a pretty safe industry and it might be the way of the future. When you bum coal, you get acid rain. You are going to run out of oil and gas and there is lots of coal. They say that in the long ran, it might be cheaper to use nuclear energy, but they forget that they still have not worked out the full costs or the methods of dismantling reactors or finding ways to store and deal with the spent fuel which is a world-wide problem.
The world is moving into a new system of dealing with the environment. I call Mrs. Brundtland the NDP or the

Socialist Prime Minister of Norway. She did a report for the United Nations which talked about sustainable development. That is, future development should only take place in terms of whether we can deal with the environmental results of that development and apply it to the nuclear industry. If we apply her ideas to the nuclear industry, perhaps when it says expand the nuclear industry because we have not found the way with dealing with the wastes it does not make as much sense.. In my view, you should not start an industry or a development if you cannot deal with the waste. That is what sustainable development is about.
The Hon. Member also mentioned Canada's energy future, that we are in fact the biggest per capita consumers of energy in the world. I agree with him. That future involves conservation and efficiency. I visited Denmark and I saw how they use efficient heating, how they have motors and transport that are much more efficient than what we have. We are of course not Denmark. We are a bigger country and it is more difficult but we could be a lot more energy efficient. This Government has cut back on energy efficiency programs, conservation programs. We could use wood wastes in British Columbia. We could use solar and wind and of course the energy source of the 21st century will be hydrogen.
I could go on and on and talk about this, but I support this motion because the Hon. Member has put his finger on what David Suzuki talked about, and that is, you can have human error. We do not want human error in a nuclear power plant near the suburbs of Toronto, for example. That is why it is a good idea to review the situation of the shifts and the health and safety standards of the employees and of the plants.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this debate on the motion brought by the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). The motion is:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should instruct the Atomic Energy Control Board to conduct a public review into the safety of nuclear power plant employees working twelve hour shifts.
Certainly that is a very commendable motion in its own right. However, as I listened to the debate presented by the Hon. Member for Davenport and subsequently the spokesman from the NDP, it seems they want to go into the whole concept of power and energy and get away from the motion itself. First, I would like to deal with the
Atomic Energy Control Board
motion, and perhaps respond to some of the comments raised by the hon. gentleman.
An international agency report of 1984 was referred to. It deals with numerous types of agencies outside of nuclear power plants in the world where 12-hour shifts have been implemented. It refers to one particular nuclear power plant in the United States that abandoned the 12-hour schedule. I wish to deal with the 12-hour schedule.
Problems with rotational shift systems that have people working either the morning, the afternoon, or the night shift, each lasting eight hours, have caused organizations to search for an alternative shift design that would create fewer problems for shift workers while maintaining the desired productivity and, in particular, safety of the plant. As a consequence, modified schedules built on the 12-hour work day have come into use as part of management's efforts to decrease the undesirable aspects of shift work. Those schedules allow coverage of the continuous operation and, at the same time, provide the shift worker not only with more leisure time, but leisure time which coincides with the free time of family and friends.
There is no doubt that the effects of shift work on family life is not enjoyed by those many people who do in fact work shifts. There are perceived impacts on family life by absences, for example, when families participate in community events, school events, or simply quiet time in the backyard.
I have never worked shifts, but in my constituency there are numerous facilities that employ shift workers, including automotive plants, steel plants, furniture plants and others, as well as a plant included in the motion presently being debated that was presented by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). That plant is the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. It is one of the largest in the world, and rates very highly world-wide for its efficiency. It generates some 4,220,000 kilowatts of power. It employs 1,500 workers, many of whom are unionized. Of those 1,500 workers, 1,000 of them work a 12-hour shift. That plant has been on a 12-hour shift since 1985, although its first unit went into operation as far back as 1971.

Atomic Energy Control Board
The Bruce Nuclear Generating Station on the shores of Lake Huron employs some 3,600 workers, of which 2,800 are on 12-hour shifts. It is also one of the largest and most efficient in the world. For your interest, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you of the magnitude of the nuclear-generation industry in Ontario.
The Bruce and Pickering plants combined produce more than 50 per cent of Ontario's hydro electricity. Pickering alone produces 20 per cent of the requirements for electricity in Ontario. Pickering's Unit No. 7 ran 100 per cent a year and is the world's leading lifetime capacity performance leader. Pickering's Unit No. 6 was the world's individual performance leader for the calendar year 1988. That is certainly not an industry that seems to be having efficiency problems of any consequence at all.
The Bruce heavy water plant, which is a part of the Bruce nuclear plant, is integral to the Ontario-based nuclear generating industry, and is a neighbour to the nuclear generating station itself. It has been on a 12-hour shift schedule since 1979. The Bruce heavy water plant has been free of a lost-time accident since July, 1983. In July of this year it will achieve six million man-hours of work since the last lost-time accident. It has one of the best safety records in Canada.
The employees of the Bruce Generating Station observed the benefits experienced by the employees of the heavy water plant of the 12-hour shifts. In their negotiations with management they requested the same schedule. In 1985, a year after the international report referenced previously, 12-hour shifts were implemented on a trial basis. A review took place and after one year, based on the trial period that was implemented, 17 parameters were monitored during the trial to provide data pertaining to public safety, employee health, safety, productivity, and costs. I would like to refer to a letter to the Director General, Reactor Regulation of the Atomic Energy Control Board in Ottawa from E. P. Horton, Director, Nuclear Generation Division. It is dated May 12 and I wish to quote one paragraph which states:
Overall, the results of the 12-hour shift trial monitoring program indicate that human performance has not deteriorated following the change from 8 to 12-hour shift working. As a result, it is concluded that the risk to the public from the operation of Ontario Hydro's Nuclear Generating Stations has not increased due to the change in
shift duration. Based on the results of the monitoring program, I request AECB approval for Ontario Hydro to change from temporary to permanent 12-hour shift working subject to continued support from the workers involved.
In discussions I have had as late as two hours ago with Ontario Hydro, the feeling is clear and the employees have not requested a change to the shift schedule, and it is only with their support that this shift schedule would in fact work. A passing comment was made to me that, if Ontario Hydro attempted to change it, it would perhaps have a wildcat strike on its hands.
One of the reasons the Hon. Member for Davenport feels that we should review the nuclear generating capacity in Canada and our program relates to health concerns. I, as well as every Member in the House, would certainly be concerned about the health of Canadians, particularly if it were impacted by nuclear powered generation. The Hon. Member for Davenport mentioned many newspaper articles that dealt with a report on leukemia incidents in and around nuclear plants.
I have a nuclear plant in my riding, and I made a point of reading that report. The report deals with the occurrences of leukemia in children aged zero to four years covering the period from 1971 to 1986. The report included a survey of a 775,000 population base. Not every person was contacted, but the base of population for the study included Scarborough, Markham, Ajax, Pickering, Whitby, Oshawa, and parts of Uxbridge. It was a substantial population base. The report concluded that there was no evidence to show that there were more cases of leukemia in my jurisdiction than would be found anywhere else in Canada with a similar population base. On a health basis, there is nothing to date available to indicate any concern with regard to health.
There is no doubt that all Members in the House would like to see less carbon dioxide in the air. That is why the Member for Davenport should be including nuclear energy in his comments as being a positive aspect. A nuclear power plant does not generate one pound of carbon dioxide. That point should be considered. It has also not been proven that a nuclear powered generation plant has any impact on the environment, water, or air quality in and around the plant, and therefore throughout the rest of the market-place.
June 1, 1989

We also must talk about the cost of Darlington in the process. I agree that $11 billion is a lot of money. However, a $ 11-billion will generate 10 per cent of the capacity that Ontario requires in electricity. That is twice as much as we get from Niagara Falls at this point. Based on the economics of nuclear power it certainly is an item that should be high on the agenda.
Part of Ontario's benefit has been its ability to attract industry, partially because of its low cost and partially because of its reliability of supply. Nuclear power generates 50 per cent of the supply, and it is substantially lower in cost than some of the alternatives, including coal and oil.
Although I like the gist of the motion which deals with safety in plants. There have been substantial reports conducted to indicate that there is no support whatsoever for the concept that employees working 12-hour shifts work less safely than those who work eight-hour shifts. Therefore, I see no reason to support the motion presented today.


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, the question of safety in nuclear power plants is very important. Whether or not working 12-hour shifts would have an detrimental effect, however, is not at all clear.
First, no increase in accidents were reported for 12-hour shifts in various industries. There is no indication that absenteeism has increased with 12-hour shifts. Third, it has been found that resignations have been effectively constant and internal turnovers have in fact reduced.
Before I expand on some of the evidence in that regard, I want to respond to some of the comments made by the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell) and my hon. colleague, particularly with regard to nuclear energy within the concept of energy use in Canada.
I am concerned that people talk very loosely about such things as the greenhouse effect and other environmental questions which I believe are supported at this time by very soft scientific evidence. The proponents of nuclear energy say that their energy does not create carbon dioxide, which is an issue which the oil and gas industry is saddled. However, let us consider that this
Atomic Energy Control Board
planet has produced a substantial amount of carbon dioxide over millions of years and life has continued to exist and evolve. We must be careful not to make assumptions without taking into consideration such things as the effect of the oceans in absorbing carbon dioxide, and extrapolate to conclusions which may or may not be correct.
I support the arguments made by the Hon. Member for Davenport and the Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam about the need for more study. The Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, and various other groups in this country must make more detailed and effective study on the interrelationship of energy use. We should not single out nuclear energy, or oil and gas as particularly bad without first establishing a much more sound scientific hypothesis into the effects and consequences of the use of those types of energy.
I would ask Members to bear that in mind when we are dealing with a very complex scientific subject about which no one can make categorical statements. It definitely requires more study and I hope the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources will look further into the energy options study that began in the Thirty-Third Parliament. It needs a good deal more review so that we may focus on what we should be doing with energy in Canada in the long term.
Now that 12-hour shifts have been employed by most industries and companies in Canada and in many other countries for several years, we can review the experience that has been gained. This covers the reaction of shift workers at work and at home in relation to domestic and social requirements, and of the employers who are concerned with not only the health and well-being of their employees and the public, but also productivity and profit. The positions that have been taken by organized labour are also of interest when one considers this new way of working.
A primary concern about the introduction of 12-hour shift work is that tired workers may make mistakes and compromise safety, either for themselves, for their co-workers, or for the public. Surveys of petroleum and chemical plants that have been using this shift schedule provides us with some indication of the possible effects.
Because of fears about possible deterioration of safety performance, management tends to place increased emphasis on precautionary measures with the implemen-

Atomic Energy Control Board
tation of a 12-hour schedule. Employees, too, recognize that they might be more likely to make mistakes because of fatigue. Management usually feels that these initial fears lead to a greater conscientiousness and, thus, to safety performance that was at least as good as it has been on the eight-hour shift. Some plants have reported that they had operated for more than two million person-hours without a lost time injury, and one had operated for 10 million person-hours with the same results.
Absenteeism is another important indicator of how people feel about the work they are doing. Evidence shows that absenteeism is in fact reduced when plants are on the 12-hour shift. The primary reason is that employees who work three and four-day weeks do not want to lose the long holidays. For example, someone working a three-day week would lose one-third of their pay if they lost one day of work. There is a great incentive to be present, active and participating in the workforce during those three days in order to have four days of holiday. Many companies have reported that employees are much more effective and focused on their job with these 12-hour shifts.
Staff turnover has been looked at as a possible indicator of problems that have been created by the 12-hour shift. The available evidence seems to indicate that resignations have held constant, and internal turnover, in the form of transfers from shift work to day work, showed improvements in many cases. A number of plants have noted this internal turnover problem as one of the major motivating factors in evaluating employees' requests for the 12-hour shifts.
I submit that there is no particularly convincing evidence that working 12-hour shifts is detrimental to worker health or safety. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that workers not only prefer 12-hour shifts and a compressed three or four day work week, but they also perform as well or better with this organization of their work schedule.
In any event, I am sure that the Atomic Energy Control Board is well aware of the need to carefully supervise and monitor the implementation of any changes in working conditions and that as a responsible organization it has no need for directives or public
hearings in order to deal with this fundamental aspect of their business.
In conclusion, I reiterate my statement about the need to diffuse the discussions on energy options. We need to study the question in order to develop a base of information that will allow the Government and this Parliament to make decisions that will benefit Canada in the future.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise today to speak on this motion. I must say I am somewhat disappointed at the two opposition Members for using the motion as a vehicle to talk about the energy industry in general rather than the specific motion before us. I would be pleased at another point in time to talk about the energy industry.
In talking about 12-hour shifts as applied to the nuclear industry, I can speak from personal experience. In university I worked eight-hour shifts one summer and 12-hour shifts another. I feel I have experienced both rotations and know a little bit about them.
My memory about the one summer I worked eight-hour shifts is a very dark memory indeed. I can hardly remember any social activities or being able to do anything. All I remember is nights at work and days sleeping. The other summer, the summer when I worked 12-hour shifts, was a much more pleasant summer. I had to work fewer days although they were longer and I enjoyed myself much more.
In fact I would say that long rotations of eight-hour shifts are in fact more dangerous to worker safety than 12-hour shifts. I remember working seven evening shifts in a row and coming off a shift at 8 a.m. in the morning being very fatigued and spending quite a few days to turn myself around. However, I was able to adapt much more quickly working 12-hour shifts.
I would like to spend a little bit of time looking at some of the industry experience in implementing 12-hour shifts especially in the process industries. Shift work in one form or another is a fact of life in 25 per cent of the North American working population. Alternating day, night and afternoon shifts is no longer something that only industrial workers, miners, hospital and railway personnel have to accept. It is becoming more common in certain process industries where the technical processes cannot be interrupted without affecting the

product, or where expensive equipment is used more profitably in constant operation.
Continuous process operations such as those found in oil refineries, chemical plants, seed and aluminum mills, glass plants, and paper mills require around the clock manning and present special problems in scheduling work so as to minimize worker dissatisfaction. The shift worker employed in such operations, usually on a rotating eight-hour basis, faces many problems.
Interest in shift work is skyrocketing as many experts are looking at rotating shifts as a factor in human error involved in nuclear power plant incidents, air crashes and other accidents. Many newspaper, magazine and television specials describe rotating shifts as involving problems for the shift worker, such as working at unusual times and having few weekends away from the job, and the adverse effects psychologically and physically because shift work is contrary to normal bodily processes. Family and social life are adversely affected because the shift worker, although working 40 hours weekly, finds leisure time occurring during hours when friends are at work, when children are at school and most people are sleeping. This is indeed difficult.
Humans seem to thrive on regularity while any irregularity appears to create psychological and physical problems. These in turn affect the occupational health and safety of the worker. On the other hand, some workers prefer shift work. It seems more relaxed. Weekends seem longer. There are opportunities to take courses. There are more daytime hours for personal activities.
The term "rotating shift work" covers a wide variety of work schedules. These shifts can either be continuous, running three shifts per day, seven days per week, or semi-continuous, running two or three shifts per day with or without weekends. Rotational shift work implies that shifts rotate or change according to a set schedule. Workers take turns working on all shifts that are a part of a particular system. Fixed shifts, such as working night shifts all the time, are not included in the definition of rotational shift work.
However, it should be remembered that workers on fixed night shifts and rotational shift workers have much in common due to the constantly changing schedules, night work and disruption to family and social lives. The
Atomic Energy Control Board
shift workers must function on an abnormal schedule. The night shift worker sleeps when most people are awake and works when friends and family do not.
The typical North American pattern of a five-day work week followed by two days of rest is replaced by constant changes in schedules from one day or week to the next. Changing schedules like this can cause problems. Scientific studies throughout the world have demonstrated that shift work by its very nature is a major factor in the health and safety of workers.
What has brought many of the problems of shift workers to new light is the increased knowledge of biological cycles in the body. Many human physical functions follow 24-hour cycles. These cycles are called circadian rhythms. The word "circadian" comes from the Latin circa dies and means about a day. Many different bodily processes follow a daily rhythm. For example, they regulate sleeping, waking, digestion, secretion of adrenalin, body temperature, pulse and many other important aspects of body functions and human behaviours. These rhythmical processes allow for high activity during the day and low activity at night. Normally, the body uses cues from other body processes and from the environment such as clock time, social activities, the light-dark cycle and mealtimes to keep the various rhythms on track.
The health problems from rotational shift work arise partly because the body rhythms are disrupted by changing eating, sleeping and working schedules. The body temperature is a good example of a typical body rhythm. The body temperature is highest during the afternoon and early evening, roughly around 6 p.m., and lowest in the morning, 4 a.m., the typical times of activity and rest. However, if the activity pattern is changed, for example, if the person is working at night, the body temperature does not vary over 24 hours as much as normal, and it also does not totally adjust to the new schedule. The temperature rhythm as well as other body rhythms are out of phase both with each other and with a person's activity pattern. This can lead to feelings of fatigue and disorientation.
Jet lag is a term often used to describe these feelings. Most of us, especially those of us from the West, experience this on a Monday morning after a long flight when we lose two or three hours and have our schedules

June 1, 1989
Adjournment Debate
disrupted. I am sure many Members of the House can identify with that.
There is some question of which aspects of circadian rhythms can adapt when one is living on an abnormal routine. Some do not seem to adapt much at all. People have been asked to sleep according to an artificial day duration such as 21 or 27 hours rather than the usual 24 hours and measures have been taken of how their psyiological functions adapt. It may be that continuous exposure to changing abnormal conditions over a period of years would increase ability to alternate the pattern of bodily rhythms, but not enough is known at the present to speculate.
In closing, I would like to say that most people if offered the choice would take the 12-hour shift. They would opt for the rotating 12-hour shift because it presents them with opportunities for social time and being with their families. I would say that a happy worker is a safe worker. What is necessary is not to change the shift but to co-operate between labour and management to create a safe working environment and to put safety as a goal in itself.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
TOE BUDGET-BUDGET CANCELLATION SUGGESTED APPROPRIATE COURSE/RESPONSIBILITY OF TOE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on May 24,1 asked questions of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) in connection with the Budget leak in general. Of course, there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then, particularly the astounding statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) today about being prepared to leave the issue of press freedom totally to the courts. I want to come back in a moment to the other point.
The charge against a member of the media, or what the charge says, the simple possession of so-called stolen
property, which is the way in which the Criminal Code might describe the simple fact of publishing a leaked document, is a great disappointment. It is one on which I think a comment has to be made since it is connected, at least by subject matter, to the issue that I have given notice of to speak on during the late show.
What the Prime Minister has suggested, in effect, is that we will leave it to the courts of the land to decide whether the publication of leaked information, as Doug Small is alleged to have done, is a crime or not. I do not accept that. I have to indicate my great disappointment in this increasing trend or tendency in one way or another for the Government to leave matters to the court, rather than taking a responsibility as a parliamentarian, which all of us are, for the state of the law of the land.
I am asking: Does this mean that the Prime Minister is prepared to say that if the court determines that journalists can no longer make use of leaked information, then so be it, and we are going to accept that? That to me is not an acceptable position, given the Canadian tradition, and given the well understood practice over decades, to which some Members of the Government admitted that they were themselves a party to having obtained leaked material to make it public. As far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister should not have said that this is something which is going to be left for the courts. He should have said that this is a well established feature of freedom of the press about which we are going to tell the courts of the land what we feel.
I have argued that I do not think that the charge against Doug Small should have been laid. I do not think it should have been proceeded with. I do not think that the Prime Minister should say, in a cavalier way, that this well established feature of the freedom of the press as we know it in our country is something that is going to travel through the courts of the land and perhaps be determined, if the Government decides to appeal it high enough, by the Supreme Court of Canada.
To turn to the specific point that I wanted to make and the question that I asked in the House of Commons on May 24, the first mistake that this Government made was the decision by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to proceed with a Budget that he knew had been leaked. It is true that the Budget in Brief was in the hands of Doug Small. The Government states that it did not know about the Mutual Life leak until the next day. I am not

challenging the Ministers' statements about that fact. However, look at what they did know about Doug Small. They knew that Doug Small had said that he got it from someone in a car. We learned that same day that another journalist had been offered that Budget in Brief for money. We know someone out there was travelling around with a copy of the Budget in Brief. How long did he have it? Who else did he give it to or sell it to? How long had it been in their hands? These were all things that the Minister of Finance was prepared to risk when he decided to go the press building that night and read his Budget to the media.
My question to the Solicitor General, which I directed to the Minister of Finance at greater length is this: Knowing what the Government knew that day about the state of the leak, conceding as it has said in this House that it did not know about the Mutual Life leak until the next day, but that the Government did know the facts as I have stated them, how could the Minister bring that Budget forward and ask the Canadian people to accept it?


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that the bulk of the Hon. Member's comments has no connection with the question he put on May 24, 1989. He knows perfectly well that this evening, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Member's insistence is of some concern, we cannot comment on a case that is already before the courts. I shall therefore direct my response exclusively to the question that was put on May 24 by the Hon. Member to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, I must repeat once again that the Government, that the Ministers who answered the questions about the leak cannot change the story, because the story is true. The matter has been discussed at length during Question Period. I will therefore repeat what was said.
A Budget leak was confirmed early in the evening of April 26. The Government tried to obtain the consent of the Opposition parties to reconvene the House. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that this consent was denied.
Adjournment Debate
The Government therefore judged that in the circumstances, it would be better to release the Budget right away and to go before the public. The Minister sent copies of the Budget Papers to the clerks of the House and to the leaders of the Opposition parties. When the Minister announced his budgetary measures to Canadians, the Budget Papers were simultaneously distributed to the information media and officials of the Department of Finance were made available to the media to answer their questions.
Mr. Speaker, the media gave the budgetary measures complete coverage, both that evening and the next morning, so that when the Minister rose in the House on April 27 to formally bring down his Budget, the measures were already known to the Canadian public. In fact, certain measures had become effective as of 10 p.m. the night before.
The information contained in the Budget had been in the public domain for nearly 20 hours before the Minister of Finance was able to rise in the House, to bring down his Budget, at 5.40 p.m. on April 27.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister explained at page 2092 of Hansard, it would have been quite inappropriate and disruptive to the financial markets if at that stage the Budget had been withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker, when the Government, when the Minister of Finance released the Budget Wednesday night, we reacted responsibly and as well as we could in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker.

CHILD CARE-GOVERNMENT INTENTION RESPECTING LEGISLATION /MINISTER'S POSITION RESPECTING CHILD CARE


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 38 to pursue a matter I raised in this House on May 15. The issue is child care.
On that day I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) to explain his intentions regarding introduction of a child care Bill that more truly reflects the needs of Canadian families and their children. I want to underline that question, Mr. Speaker, "that more truly reflects the need of Canadian families and their children".
The Minister responded by saying the Members opposite opposed the Bill from the outset, and he was referring to the Bill that died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament. Now we find when the Government has decided that it cannot proceed it cries crocodile tears and

Adjournment Debate
pretend it was in favour of it. My tears are not over the demise of a very bad Bill. My tears are because the Government does not yet seem to understand that it was a very bad Bill, much less why it was a bad Bill. My tears are because this Minister refuses information for parents and caregivers about the reality of what is needed by children in Canada. My tears are because the Government chooses to pit working parents against non-working parents in the most blatant divide and conquer technique and then says Canadians cannot agree on what is needed. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, my tears are for the children who need child care today now while they are children, not after more studies.
The shelves of the Library of Parliament groan under the weight of mountains of child care studies while the children of Canada cry for child care spaces.
There is a daycare centre here in Ottawa that has 250 children on the waiting list for six spaces. The only movement those names see is from the infant list to the toddler list and from the toddler list to the pre-school list. If the family is lucky, they will get a call when the child is ready to enter kindergarten.
Many of the provinces and territories made comprehensive plans for expanded child care programs based on commitments of this Government. Since the introduction of the Budget, these plans have disintegrated. They have disintegrated like a sand castle at high tide, washed away by this Government's Budget.
Indeed the Minister of Social Services in Ontario, because of the Budget of the federal government, is reported to have suggested that if daycare centres in Toronto are having a tough time financially, they should be sold to the private or profit sector. Hardly a solution.
The availability of culturally appropriate child care is absent from Indian reserves in this country. Health and Welfare officials have said they made a conscious decision not to fund child care on reserves, yet 40 per cent of the native population is under the age of 15. Of 663 reserves in Canada, less than 70 have child care facilities.
Before I close, I would ask the Minister who will respond to this statement not to give me a litany of how an increase in maternity leave will help children, as children need child care after maternity leave ends; or of how some women are willing to sacrifice and stay home. I ask the Minister to remember that often the sacrifice is to go to work. I would ask that the Minister not say that we voted against the Government's bad Bill, because with that Bill we would still be facing a crisis; or to have school boards apply for funding. In B.C., school boards do not provide child care. I would also ask that he not ask me if I am willing to pay more taxes for child care. I am willing to pay fair taxes along with every other sector of this country.
I appeal to the Minister to tell this House and Canadian families what is planned during the mandate of this Government to ensure that children will be in safe, affordable, accessible child care. I pray the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not going to travel this country and look into the question himself after rejecting all of the information before him and come back to us with the promise just before the next election of a grand plan. I pray that what we will hear is that there will be action now to fill the desperate need for child care.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that as women and as Members on the Government side, we share the dismay of the Hon. Member about the fact that the Government was obliged to cancel temporarily an admittedly important part of the national child care project.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member doesn't think that the Government made this decision with a light heart. I hope the Hon. Member doesn't think that we made this decision coldly, without any emotion, because as Members we know what the situation is in our ridings and we know there is an urgent need for child care, now that women have fortunately decided to become an integral part of society and enter the labour market.

I can tell you that as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, I am most interested in this issue and I think that the Minister has shown that he too is very concerned about it.
We said, Mr. Speaker, that we were convinced-and I hope that the budget measures that we brought forward and coming budgets will show we are right-that we can attain our objectives before the end of our present mandate.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said in her statement that the for-profit private sector was not the solution. I would like to say to her that perhaps she should change her position. I met with businessmen, particularly from my riding, Mr. Speaker, and I was extremely glad to see that they are now concerned about this issue. I brought together seven or eight very important businessmen and I asked them if it would not be possible for them to finance a day care centre in a specific area to help their employees who have problems, because there are people who come from Montreal to work in Mirabel, for example, or Saint-Janvier, and have trouble with traffic, etc. It would be much easier if there were a day care centre in the workplace, in Mirabel. So a group using the special projects fund will do a feasibility study on what would be required for such a day care centre, Mr. Speaker. I think that is one approach that must be considered. It is not only the Government or the provinces, because we must not forget that the provinces have a lot to do with it- Until (more) financial resources are available, the Government will continue to fund part of the day care costs for eligible children in the provinces from the Canada Assistance Plan.
In terms of the tax system, Mr. Speaker, we also have an important change to the child care deduction and the supplement to the child tax credit.
In closing, I know that my time is limited, I would like to reassure all Hon. Members that the Government is very concerned about child care and together, we will try to work to find new approaches. That is the purpose of the special initiative project, Mr. Speaker: so Canadians can think about new ways to provide child care. Thank you, and I obviously share the Hon. Member's regrets because I am sorry about it too.
Adjournment Debate

EMPLOYMENT-CLOSURE OF PROCESSING FACILITIES/ EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-QUALIFYING PERIOD.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, on May 15, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) responded to my questions on the impact of the announced cut-backs by National Sea Products in Nova Scotia and the consequences of the new landing regulations for fish in British Columbia. She stated, "I do not accept the suggestion that this Government has destroyed those jobs". According to a document prepared by the Department of Fisheries as a backgrounder to the new landing regulations in British Columbia: "The relocation of the export restrictions could result in the export of large quantities of unprocessed fish. This will affect the raw material supply for processors. It is not possible to determine the time lapse for the employment and income impacts to be realized."
This Government has embarked on this policy and the long-term negative impacts have not been assessed. The Department of Fisheries study states that large quantities of Canada's unprocessed fish will be exported. That means fish processing jobs will also be exported. In Atlantic Canada, the recent quota reductions have placed in jeopardy some 6,500 processing jobs in Newfoundland and 2,500 in the Province of Nova Scotia.
An announcement has already been made by the largest fish processing company in Atlantic Canada that their facility in Lockeport, Nova Scotia will close permanently on October 1. This will mean the loss of 200 jobs. This will have a devastating impact on that community. The processing plant is the principal industry for the town and for the surrounding area. Indeed, in Atlantic Canada some 1,300 communities are directly dependent on the fishery. According to statements made as recently as today, the Government is predicting a bleak future for the Atlantic fishery. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), have indicated that Atlantic communities may require massive assistance, similar to the $1 billion provided to western farmers in the form of drought relief.
June 1, 1989
Adjournment Debate
In my Province of British Columbia, the future of the fishing industry looks disastrous. This is a direct consequence of actions taken by the Tory Government. In the B.C. processing industry there are up to 8,000 people employed during the peak season; 70 per cent of those employees are women, many visible minority women. The average annual wage is $21,400.
The new landing regulations of the Government have stripped the B.C. industry of the right to process our own Canadian fish prior to export. The new regulations of the Government will deny those workers and their families a secure future. We should have a right to our own Canadian resources. We should have a right to our own Canadian jobs.
According to the Minister, the solution for those women who will lose their jobs is to accept the fact that the jobs will be gone. At no time did she deny that jobs would be lost. Instead, she told the House that her Department would be working with the affected communities through the industrial adjustment service and would use other programs to assist those communities.
The Minister also indicated that unemployment insurance would provide the necessary fail-back for those forced out of work. The Minister did not accept the fact that her changes to the Unemployment Insurance Program will have a negative impact on those workers because: "The current UI Program remains in effect".
The Government's cut-backs to unemployment insurance will take effect next year. According to the Minister for International Trade, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the collapse of the Atlantic fishery will also likely occur next year. Those workers who once required 10 weeks to qualify for UI, will require up to 16 weeks to qualify next year.
The jobs being lost on both coasts are high paying union jobs. On the East Coast those jobs average more than $10 per hour. In B.C., the average is approximately $14 per hour. They are unionized jobs with safe working conditions and decent benefits.
The Government seems to be offering those workers, the majority of whom are women, two options: get out of the industry entirely, or accept jobs that will offer them and their families far less.
The House royal commission on employment and unemployment stated that the future directions for the less developed regions of our country lay not in the imposed plans from outside the region, but rather on the strength which is found within those communities. The report also stated that people who live in the smaller communities will require a revolution in the education of their citizens. The federal Government has cut back on funding for post-secondary education. The report stated that they will need to be linked into the development schemes geared to the regions, but funding for regional economical development will be cut severely in the next year, and they will require the security of an income security system which meets their needs. However, the federal Government is committed to withdrawing totally from the Unemployment Insurance Program.
The Minister referred to training as a salvation for those women and their families who will lose their livelihoods as a result of a crippled fishery. She claimed that the training programs will provide a more stable future for women which will end their reliance on cyclical jobs. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women, and the Association for Community-Based Training and Education for Women, have all been highly critical of the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program which is so often referred to by the Minister as the answer to the question of training.
The type of jobs which have received funding from the program are low-paying, dead-end jobs which the Government describes as marketable skills. According to the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women, almost 12,000 fewer women are being educated for new work under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The Minister argues not for a secure industry in which women represent 70 per cent of the workforce, but for a system which women will recognize is designed to remove them from their jobs.
In conclusion, the Minister said on May 15 that the programs in place are adequate. Yet the very next day the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) said, as reported at page 1794 of Hansard:
June 1, 1989

-the Government and several Ministers are working on a comprehensive initiative to deal with the genuine human hardships that will occur in the coming months if we do not address this question as a high priority.
The women of Canada deserve better.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall), I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the matter of possible lay-offs in the fishing industry, raised by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Burnaby (Ms. Black) on May 15, 1989.
The Government is concerned about the impact on the fishing industry of problems related to the international fishery and the need to conserve fish stock. A special cabinet committee, chaired by the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has been struck. One of the committee's objectives is to review existing adjustment and employment programs, and to judge the adequacy of the programs when dealing with long-term labour market problems such as those faced by the Atlantic fishery sector.
The federal Government has been involved in wide-ranging discussions to ensure the maintenance of a long-term fishing industry through the application of quotas, and in the short-term, to protect jobs that depend on that industry.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy was launched in 1985 to provide workers with the training and skills required in Canada's labour market. While the strategy focuses on the individual, it has the flexibility to assist the most in need in all industrial sectors, including fisheries. Through decentralized decision making, local and regional needs and priorities are assessed and funds are directed to the approximate mix of programs and services that work best in a particular area.
Employment and Immigration Canada has taken measures in the past to help workers in the fishing industry affected by difficult adjustment situations, short fishing seasons and adverse climatic conditions. For example, in 1987 the fishing season in certain areas of Newfoundland and the north shore of Quebec was not long enough for a number of workers in the fishing industry to qualify for unemployment insurance. Employment and Immigration
Adjournment Debate
Canada, therefore, directed special funding of $3.5 million under the Job Development Program to assist these people.
We are currently looking at the possibility of setting up industrial adjustment service agreements to provide for joint labour-management action to deal with human resource planning and adjustment problems. The approach of having management and labour as equal partners in a consultative process identifying problems of common concern has proved to be extremely successful. The industrial adjustment service negotiates labour adjustment incentives agreements, each of which provides for the establishment of a labour adjustment committee which develops and carries out an action plan for that industry to meet its human resource requirements.
Employment and Immigration Canada will respond to the problem of dislocated workers as it has in the past, by providing income support through the unemployment insurance system, by providing funding from existing programs of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, and by extending services under the Industrial Adjustment Service.
The Hon. Member also speaks of women who will be adversely affected by lay-offs in the fishery sector, especially in fish plants across the Atlantic region. I want to reiterate what the Minister of Employment and Immigration has stated in the House on May 15, 1989, that first: "The current UI program is unchanged". Reforms will take place in January, 1990. Second: "The new program is going to benefit women in a way that unemployment insurance has not before because many of these women are in a position of needing training". Third, she stated: "The Government has bridging programs, training and language training programs". These programs deliberately moved away from the make-work programs of the good old days. She said that these programs will give women a more stable future, one in which they will not have to rely on a cyclical job at the low end of the scale.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at ten o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 2,1989