1990-10-04

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a set of serious concerns I have about the vote yesterday evening on concurrence at the report stage of Bill C-44, the Hibernia development project bill.
I have reviewed the tapes and have reviewed Hansard for that moment, and I would like to bring the following to the House's attention.
Yesterday, when the Deputy Speaker put the question, I and other members of my caucus said no. The Chair did not hear us, and I assume that others around her did not either, or they would have advised her of the dissenting voices. However, Mr. Speaker, we did not say no. I can only assume that our dissent to this bill was drowned out by the collective voices of the Liberals and Conservatives who were much closer to the Speaker than ourselves.
The result of this inability to hear was that our caucus was unable to vote against this stage of the bill. Yet, we have spoken repeatedly against this project at second reading, during report stage debate and debate on the time allocation motion. Surely the House should have anticipated that a bill which required time allocation would not be adopted unanimously.
This is not the first time that the House has encountered difficulties on important divisions, but I would like to think that this will be the last.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on finding means to ensure that our voices are heard by the Chair in the
future. In the meantime, however, the record shows that concurrence at report stage was given unanimously. This is clearly an incorrect record. I would like that division to be taken again but understand of course that the Chair and the House would be reluctant to do so.
At the very least, I would like to move that the record be corrected to show that concurrence was not given unanimously. I have an appropriate motion which I think will indicate very simply that. I would like to read the motion and then seek unanimous consent to have it put. I move:
That the record of debate at report stage of Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia development project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be amended by deleting the words ''Accordingly, the bill, as amended, was concurred in at report stage" and replacing them with the following: "Accordingly, the bill, as amended, was concurred in at report stage, on division".
I would like to seek unanimous consent to be able to put that motion. That would then not change what happened yesterday. Of course a decision was made. I think that inadvertently, because of the rather exuberant mood of the House at that moment, the noes that were stated at that time simply were not heard by the Speaker.
If the House were to accept this motion, it would simply clear the record, and we would be able to move on with the business of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to make the same mistake twice, the alleged mistake. The motion has been put.


Mr. Cooper:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: In one minute. I took it that the House is in agreement with the motion.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm that in fact what we are agreeing to is the motion itself and not putting ourselves in a position of debating the motion. I want to make sure that we are all agreeing to pass it by unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: That is my understanding. Is that the understanding of the hon. member?

October 4, 1990
Privilege


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I fully support the motion of the hon. member for Kamloops. Under the circumstances I should think it would satisfactorily indicate there was indeed division with respect to that vote.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: We also agree, Mr. Speaker, provided that the motion not be debated, and that the question be put and the motion be adopted forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: I want to say something. There has obviously been a complaint made. I have heard representations. It is very important that in this place we understand some things very clearly and, that is, that if there is a complaint about things in the House it is probably better to bring it to me on a personal basis and to do so immediately.
If-and I am not saying for one minute that that is the case-an error is made, especially on a vote, it is not possible for the Speaker to undo it unless the House wishes to do it as it has done this morning.
I want to say to the hon. member for Kamloops-and I can say it to some other hon. members also-that I appreciate very much the civil way this matter has been dealt with this morning and resolved. I thank hon. members.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
ik *	*


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last April 27, 1989, the first thing in the morning that day, the Minister of Finance rose on a question of privilege concerning the leak in his budget that had occurred the previous evening. Hon. members will recall the events of that day. We now have had extensive coverage of those events in the press.
I gave Your Honour notice of my intention to raise this question a week ago Monday. I waited until today to allow the government some time to prepare its response and for us to deal with the issue in a non-urgent way because of course I think the urgency is gone, but I think it is an important question that was not dealt with on April 27.
I want to raise it again because of the fact that the court cases that were involved following that leak are now completed. The matter is no longer sub judice. Accordingly, we can deal with it in this House.
Hon. members will recall the sequence of events. In fact we now know there were two leaks of this budget that occurred on or about April 24, 1989. The minister became aware of one of those leaks, as did the whole country, on April 26 when Mr. Small appeared on television brandishing his copy of The Budget in Brief.
The Minister of Finance came into the House and through the Minister of Justice tried to get the House to sit late that evening. There was no agreement to do so. The minister released his budget on national television, and then the next day the question of privilege was raised by the Minister of Finance.
I notice that in the minister's question of privilege, which was the first one raised that day-and Your Honour indicated that you had received notice of many-there was no request by the minister for any reference to a committee of the circumstances surrounding the budget leak or anything to do with it.
Indeed, I do not know exactly what the minister's question of privilege was. He gave Your Honour notice of one, but he did not actually come out with anything that indicated a breach of his privileges.
I submit that while he may have been embarrassed by the leak, I do not think that he personally suffered a breach of privilege any more than the rest of us did, but the rest of us did suffer subsequent ones: one because the budget was dealt with outside this House, which I will come back to in a moment, but also the subsequent conduct of the Minister of Finance and the other ministers who spoke on April 27. In my view this prejudiced the opposition members of Parliament and thereby deprived us of privileges that we might otherwise have enjoyed.


October 4, 1990


Mr. Speaker:: I have received notice of this. I made it very clear to the hon. member that I think he was completely right. At the time when I received the notice it may not have been the day to raise it.
I am having a bit of difficulty. This is all a long time ago, and I would hope that the member could come to the point of alleged breach of privilege. There may be other members who will want to rise, but I think we should get to that as soon as possible in the argument.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to do that. I just wanted to refresh the memory of some hon. members in relation to the events, because they are very important in determining the breach of privilege that occurred.
I submit that it arose out of the statements on April 27 in large measure. This is not the only basis, but I think the statements on that day are veiy important. If Your Honour looks at page 1005 of Hansard for that day, you will see the following statement of the Minister of Finance:


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: The premature release of details of the Budget appears to have resulted from a breach of trust, a wilful criminal act against which there can be no certain security.
I could read extensively, but I will not bore Your Honour or the House with the additional quotations.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to a thief being involved. The Minister of Justice referred to the fact that there had been a theft of budget documents. The Deputy Prime Minister made statements along the same line, and the Prime Minister himself alleged that there had been criminal activity involved in this case.
As a result of that, we all know that a series of charges were laid against, among others, Mr. Doug Small. We know that there was one conviction obtained of possession of a stolen document on a Mr. Brian McCuaig, but no other charges succeeded in court. All other accused were acquitted of any wrongdoing in connection with this case.
I wanted to read from the judgment of His Honour Judge Fontana. I submit that this is very relevant to the question of privilege before us because in his judgment the judge said:
Privilege
Since Mr. Small is charged, specifically, only with possession, his conduct in disclosing the contents of the budget on a telecast is not an issue before this court. Some might argue, for instance, that he could have fulfilled his journalistic obligations by revealing only the fact that budgetary secrecy had been breached, without revealing the details and contents of the document. Whether such bare-fact disclosure, without details, would have carried the credibility and impact appropriate to such a serious problem is doubtful. A society that recognizes the importance to the democratic process, of the free dissemination of news, should not be offended if that dissemination takes place with the measure of dramatic flair demonstrated by Mr. Small. Notwithstanding Professor McLuhan's observation, sometimes message overcomes medium. Indeed, Small's revelations on television and the resultant immediate response by the Minister of Finance, may well be viewed as having forestalled any real mischief with regard to the "Mutual Life" leak. Staff Sergeant Jordan raised this speculation early in his deliberations. Mr. Small's conduct in his subsequent dealings with the law enforcement authorities appears 1o have been exemplary.
He goes on talking about another case which I need not deal with. The hon. judge goes on to conclude:
If budget confidentiality continues to be a matter of quasiconstitutional concern in this electronic, technological age, then it is for Parliament to address the issue promptly with appropriate specific statutory provisions.
He concludes with:
There is no legal canon prohibiting the application of common sense. Based upon all of the foregoing considerations, I find that abuse of process has been made out in this case on a balance of probabilities. An order will go staying the further prosecution of these charges against all accused persons.
I submit that what happened is that we had a situation where these persons who are alleged to have committed wrongdoing had, at worst, stolen confidential information. There is a case in the Supreme Court of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member. I am impelled to raise a matter. I, of course, have read the judgment of the court, part of which has been cited to us by the hon. member.
Whatever was said that is being complained about, was that directed at any particular person?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour is referring to what was said in this House, I am saying yes, it was. It was directed at that time at Mr. Small or at the persons who supplied Mr. Small with the information.


Mr. Speaker:: Were those people named in this Chamber? What we seem to be dealing with here is that the hon. member feels that what was said in this House ought not to have been said, especially in view of the judgment. When it was said, was it said and directed at

October 4, 1990
Privilege
these other individuals who were the subject of the prosecution?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, if you will hear me for a moment. I do not think I am complaining about what was said in terms of the individuals. I am complaining about in terms of our rights, and I am coming around to that in a second.
It is my submission that when the government-


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty I am having is that the hon. member is now looking at a court judgment ex post facto, after the event. The complaint is directed at statements made in this Chamber, which the hon. member says have affected his and other members' privileges. The question I am trying to make clear is when those statements were made, were they directed at any of the individuals who in fact became the subject of the prosecution afterward by name? Or, is it just an opinion on the part of a minister or ministers that whatever had caused the leak had been caused by somebody who had done something improper. That is what I am trying to get at.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I do not think that is something we can determine. I suspect and I think it is open to conjecture as to whether these comments were directed at Mr. Small whose name, after all, was known. He did appear on national television with the document. I submit that in the light of the events that followed, they clearly were directed at Mr. Small. We had the situation here where, you will recall, the police sergeant had resigned from this case because he refused to lay these charges-


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to hear the hon. House leader in just a moment. I think most of us know the story. The hon. member is getting back into the case, but his complaint it seems to me stems from something that was said in this Chamber many, many months ago.
Mr. Small was not the only person who was involved in the prosecution, and the hon. member acknowledges that. I am having difficulty understanding how it can be a breach of the privilege, in other words how anyone in this Chamber had difficulty carrying out their duties because a minister said that a leak was or was not the consequence of theft or whatever other accusation is going to be made.
That is my difficulty and I would ask the hon. member to come exactly to the point and to shorten it up a bit.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I was just coming to that. That is what I have been trying to get to. The point is these charges were made against these persons-


Mr. Andre:: Order. Get to the point of privilege.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am getting to it. If the government House leader will control his inner emotions-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think on this issue there is very likely to be quite a debate as to whether it is privilege or not, but I will ask the hon. member to conclude his remarks because I am having trouble finding it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that what the government did was, knowing that there is a case in the Supreme Court of Canada which says the theft of confidential information is not an offence, make these statements. It said that there had been a criminal act here, when I submit that there may or may not have been. They proceeded to hush up the inquiry in this House on the basis that this matter was sub judice. There are answers given-


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to hear the hon. House leader in just a moment.
The hon. member is saying that because there is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that some opinion expressed in this place that may be contrary to it is a breach of privileges of any member. That is taking the whole question much farther than I can go with the hon. member, but as I say, I will listen to the hon. member close his argument. I am having difficulty.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I did not say that. I said that what happened was that in making those statements the government ought to have been aware of the decision of the Supreme Court. It made the statement. It said that there had been a criminal act, and I can quote chapter and verse on that.
As a result of those statements, charges were laid and then-


Harvie Andre: False.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. The hon. member is taking a quantum leap here. That is a suggestion that because of something said here, charges were laid. That may be a
October 4, 1990

matter of debate. But how can the hon. member lay that down as a factual basis for a question of privilege?
The hon. member just said that he knows.


Harvie Andre: Perhaps we could bring this to a close if he would cite the proper section of Beauchesne.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows I am having a great deal of difficulty with this. I am having difficulty because no matter what the complaint may be, I am having great difficulty finding it as a question of privilege.
I would ask the hon. member to conclude his argument.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I have four immediate points to satisfy the government House leader as to how our privileges have been breached, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not a question of satisfying the government House leader. The question is whether you are satisfying the Chair.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The constant interruptions from across the way make it difficult, Mr. Speaker.
First, our right of freedom of speech, one of our rights in this House, a privilege of all members, has been denied because we were not permitted to ask questions because this matter was placed before the courts. We were denied that opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Please. That is not a question of denying a member's privilege. That is a rule of the House. That is a convention. While something is before the courts, especially in criminal matters, we do not allow questions here. We do not all it because it would offend against the rights of either the Crown or the defence. In the case at point, I remember very clearly being deeply concerned at the time because if questions had been asked here, if I had allowed those questions, it might very well have prejudiced the defence that was going on.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, I am submitting that if these charges had been properly considered and not laid, there would not have been that problem.
Second, our right to deal with the budget in this House first was denied because the budget was released on television, and I made that point on April 27, 1989.
Point of Order
Third, the statements by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Finance and by other ministers in this House, that I could have quoted at length but have refrained from doing to save time, made it difficult, if not impossible, for the police to carry on their investigation without appearing-


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: This entire matter went through months in the courts. It has been determined. It does not seem appropriate to me to redebate it in the Chamber. It does not matter what I think about the rights or wrongs of it. The question is, we could, under the guise of a question of privilege, bring all kinds of things back into the Chamber.
I have got to tell the hon. member that I do not think there is a question of privilege there, and I am going to close it off right now.


POINT OF ORDER
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this could have been closed off by citing Beauchesne, paragraph 19(1), which states:
A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts,
does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
Clearly on the question of the rules the hon. member knows, as he smirks at me from over there, that in fact-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have made the ruling and I am not going to reopen the issue. If the hon. member wishes to rise on a point of order, but not on the same point of privilege, a point of order-


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, accusations have been made unfairly and allowed to be made to reopen an issue. The statement that led to this was a statement by the Minister of Finance that a criminal act had been committed. As the hon. member himself said, there was a plea of guilty to that. So not only was he wrong in terms of the rules as to what is privilege, he is wrong on the facts. He is wrong on both counts and should not have wasted 20 minutes of the House on this specious point of privilege.

October 4, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for York South-Weston.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague was in the middle of a point of privilege. He was given an opportunity to present his case and then you indicated that the matter was over. Then you proceeded to hear the Government House Leader, in effect reopening the matter.
I would like the opportunity to make some very brief submissions on this point if in fact the matter is still open.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to help the hon. member. First of all, I insisted that the government House leader rose on a point of order, not the point of privilege. The ruling has been made.
If the hon. member wishes to help the House and the Chair on a point of order, I of course will hear him. The hon. member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: In your submissions, Sir, you indicated that the court has dealt with the matter. As you know, it was a criminal court dealing with the criminal law. That court was not considering the conduct of ministers of the Crown and government accountability-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. The point I am making is that the matter has been dealt with by a court. Now, the suggestion is being made that somehow or other this matter ought to be all redebated in the House under the guise of a question of privilege. If the House wants to debate the matter further, that is the business of the House, but I am bound by what is or what is not a question of privilege.
I have had to say to my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands, who is a very good proceduralist, that no matter what merits his argument may have, in political terms or other terms, in my view it is not a question of privilege. It is no more appropriate for me to allow a question of privilege to go on, which is in the guise of reopening debate on some matter which, if it is to come in front of this House, should come in another way and it would not matter which side of the House it comes from.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to three petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, on prostitution and soliciting.
This is a short report which is a review of the legislation which was in effect. As we know, in most cities, the legislation was working well. However, in Toronto and Vancouver, it was not working quite so well. We have made only three recommendations.
We have also noted, since the prostitutes are usually victims of social injustice, child abuse, and so on, that they should not be further punished. We have recommended that social programs be set up to allow them to conduct a safer life-style.
We have made some recommendations because the police did want to identify these people and we have recommended changes to the Identification of Criminals Act.
I would like to table this report.


PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS-SIXTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixteenth report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, in relation to Private Members' Business.
October 4, 1990

[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce a Bill C-332, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to present a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act, seconded by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River.
The main goal of the bill is to lower the federal voting age to age 16. It seems to me that, in a country that enables young people to drive on our highways at age 16 and to enlist in the Armed Forces of Canada, it is certainly time that we give 16-year-olds the right to vote.
I must say that in the many times that I have spoken with youngsters of age 16, it certainly encouraged me to suggest that they are as well aware of the issues and the concerns facing Canada as many of their elders.
We look forward to consideration of this bill. I will be making an appeal to my hon. friends on the government benches, as well as my hon. colleagues in the Liberal Party, of course, to give this some consideration in terms of enabling it to be debated and referred to the appropriate committee. It would be nice, before the next federal election, to have 16-year-olds voting.


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

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a number of petitions signed by residents of my riding of Papineau-Saint-Michel who firmly oppose the Conservative government's new tax on goods and services.
Your petitioners strongly urge the members of the Liberal Party of Canada to do their utmost to prevent the adoption of this measure because it would do untold
Routine Proceedings
damage to low- and middle-income Canadians, not to mention the fact that it would make the tax load unduly unbearable and boost inflation, interest rates and unemployment throughout Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of citizens of Kamloops, Clearwater, Logan Lake, Chase, Westwold, Monte Creek and Monte Lake, as well as Red Lake and Savona, who are concerned that the Government of Canada is intending to impose the 7 per cent tax on the printed word.
I think this will make Canada the only country in the world that taxes literature. The petitioners are asking the government to reconsider this decision to tax reading material, particularly reading material for young children.
I have another petition to present which is topic indirectly related, on behalf of constituents of New Westminster, Vancouver, North Vancouver and Burnaby. The petitioners point out that they are against the goods and services tax. They point out a whole set of reasons why they oppose this tax and why they think this is the last tax we should be considering right now. They are asking the Parliament of Canada to defeat it, which in this case would mean the Senate.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, once again it is an honour to rise in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and present four petitions with regard to the GST. Three of them state that, wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to re-affirm the historic principles embodied in tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulation.
The other petition states that the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax and to axe the tax.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton - Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, from the residents of Carleton-Charlotte urging Parliament to maintain the current staffing of the Gannet Rock Lighthouse station.

October 4, 1990
Routine Proceedings
The Gannet Rock Lighthouse station was built in 1831 and has been used as a navigational aide since that time. The residents of Grand Manan Island primarily depend very heavily upon this lighthouse. In terms of the environment, it is imperative that lighthouse be maintained. I am very proud and pleased to present this petition on their behalf.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Madam Speaker, today it is my privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by residents of my riding who live in Petit Rocher, Robertville, Beres-ford, Nigadoo, La Plante and Pointe-Verte.
Your petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the new goods and services tax.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition signed by Canadians from across the country who say that because we support Canada's aboriginal people's traditional use of their lands, and because we seek new Canadian initiatives of peace through common security and disarmament, and because the NATO and NORAD low-level flights disrupt the traditional society and tend to pre-empt peaceful and sustainable development in much of Canada, the undersigned residents of Canada respectfully call upon Parliament to join with the Assembly of First Nations, the Innu of Labrador and other aboriginal peoples of northern Canada, in opposing use of their lands for NATO and NORAD attack training flights.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by a number of people from Nova Scotia and Ontario that calls upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax, to reform the taxation system so there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, and to cause the government to cease with the proposal that will shift the tax burden onto ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.
I should note that I am a bit reluctant to present this today because, of course, it is the increasingly widely spread and held opinion that Parliament is no longer legally constituted. However, in the interests of presenting this wisdom of the Canadian people, I shall waive that objection at this time.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present two petitions today. The first is signed by residents of Prince Albert in my constituency, Red Deer, Alberta and Rosetown, Saskatchewan.
The petition calls on the government to see the folly of their ways with respect to tax reform and to bring in a fair taxation system rather than the goods and services tax which it has ramrodded through the House and is attempting to do through the Senate.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, the second petition which I present is signed by people from Winnipeg, Morden, Winkler, and other communities in southern Manitoba.
This petition calls on the government to have respect for the traditional way of life of aboriginal Canadians, to seek new initiatives in terms of common security and disarmament, and therefore to end low-level flights in the territories that traditionally are those of aboriginal Canadians.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present two petitions today from constituents in my riding on different topics but both related to the GST.
So many constituents speak to me about their anxiety and concern about the government's proposed goods and services tax. The petitioners understand that despite government rebates they will be worse off after this tax comes into being. This petition asks the government to repeal the GST.
The other petitioners are very concerned about the government's tax of reading materials. They realize that we are at a great disadvantage with so many illiterate people in the country who must be encouraged in every way to learn to read and ask the government to repeal the GST on reading materials.
October 4, 1990


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 298 and 307.


Mr. Whittaker: Routine Proceedings
To the knowledge of the government do (a) Canadian (i) consulates (ii) embassies (iii) trade missions (b) Crown Corporations (c) the Department of External Affairs (d) Government House (e) the Prime Minister's Office purchase Canadian wines for their functions and if so (i) from which provinces are such purchases made (ii) for each province, what are the dollar amounts spent (iii) what is the porportion of Canadian to foreign wines purchased, based on total dollar amounts expended?


Harvie Andre: I am
informed as follows:
External Affairs and International Trade Canada
a) Canadian consulates, embassies and trade missions purchase Canadian wines for official functions.
Of 69 posts surveyed, 23 or 33% used Canadian wines in 1989/90.
i)	In 1989-90, wines from Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia were purchased for use at official Canadian functions abroad.
ii)	Dollar values of Canadian wines purchases:
Ontario	$34,772
Brithish Columbia	4,026
Nova Scotia	95
TOTAL	$38,893
iii)	The proportion of Canadian to foreign wines purchased is 17%.
c) The Department's Canadian wine purchases for use at official functions in Ottawa correspond to 38.3% of total wine purchases. The dollar values by province for 1989-90 were:
Ontario	$15,000	31.9%British Columbia	3,000	6.4%Foreign Countries	29,000	61.7%TOTAL	$47,000	100.0%
Governor General's Office
Yes	
i)	Ontario
ii)	1989-90
	Ontario: $660.00
iii)	Proportion:
Canadian:	3%
Foreign:	97%

October 4, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Prime Minister's Office
With regard to official government events hosted by the Prime Minister: e) Yes
i)	All provinces in which Canadian wine is produced.
ii)	Accurate dollar figures are not currently available; however, purchases are usually made from the province in which the event is held.
iii)	Mostly Canadian wine is served; approximately 97% Canadian, 3% foreign. For all events hosted by the Prime Minister, including those held in honour of foreign leaders, every attempt is made to serve at least one Canadian wine.
Crown Corporation
b) Forty-five Crown Corporations were requested to provide information and have reported as follows: Ten Crown Corporations did not purchase wine/Canadian wines for their functions or had no receptions in the last year;
Eight Crown Corporations spent minimal amount for "official entertaining" for which wine would be purchased and the related information as requested is not recorded or is not centralized;
Twenty-one Crown Corporations arranged their functions with commercial establishments or caterers (including wine, if appropriate) and do not have the information as requested; and Six Crown Corporations have provided the following information:
1.	i)	ii)	Ontario	$75.00
		iii)	50%	
2.	i)	ii)	British Columbia	$76.20
			Ontario	78.00
		iii)	72%	
3.	0	ii)	Mostly Ontario	$341.85
		iii)	7%	
4.	i)	ii)	British Columbia	$976.00
		iii)	100%	
5.	i)	ii)	Alberta	$632.00
			Manitoba	200.00
			New Brunswick	150.00
			Nova Scotia	50.00
			Ontario	2,590.00
			Quebec	670.00
			Saskatchewan	200.00
		iii)	73%	
6.	i)	ii)	British Columbia	$137.60
			Ontario	5,077.73
		iii)	58%	
October 4, 1990

Government Orders


Mrs. Gaffney: Has the government bought out, or is it in the process of buying out, employees in the production department of the government's exposition centre and, if so (a) what number of employees are involved in the buyout (b) what are the conditions of the buyout (c)what is the cost of the buyout to the government?


Hon. Paul Wyatt Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: On April 30, 1990, the federal government accepted a proposal for buy-out of the exhibit production facility. The assets for the service have been purchased by LG Expositions Inc. These were purchased at a fair market value established by the government Crown Assets Distribution Group. There is no cost to the government as the assets were either purchased by the employee company or declared surplus through regular channels.
The new company was formed by a group of employees. Ten employees have agreed to join the new company. These employees received the usual government departure entitlements.


Madam Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 222 and 320 could be made Orders for Return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 222 and 320 be deemed to have been made Orders for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gardiner: Have any projects received funds in assistance for the softwood lumber industry from the government and, if so (a) what number of projects (b) what total amount of money (c) what are (i) the names of the projects (ii) their locations (iii) their descriptions?
Return tabled.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Are there criteria for funding under the (a) Access to Legal Information Fund (General and Special Projects PLEI) (b) Young Offenders Act (Systems Development, Program Development) (c) Human Rights Law Fund (d) Special Projects -Legal Aid (e) Other Native Projects (Justice Canada Annual Report 1988-1989, p. 59) and, if so (i) what are they (ii) is multiculturalism included as one of those criteria?
2.	In fiscal year (a) 1988-89 (b) 1989-90, did funding recipients under the above projects receive money and, if so, in each case, what amount?
3.	In fiscal years (a) 1988-89 (b) 1989-90, did any funding recipients come from Quebec and if so, out of the total, what number?
Return tabled.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions shall be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend acts in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be addressing the House today on the occasion of third reading of Bill C-44, the Hibernia Development Project Act.
As I have had occasion to do previously in this House, I want to thank members both from my party and members opposite who have debated this bill but who have always supported the development of Hibernia.
They have supported it possibly for reasons the government proposed or possibly for additional reasons, and while the emphasis from time to time might have been different on the two sides, the bottom line on Hibernia has been co-operation. There has been a serious attempt within this House to examine carefully what is the best

October 4, 1990
Government Orders
arrangement on the Hibernia project. Today, they have come together to work for the completion of this project. I thank them for that.
The Hibernia project goes back a long way. Some people who possibly saw the first activity on the Grand Banks have become not old men and women, but definitely people more experienced and in some cases possibly even cynical. I would suggest that this act today within this House will remove another portion, another facet, of the cynicism which I believe began to erode as we were able to sign the agreement in Newfoundland September 14 last.
It has been an eventful 10 days, and possibly something happened here that does not happen too often in this House. I want to go on public record to thank members of the Public Service, both from the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
As well, I thank the advisers of the companies that form the consortium. They have worked not hours, not days, not weeks, not even months, but literally years on this process. They worked not only from a professional point of view but also from a mandate that they were given from the different parties, relative to the agreements relating to Hibernia. They worked, I believe, in the best interests of our country. So it has been an eventful time.
I know this summer, even though it slipped by for most of us, the fact of the matter is that I saw men and women giving up much of their time, quite apart from the professionalism which we expect from them, to get this work done.
What has happened is that the bill, which was introduced last November, has had a very detailed process both in this House and in the negotiations which culminated in the signing of the document escrow and closing agreements on September 14. This event has locked in the business deal and is only subject to final approval by Parliament.
As has been noted, many of us had the pleasure of participating in the signing ceremony in St. John's together with a number of my federal colleagues, officials from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and members of the Hibernia consortium.
I also want to thank the Prime Minister. I do not do this only because he is Prime Minister or because he is my political leader. Many members in this House will know that in the post June 24 period there was much debate in our country as to what would be the state of federal-provincial relations.
Despite the rumours I would read in the newspapers or the commentary that I would see on television or hear on radio, the Prime Minister throughout that summer gave me, this process and this project not only his total support but also always kept his eye on the purpose of the Hibernia project. He described it himself when he said: "This is more than oil or barrels of oil. This relates to fairness and to dignity."
Hopefully, in some tangible measure, the Hibernia project will bring that not only to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador but to Canadians generally.
I do not want to be one of those politicians who, from time to time is accused of overstating the case, but I believe this event, this project, marks a major breakthrough for Canada's petroleum industry.
The Hibernia development project will contribute to the ongoing diversification of Canada's energy supply sources. The effects of this development will also be long lasting, not only for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but for Canadians across the nation. We believe that Hibernia is only the first step in building the new skills, the expertise, and technology required to meet the challenges of frontier development.
I had occasion this summer to meet with some of the men who worked at the first oil well in Leduc, or what is known as Leduc No. 1, back in the last part of the 1940s, 1947-48. I am reminded of one particular gentleman, a farm boy from Saskatchewan in those days, who worked at Leduc. This gentleman told me about what happened on those days.
He told me, for example, that the night before Leduc was to come in, there were farmers and people from around the whole area along what are called section roads in the west, waiting for the events of the next day. He told me, as if it had happened yesterday, what Leduc No. 1 meant, not only to him personally, but to Alberta at that time.
October 4, 1990

We should remind ourselves that Alberta at one time had to come cap in hand to the government of Canada for help, and how today the province of Alberta benefits all of us not only by a secure oil supply-and we only have to take a look at events in the Persian Gulf to be reminded of that-but also Albertans have been contributing to equalization and the well-being of all Canadians for many, many years, partly because of the hard work of some people who possibly did not know what they were building back in the latter part of the 1940s.
He told me, for example, of the next wells that came in, the gushers and the problems they had from a technological point of view. He told me how they had to dig ponds to trap oil they had hit and which they did not know how to handle. In one area they recovered approximately one and a half million barrels hat way, literally by oil flowing down trenches into holding ponds.
That sounds primitive today, but it was real. It was from these humble beginnings that an oil industry was developed which today in world standards is seen as one of the very best.
I do not think that Canadians who really look at Hibernia and the risks that any of these large projects mean for all of us, that the risks of Hibernia in today's context are much different from what happened in Alberta in the latter 1940s.
I look at places like Stevanger in Norway and see what happened in that community in terms of servicing the offshore oil industry in the North Sea, or what happened in northern England or Scotland and the technology they developed. Too often as Canadians we take for granted for instance what the Dutch, or the Norwegians or some of the Pacific nations have been able to learn from these kinds of projects and that we as Canadians somehow will be left out.
I believe that Hibernia can be for all of us as Canadians that next frontier. I sincerely believe that. I do not think I have overstated the case. I would hope that for all of us that is what Hibernia will mean.
I spend a fair bit of my time time in Alberta because of my responsibilities. I have been meeting people time after time who have said to me: "Make Hibernia go". We want to see it completed because we believe it is going to help the energy industry of Canada. I thank them for that viewpoint as well in respect to this project.
Government Orders
While we will get some new skills, expertise, technologies from other countries obviously, we should not ever have the view that we have all the ideas. But we want to develop them for ourselves as well. I look forward to Hibernia doing that. We will develop engineering experience in the offshore that we should be able to market in other parts of the world. These are the kinds of spin-offs that we as a country have to examine.
Although the binding agreements have been finalized, they are being held in escrow by an independent third party until one remaining hurdle is cleared. That brings us to our task at hand today, the passage of Bill C-44.
Members of this government, along with many of our colleagues on the other side of the House, are very anxious to finalize this enabling legislation. There has been much debate over the matter of federal participation in the Hibernia project. It has been clear for some time that the Hibernia project is simply too costly and massive an undertaking to proceed without public support. In recognition of this in 1988 we joined the Government of Newfoundland and five private sector firms in signing a statement of principles to develop Hibernia. Bill C-44 will authorize the government to enter into legally binding agreements to fulfil its commitments made in the statement of principles.
This is also not unique. There is criticism from time to time about the so-called megaprojects but energy, generally speaking, is a megaproject. It is its very nature and while, yes, there has to be emphasis on smaller electrical projects-and I will be coming forward with programs on that later this year-I remind members that today as we look at the world around us, that because of oil and its development, we for example do not face the realities of our neighbour to the south who is now looking at importing 50 per cent of its oil and gas supplies. Surely with the long lead times it behoves us to move forward on these projects.
When Suncor came onstream did it make a lot of sense? One might have questioned the economics of it. Syncrude made more sense. I remember in 1979 , as Indian affairs minister, we were working on the Cold Lake project because there were a lot of native people involved. It makes sense today. Surely the frontier is a blessing, an opportunity that has been given to us as Canadians. We have not done anything to deserve it, nor have we done anything to put it there. It is our responsibility to use these resources not only for our benefit but for the larger community.

October 4, 1990
Government Orders
I want to explain the federal government's, that is the taxpayers' involvement, in this project and why we did it. More than $5 billion Canadian will be spent bringing Hibernia into production. Approximately $3 billion will be spent in Canada, including $1.6 billion for work to be done in the province of Newfoundland. In addition to the $5.2 billion in capital spending needed to bring Hibernia to production there will be a further $3.5 billion expenditure over the life of the project. This project, while extremely important for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, is obviously a project that has national importance.
As was outlined in the statement of principles, the Government of Canada will provide the consortium with a cash contribution for 25 per cent of eligible pre-production capital costs up to a maximum of $1.04 billion. We will also guarantee loans for 40 per cent of those costs to a maximum of $1.66 billion. I want to tell hon. members that that is-and I want to use the word very specifically-a loan.
Yes, we could have gone the other way. We could have made it a Government of Canada and Government of Newfoundland project, but I hear criticism around this place that we should have done it all at the taxpayers' money. Then I imagine the governments would have been accused of exposing ourselves to too much risk. The risk is $5.2 billion then.
I ask members to look at this project very carefully, the loan, the provision we built into Hibernia on the lender risk sharing, as well as the pay-back depending on the price of oil. Surely members have to be realistic about whatever the price of oil will be when oil comes on in 1996 and then consider the period of time of the life of the field. It will have to be determined at that period of time what the return on investment is going to be, the ROI.
I ask members opposite if any one of us starts a business today can he or she guarantee for me 20 years hence what the return will be? Obviously there is a matter of financial return that we try to look at very carefully and the need to bring on a new source of supply. One always has to balance those two issues.
There has been some confusion in the press as to the true cost of the federal loan guarantees. Let me emphasize that the guarantees are a back stop, to be drawn upon only if the project revenue is insufficient to repay the debt. I can assure the House that the government will not agree to have provided these guarantees if it had any concern about the ability of the project to repay those loans.
Benefits emanating from the development of Hibernia for all Canadians are going to be substantial. Hibernia will play an important role in enhancing Canada's oil supply. I will comment further on that in a moment.
The project establishes a new frontier for Canada. It will diversify Canada's oil supply and offset the expected decline in conventional light oil production from western Canada. With the production of 110,000 barrels per day, Hibernia will account for approximately 12 per cent of Canada's light oil production by the year 2000.
Very often Canadians forget the matter also of the type of oil we are going to get. I am concerned about the reduction or decline of the light oil production in the western sedimentary basin. What are those reserves? That is why we have to move into in situ oil, for example. That is why we need the Lloydminster upgrader and use the heavy oils, even with the differentials in price. That is why we have to seriously look at how to plan the next projects relating to the oil sands and what are our projects for northern Canada. These are our opportunities because these are resources given to Canadians, I say, by a divine hand.
Out of this comes another question. People say: "Well, yes, you are going to get the 110,000 barrels, but it is all going to go to the United States". That is an interesting concept because the 110,000 barrels will be bid on and, most likely at this present point in time, they would go to the United States.
There is an issue relating to how much to change refining capacity to refine that oil because of its heavy waxing quality. Are we better off for example to get other oil, offsetting this 110,000 barrels with offshore oil which we get through Portland, Maine and which we send to various refineries in eastern Canada up to Montreal?

U i
,'V
.
* *
. *
October 4, 1990

Those are the types of questions which I think logic drives one to examine from the best economic position one can get.
I also hear from certain refiners in eastern Canada that with some modification obviously they will have to look at it from a financial point of view. There might be in an opportunity to bid on Hibernia oil. I would suggest that the marketplace is the best place to examine that issue.
The same thing could be said about Cohasset-Panuke, which I personally hope will come into being before the end of this mandate of this government. It is a light distillate. There is tremendous interest in that type of product. Even though that is a relatively small project by international standards or even Canadian standards, how best do we develop that resource so that the people of Nova Scotia will get some benefits and through that benefit the people of Canada?
The Hibernia project will dramatically bolster Newfoundland's economy. We saw a bit of that even when we had a reception. I imagine there was even some bolstering of the hospitality economy in Newfoundland during that day. I dare say that possibly that activity has even continued beyond the time I was there.
My good friend opposite talks about people ready to work building a road into Great Mosquito Cove. I hear complaints of people who say: "I want to work. Will I get hired?". So often around here we look at the large issues. What we sometimes have to do is step back and look at what is happening in the bush. What is happening in the muskeg? What is happening at the coast? What is happening to people? That is why I am excited about Hibernia.
Every dollar invested in this project will yield several dollars in primary and secondary benefits to Newfoundland. It is estimated that approximately 10,000 person-years of work will be created in Newfoundland during the construction phase. Perhaps even more important, over the long term new technical skills will be developed in the province's workforce, as well as that of other provinces, that will position us to take advantage of future offshore development in other areas of Canada.
Government Orders
Yes, I believe that Hibernia will rank in terms of names and recognition with places like Leduc. People will come to know Terra Nova, Ben Nevis, and Cohasset-Panuke. This is Canada. This is our opportunity. I am pleased that so many members opposite recognize these facts and with the strong support I have had from my own caucus.
In early 1989 the Hibernia consortium undertook to redesign the top side facilities of the project. The main support frame was eliminated. The number of modules was reduced from 20 smaller units to five supermodules. As a result of this redesign, the industrial benefits provisions outlined in the statement of principles were renegotiated in a way that will provide significant benefits for all of Canada.
The agreement goes beyond the statement of principles as a result of the consortium's commitment to undertake an additional two million person-hours of metal fabrication work in Canada. These new commitments are approximately to two supermodules, and this should be kept in mind.
I say to hon. members that as they evaluate this project for the last time in this House they should remember that the governments pursued a regional benefits objective package for Newfoundland and Labrador and wanted it expanded not only to that province but to the larger Canadian communities.
As a consequence the Hibernia consortium has agreed to fabricate one of the supermodules in Newfoundland and will use its best efforts to build a second supermodule in Canada.
What is the effect of all of this? The impact of Hibernia on the province, as we said, will be substantial. However, I remind members that when the first projects in the North Sea came into being-and nobody today questions North Sea-the people of Norway and the United Kingdom realized approximately 35 per cent of the expenditure for domestic placing of contracts within those two countries. It was about 35 per cent.
In the statement of principles we were shooting for Canadian content in the area of 45 per cent. With the changes in the negotiations which are now incorporated in this bill and the agreements we have in escrow right now, it will be in the area of 55 per cent to 60 per cent.

October 4, 1990
Government Orders
I believe that Canadians will deliver. Time after time I hear in this Elouse questioning: "Can we do it"? We have done it before. The oil industry has shown it can do it and it will do it again. We will do it with Hibernia as well.
Those are the facts. As a result, in every region of our country plants and industries are poised to meet the engineering and construction demands which will flow from the project.
Let me be very practical. This summer in my own backyard there was a looping of the trans-Canada pipeline. That is not very important, I imagine, in terms of larger Canadian energy projects and in terms of the length of time spent on the work they were doing. However, it was important because not only did it bring us new capacity which we so desperately need if we are going to move gas out of the gas fields but it had impact in the Manitoba economy.
Fellows got into their half-ton trucks at four o'clock in the morning and drove 80 miles to work. They were not concerned about the 80 miles. They were not even concerned about four o'clock. They wanted to go to work. These were farm fellows and people from the urban community.
Economic activity driven this way works. Canadians have always responded. If I can be very personal, my first exposure to this whole process was after I had graduated from high school and I was working for a car dealership in my home town. The trans-Canada pipeline was going through about 10 miles from our home town. At that time there were fellows there from Alberta and Saskatchewan and, granted, there were a lot of Oklahomans and Texans around. However, that was the year we sold more cars in that dealership than we had for many years before and would for many years after. Those are the practical impacts, the spinoffs.
I remind members-maybe there is even a chuckle or two-of what happens in this House with these some time almost prosaic kinds of discussions. Back home people know what this means.
Another point I want to mention concerns the environmental impact of energy production and energy transportation. I am aware of those impacts. I am committed, as is the industry, to ensuring that environmental considerations are integrated into the government's energy policy process. Environmental
assessments are a crucial component of the government's over-all evaluation of any energy project. All such projects are subjected to detailed environmental scrutiny and review designed to minimize potential adverse consequences.
The government has made it clear that projects will not proceed if they are not acceptable in environmental terms. The Hibernia project has undergone a rigorous environmental public review which provided an opportunity for all interested parties to voice their concerns and have those concerns addressed. Based on the review, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board decided in 1986 that the Hibernia project could go ahead once the recommendations of the environmental assessment panel were adequately addressed. This requirement is being satisfied and at the same time my officials have assessed the environmental implications of the changes to the project design and the movement of the gravity base construction site to Trinity Bay.
I want to assure the House that the government is satisfied that all adverse environmental impacts have been addressed and, further, that all effects identified are insignificant or cannot be mitigated.
As I close, one point that I would like to emphasize is that it will give Canada and Canadians an unprecedented opportunity to develop a higher level of technical expertise in the development of the offshore energy source.
The design and construction of the Hibernia project will provide a wide array of important new business opportunities. These opportunities should be made available to Canadians. I know that the project will challenge the skills of Canadians and take them to the leading edge of technology.
Companies that meet the high standards demanded by Hibernia will be in a position to play an even larger role in future offshore projects in Canada and around the world. I find it exciting that through the joint initiative of two governments and the private sector, enormous economic benefits from Hibernia are now upon us.
I know this is a partisan place, but I want to say very clearly that for those of us who came from western Canada and even from a province like Manitoba where our production of oil is very small relative to Canadian production, when the western accord was signed, it was important for us because it was another plank in the long struggle for prairie provinces which, when we entered Confederation, had not been deemed worthy of ownership of our resources. That has been a long struggle.
October 4, 1990

It was a struggle which culminated in 1930 with the Natural Resources Transfer Act. There is still unfinished business in that bill. It relates to the satisfaction of Indians and claims that our native people have, which we in western Canada have to fulfil and complete.
Just as that was in my mind a step forward in bringing fairness to western Canada, who knows what would have happened had the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930 not taken place? Who knows?
The same thing applies to the Atlantic accord. I know my hon. friend opposite-and I want to end on this personal note-will understand when I speak of a man who came from Ireland, became a Canadian and was an institution in his own outport on the western coast of Newfoundland, the late Dr. Hugh Twomey.
Dr. Twomey was minister of health when I became-


An hon. member:: He was a good Tory.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He was a good Tory. They are all good Tories.
I remember when I met with the late Dr. Twomey as minister of health, we were discussing in September and October of 1984 how together we were going to implement the Canada Health Act.
As the hon. Speaker would know, there was some controversy about that act and how it might impact on the delivery of health services in the provinces.
I had visited the province of Nova Scotia in the morning, Prince Edward Island in the afternoon and Newfoundland in the evening. Then I wanted to return to Ottawa. There were a number of issues I wanted to discuss with the minister of health of the day.
I do not know what kind of a day he had had, but he did not want to discuss the Canada Health Act. He wanted to discuss everything else. Never have I heard more stories about Newfoundland and never did I have a better evening.
Government Orders
What I remember that evening-it was late by the time we left-Dr. Twomey got up. In the small gathering, he said: "Jake, you wanted to discuss the Canada Health Act. I did not want to, and that is rather evident."
But he said: "What I want to tell you is this: Go back to Ottawa. With the signing of the Atlantic accord, I believe sincerely that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not only make their living based on our traditional activities of fishing and making a living from the resources we have in place at the present time, that the Atlantic accord will give us an opportunity not only to develop the economy for our people, but also improve the conditions of their daily life."
He said: "I believe that just as things changed in Alberta, Hibernia can contribute to the development of our province. We will become not simply the recipients of equalization, but possibly some glorious day we will be in a position where we can pay other Canadians for the years of equalization that we received from them." He finished his little speech that evening with one statement which remained with me as we discussed Hibernia. He said simply this: "Mr. Minister, go back to Ottawa"-in this case it was the Canada Health Act-"and do for Newfoundland what you would do for other provinces and we will trust .you".
I believe that it was not my work; I was the recipient of the Atlantic accord. It was the vision of the Prime Minister to change a long history, a history based not only on changes that were needed, whether in one province or the other. In this case it happened to be Newfoundland's turn. I want to thank the Prime Minister for the vision and for the reality that this bill brings to us today.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Longueuil, on a point of order?


Nic Leblanc: I have a question for the minister, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would refer the hon. member to Standing Order 43 which says that the first

October 4, 1990
Government Orders
two speakers-the minister and the first member speaking in reply to the minister-have unlimited speaking time and that there are no questions or comments after their speeches. The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, as the associate energy, mines and resources critic and as a Newfoundlander, indeed as a Canadian, and even as a Liberal member of Parliament, I am delighted to respond to the excellent presentation given by the hon. minister. It gives me an opportunity to put together a number of things that have been said in the House by members on both sides and both ends of the House, an opportunity really for the public perhaps to see the entire package as it started, some of the snags that we have had, some of the comments we have had in the House, some of the difficulties we are going to have in the future and perhaps some of the prognostications with respect to what this project may bring, mostly on the good side.
Incidentally, may I welcome you to the chair. It is nice to see you in the chair and I look forward to more times with you as the Assistant Deputy Speaker.
However, Mr. Speaker, to continue, and to put this in a perspective of time, when I first heard of what has become Hibernia, I was a young lieutenant in the navy. I drove a small Renault car. I could fill the tank for less that $5. You could buy a four-bedroom house for $15,000 and you could have a sumptuous meal in a restaurant for less than $35, including tip. That was a long time ago and a lot of things have happened in the interim.
What I would like to do today, in the capacities that I mentioned and on third reading of this bill, is address myself to the package that has become Hibernia. I want to speak to the background and I want to give a more detailed description of what it is. I think there is a general combination of misunderstanding and, if not a lack of knowledge, a thirst for knowledge of exactly what this project is going to do.
I want to speak to some of the reservations regarding the project, in general for megaprojects and this one in particular, many of which were raised in the House. I want to go into some detail regarding the employment opportunities and the potential that this project has both in the short term and in the long term. Then I want to wrap up with a summary of the project's commitment to
Canada. I will parallel in many respects the comments that were made by the hon. minister, but I am delighted to report that my comments are not repetitive in the sense that they are the same as his, but if you talk about Hibernia, it does follow the same general pattern. Therefore, for the organizational sense of those listening, that will be the structure.
To begin with, Hibernia P15 was the sixtieth well drilled in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area. Between 1980 and 1984, in eight of nine delineation wells-a delineation well is when you drill out to see how far the resource extends-they encountered significant quantities of oil, to their entire satisfaction. Even at that time, the recoverable reserves were estimated to be between 525 million and 650 million barrels.
In May 1985, Mobil Oil Canada, on behalf of the Hibernia consortium, submitted economical and environmental impact studies to the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. These studies in turn led to public hearings and to the release of a document entitled: The Report of the Hibernia Environmental Assessment Panel in January 1986. A downstream development plan, including a benefits plan, was submitted to the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board-and for future reference I will just call it the offshore petroleum board-in September 1985 and subject to the resolution of certain technical, employment and industrial benefit issues, that I will speak to later, was given the Offshore Petroleum Board approval in general in June 1986.
Two years later, in July 1988, the consortium-that is, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, plus the oil consortia- signed the Hibernia statement of principles which established the general terms and conditions under which the development would take place. As an aside, I was in the Hotel Newfoundland on that particular day and I must confess it was a day of great jubilation and a day of great hope. While we have had to wait a little longer than was promised for that, I believe we would agree, it has been worth the wait.
Subsequent to the signing of the statement of principles, as the hon. minister mentioned, the platform topside facilities were redesigned from, I think, 22 smaller modules to five supermodules. This revised plan was submitted to the Offshore Petroleum Board in March 1990 and was approved in August of this year.
October 4, 1990

Since the signing of this statement of principles, all parties have been negotiating to finalize the legal agreements. The agreement announced on September 14, again in another atmosphere of great hope and jubilation in fact that this was more progress in what hopefully will soon be the final enabling legislation for this project, allowed the project to proceed. All the agreements, including those related to royalties, financing, industrial benefits and related matters have been finalized, and as the hon. minister said, placed in escrow pending passage of Bill C-44-that is what we are in the process of doing now-by the Parliament of Canada.
What happened on September 14? The three parties entered into an initial engineering development and project agreement using the offshore development fund from which they borrowed $95 million. This was made available to the consortium to cover its costs until parliamentary approval is obtained and the agreements are formally executed. This will happen when Bill C-44 goes through the Parliament of Canada and, hopefully, that is not long away. At that time any moneys advanced will be repaid and by this mechanism the way has been cleared to allow the project to proceed immediately.
The Hibernia development plan envisages a concrete platform, 83 development wells, a crude oil loading system, sub-sea facilities and three specially built shuttle tankers of 120,000 tonnes. The platform will be designed to produce a maximum of 150,000 barrels of oil per day and withstand harsh environmental forces, including the impact of icebergs. Storage facilities for 1.3 million barrels of oil will be provided within the platform base itself, representing storage for approximately two weeks of production. It is estimated that an average of 110,000 barrels of oil per day will be expected during the peak production period.
The pre-production capital expenditures are estimated to total approximately $5.2 billion and that will be spent between 1990 and 1996. A further $3.3 billion in capital expenditures will be incurred after production begins. After production begins, the operating phase expenditures are estimated to total around $10 billion
Government Orders
over the projected 18 to 20-year production life of the oil field.
Two major project contracts have been awarded, one for the engineering and construction of the gravity based structure, and the other for the project management and topside engineering. As I have said many times in the House, and I am very proud to say, the work on the construction and assembly site near Bull Arm and Great Mosquito Cove is expected to begin now.
The expenditures and resulting oil revenues will boost the economies in all parts of Canada. Although there is no question that Newfoundland will benefit from this perhaps more than any other province, Hibernia will provide business opportunity to shipyards, equipment suppliers, cement producers, and hundreds of other businesses throughout the country. Canadian goods and services will account for, as the minister said, 60 per cent to 65 per cent of the project expenditure during construction, and over 65 per cent during its operation. This is double what happened in previous megaproject examples. Most of the people employed during the construction will be Canadian residents, Newfoundlanders, and it is expected that most workers during the operations will be the same.
As part of the introduction, I think I can safely say, and I think there is general agreement, that the Newfoundland offshore opportunity that I am discussing here presents new challenges, not just in Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces, but to the whole Canadian petroleum industry. Hibernia will meet these challenges and will put Canada, Newfoundland, and Labrador on the leading edge of offshore technology.
At this point in time, I want to bring up the subject of the controversy that this megaproject has conjured up. I am not surprised. I think anyone who has been involved in a megaproject before should not be surprised. You are dealing with a lot of money. You are dealing with technological advances. You are dealing with state of the art technology, and you are dealing with human factors. You are dealing with bruised egos. You are dealing with the not-invented-here syndrome. You are dealing with people who are competing for contracts, companies that

October 4, 1990
Government Orders
are competing for opportunities, and people who are competing for jobs. The stakes are high. It is a big poker game, and in big poker games, in big games of chance, the emotions are high, the stress is high. The arguments are big and long and go into the night. This is what we have here, because we are dealing with something that will happen 25 years from now.
Look at what happened last year in the world. People were saying that Germany would never unify. That was a year ago and it happened yesterday. The uncertainty in dealing with the world today and one year from now is complex and there are so many surprises. Good heavens, 25 years from now is very uncertain. We are dealing with risk and uncertainty. When dealing with risk and uncertainty-and I have been trained in that area-one has to make certain assumptions and you have to take certain chances. This is what is happening in the Hibernia project.
I want to talk about two aspects of this. The first is the technological advances. The hon. minister said not too long ago that politicians were sometimes accused of overstating the case. I will quote a gentleman who is fairly well known, C. K. Chesterton. He who said that there are times and circumstances when it is necessary to exaggerate in order to reveal the truth.
The enduring truth today in the growth of technology is undeniable. I just want to give some indication of this and I appreciate that there are a lot of people here who are trained in this business, but equally there are a lot of people who are trained in the arts and humanities side. I think it would be perhaps instructive to give some indication of what we are dealing with, the sheer range of technology in the world today.
We are probing phenomena that are as small as 10-15 centimetre. That is a hundred thousandth of a billionth of a centimetre. We can deal with things so small that there are systems in the world today that will allow one to etch a million angels on the head of a common pin. That is mind-boggling. I cannot really conceive that, but it can happen. That is on the small side.
On the large side we are dealing with a universe the edge of which, we are told, is 10 with 23 zeros, 1023 miles away. If I am right, that is 10,000 billion, billion miles away. So, we have this minute capability in a universe that is just endless.
It is similar with time. We are studying phenomena so short-lived that today it occurs in 10-23 of a second. By contrast, our astronomers and our astrologers tell us that the universe is 20 billion years old.
The sheer scale of explorable nature has burst beyond yesterday's wildest assumptions and imaginations. No where is this better illustrated than the world of the computer, and the computer is a very large part of this system that we are dealing with.
It was recently noted that the Industrial Revolution increased productivity by a factor of 100, while the microchip has raised data base technology by a factor of one million. Today a single microchip has the capacity of one million transistors and, it is estimated that in about 10 years time, it will have the capacity of one billion transistors. Perhaps I could be more illustrative on this point.
In 1960 the computing capacity that would run the battle control system of a modern warship would fill the area the average living room. That was in 1960. By 1980, 20 years later, it could probably fit on the top of two desks. Today, it can fit in one of those very razor-thin briefcases. The cost in 1960 was around $5 million. In 1980, it was around $100,000, and today, about $1,000 or less.
It was estimated that if the automobile industry had done what the computer industry had done in the past 30 years, a Rolls-Royce would cost $2.50 and would get two million miles to the gallon. That is the kind of strides that have been made.
Again, we talk about $5.2 billion and $3.3 billion. We throw them around. What is the difference between $5.2 billion and $5.1, or $5.3? As politicians, program managers, and business administrators, we use these terms. I can imagine $1 million, I can see it over there in the corner, in $1 bills or $100 bills. But $1 billion is very difficult for me to conceive, so I sat down last night and I tried to work it out in a metaphysical sense so I could appreciate what $1 billion would mean. This is what it means to me in two senses, in time and in space.
If I took $100 bills when I was 40 years of age and started counting them, one every second, I would be 70 years of age before I counted $1 billion. In terms of space, if you took $100 bills and put them end to end and went around the equator, do you know how many times you could go around, Mr. Speaker? Two hundred and seventy-fives times, with $100 bills end to end. That is what we are dealing with. And we are dealing with 5.2 of those in the design and construction phase, and 3.3 of
October 4, 1990

them in the production phase. Mind-boggling, Mr. Speaker, absolutely mind-boggling.
There is another pragmatic thought which is relevant to the subject because it gives some indication of the kind of technology we are dealing with today in this project and why there are so many uncertainties, and why there are criticisms and rightly so.
Ninety per cent of the body of knowledge that exists in the world today has been created since I left high school. It will double again before I become eligible for the old age pension. That gives some indication of how rapidly the world of knowledge is expanding. Something is designed today and by the time it is produced, it is out of date. If it is not totally outdated, it is in the process of becoming so. Whether it is one year or ten years, as in the case of ships that I am familiar with, it is designed for something and, by the time it is built, it is not the same state of the art.
There is something more disturbing perhaps, and I am sorry to have to report this, but I hear it from university professors and presidents of universities and I feel I stand on good ground when I make this statement.
There is no doubt that the technological leadership in any country has become a strategic factor in determining the economic performance of a country, a region or a province. In this regard, I regret to say that Canada lags behind its industrial competitors. Atlantic Canada, in particular, lags behind other provinces in its per capita basis in production and retention of human resources. In Canada, on a per capita basis, we employ one-half the number of engineers and scientists that our competitors employ. Let me talk about one aspect of which I am very familiar.
Although we are the world's largest fish exporter, it was suggested at a recent conference that Canada's fisheries are now where Europe's were 15 years ago. Think about what our fishing industry could be doing without this technological lag. Think about the kinds of fisheries policies we could have without this impediment. Think about what addressing this problem alone could do for Newfoundland and all its communities, none of which are unaffected by the fisheries.
Government Orders
We are dealing with technology, sophistication, and cost that it is almost impossible for any one but the totally brilliant to be able to grasp, integrate, conceptualize, work out assumptions to cope with the uncertainties, do the risk analysis and to manage.
I would like to address some of the difficulties that my colleagues have had with this project. Members from the NDP expressed concerns about the amount of money invested and the risk that we are taking as a government. They have also expressed some concerns about the environment. In fact, I was very upset to hear that they were not really for this project. I hope when they campaign in Newfoundland, whenever the next election is going to be, they will remember that they did not support this project. I hope it has developed, at that point in time, where a lot of these uncertainties have disappeared and the early benefits of this project will be evident, not just for Newfoundland or eastern or Atlantic Canada, but indeed for the whole of Canada.
I had to satisfy myself before I spoke in support of this bill that there had been studies done, assumptions made, and money spent on the environmental aspects of this. I, too, have concerns about the fishing industry. One cannot go into this with blindfolds on. I satisfied myself that, yes, there is always risk, but I believe the risk has been minimized. I would like to tell you about what I know about this particular aspect. It is an uncertainty and it it something that has been discussed at length in the House. I am speaking now about the environmental aspect.
The governments of Canada and Newfoundland, the main partners in this, decided that an environmental impact on the Hibernia project should be reviewed by a joint federal-provincial environment assessment panel. Mobil Oil, the head honcho in this, representing the Hibernia consortium, conducted environmental studies and they produced an environmental impact statement. These documents were reviewed publicly by the joint federal-provincial panel at hearings held throughout Newfoundland. In December, 1985, almost five years ago, the panel concluded that the Hibernia project should proceed. That was not the end of it, it went on from there. The Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, called FERO for short, recently reviewed the 1986 panel report and, they concluded that the report was prepared in accordance with the environmental assessment and review process, EARP for short, and they were happy with it. The Canada-Newfoundland

October 4, 1990
Government Orders
Offshore Petroleum Board, I will refer to it as the offshore petroleum board for short, reviewed the Hibernia development plan, which was submitted in December of 1985, and it approved the development plan in June of 1986.
Mobil Oil then submitted the development plan update in March, 1990. The offshore petroleum board decided that the update constituted a revised development plan requiring board approval. It then carried out a detailed environmental review of the update and submitted, to federal and provincial ministers, this update. This was then reviewed under the EARP guidelines by the Canadian oil and gas lands administration as the lead initiating agency.
The whole point of this is that this review was co-ordinated with other departments, it got public input, and there was prepared an initial screening decision, as required by the EARP guidelines. The Canadian oil and gas lands administration concluded, and here is the kicker, that there are no significant environmental effects identified at this stage of the project review. It did not say that there were none, it said that there were "no significant", and that was enough to let the project proceed.
Now there have been other concerns expressed in this House with, perhaps, the same magnitude as those concerns expressed about the environmental impact of this particular project. These had to do with why we have to settle for 25 per cent of this and 40 per cent of that and the totality, even of 65 per cent Canadian input in the whole project.
I was somewhat disappointed that this deficiency or apparent deficiency, or concern, was not really addressed and I think it was not addressed because time did not permit. We were speaking on motions, amendments to motions, and amendments to amendments to motions, and I think sometimes the impact of the concern gets lost in the procedure. I am not great on procedure myself, Mr. Speaker. Procedure is all good stuff and I know that you are very learned in this area. I am interested in the substance and I have hon. members, such as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who instruct me
on procedure. I regret the hon. member is not here today so if I mess up in procedure, you will have to forgive me.
I would like this bill to leave the House of Commons after third reading with, if not the sort of political support of those members who are somewhat recalcitrant about this project, at least with their support for the spirit of the project. They may vote against it at third reading but I would like to believe that they have the spirit. This is the reason I am addressing their concerns. I could gloss over them, I could leave them out, I could speak only about the good things about this project, but I am a realist, as I said yesterday, and I want to speak to this. I want it on the record and I want them to hear the concerns and why we get 65 per cent and not 100 per cent Canadian content.
I want to talk about two things; materials, that is the raw materials, the steel and the concrete bars, and the equipment, that is the generators, the man-made equipment. These are two separate items. Let me talk about the materials first.
The price of the materials required for this project will total around $300 million. That is a lot of money. These materials include such things as steel plate, pipe and piping, casing, cement, wire, cable, valves and instrumentation. These are the raw materials for this project. More than 30 per cent, by value, of the steel plate and tubulars required for the structure is available from mills throughout Canada, that is the availability factor.
In addition, Canadian suppliers are capable of producing smaller diameter well casing which accounts for about 50 per cent of the smaller casing requirements. Seventy-five per cent of valve requirements can be supplied by Canadian sources. However, there are some limitations. Heavy duty ball valves may not be available in Canada and the ballast water and other sea water piping, fittings and valves, used on the platform will likely be made of titanium or austenitic stainless steel which is currently, to my knowledge, not available in Canada.
I think the important thing here is that the Canadian supply capability in instrumentation-these are the valves, dials, readouts and printouts that we get-varies
October 4, 1990

widely, according to the item. The average capability is estimated at between 65 per cent and 75 per cent.
We range on availability in Canada right now between 30 per cent and 75 per cent of the materials needed for this project.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you have heard a couple of members say in this House that the project will require about 100,000 tonnes of cement which will be supplied by plants in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, as well as Newfoundland, and approximately 50,000 tonnes of reinforcing bar and prestressed cable for the precast concrete that will be needed. That can be supplied by Canadian companies all across the country.
That is the limitation in materials. Again, as I said yesterday, I am familiar with this because I have been involved in shipbuilding and construction of major projects. You cannot get all of the materials from one country, no matter which country you build it in. You have to go offshore to buy areas of expertise that other countries have become experts in. I see nothing wrong with that. This is part of the international order.
I would like to talk about equipment now, Mr. Speaker. These are ready built equipment, motors, generators and that sort of thing. Again, in dealing with the Hibernia project, we are looking at another $300 million. I will give you some examples. Some of the equipment will be pressure vessels, compressors, pumps, motors, electrical units, drilling, well equipment and that sort of category.
While some of this highly specialized equipment will have to be imported, the Canadian industry throughout the country has demonstrated the capability to produce a wide range of the equipment required by Hibernia. This has been done because we have been involved, albeit not in the same magnitude that we anticipate in the future, in offshore development. I told you that when it started, life was simpler and 25 years does a lot to a number of things, but it has allowed us to produce and to develop in this area. Had we started today, I would suggest that we would be back to where the Norwegians and the Brits were, with 30 per cent and maybe even 25 per cent.
We have companies in western Canada, for example, who can supply drilling equipment, such as rotary tables, oil and gas processing equipment, pressure vessels, separators, storage tanks, heat exchangers and trans-
Government Orders
formers, as well as some types of control systems. Why? Because they have been involved in the oil and gas system since the Leduc days in the 1940s. So it is only reasonable that they can do that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have a friend living in western Canada who is in the business of supplying this equipment and I have known him for 25-30 years. He was at it from the time I first knew him.
Companies in central Canada can be suppliers for such items as valves, pumps, compressors, switch gear and power generation units at which they are very good because of their industrial capacity. These are standard industrial items.
Companies in Atlantic Canada are potential suppliers of pumps, smaller valves, tanks and pressure vessels, because as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we do have some shipyards in the Atlantic provinces. In fact, we are very good at that business. So these would be fallouts from that particular aspect of the industry.
Again, to summarize, it is estimated that between 40 per cent to 60 per cent of the components of the drilling package in the equipment area could be manufactured in Canada, indeed across Canada; from western Canada all across this great country.
Canadian capability in sub-sea equipment is limited, particularly to assembly of units, because most of the major components have been developed in the United States and in the U.K.. They have been in the offshore oil drilling business a lot longer than we have been. It is logical and understandable.
Generally speaking, current domestic capability in sub-sea equipment is estimated at between 30 per cent to 40 per cent. I think the point here is that as we jump into the pool and get ourselves concerned about draining the pool or the alligators, we will develop this. There will be mistakes made along the way. There will be people who will be hurt. There will be contracts that will overrun in cost and time. I can almost guarantee that. But that is the nature of megaprojects.
I do not like to dwell on my personal experience but I will have to report to you, Mr. Speaker, that 10 years ago I was the project director, not the program manager, but the project director of the Canadian Frigate Program. Members would know that we are talking of the same magnitude as the $5.2 billion for Hibernia.

October 4, 1990
Government Orders
I experienced in that a lot of uncertainty, a lot of difficulties in the very concept of a patrol frigate. There were those who said we do not need them. There were those who said we need bigger and fewer, and those who said we need more and less capable. The minister has to make a judgment. I have to make a judgment. My colleagues, everybody in the House here, civil servants who support the minister, people like myself and all those involved with this have to make a judgment. This is judgmental.
There is no computer that says you are doing it right, or you are doing it wrong. There is no computer that will guarantee that the minister, if he is still here as the minister two or three years from now, will have to get up in the House and answer some embarrassing questions. I can almost guarantee that will happen and I might be the person asking them, but that is part of the system.
I want to guarantee anybody who is here and listening to me that that always happens with a project of this kind. The way not to make it happen is not to do the project and then you will not make any mistakes. I do not operate that way. I am prepared to take a risk. God knows, I have made many mistakes in my life, I will probably make some more, and I can guarantee that there will be mistakes on this project, but let us get on with it and let us get it moving.
Mr. Speaker, I know it is getting close to one o'clock, but I want to get into an area now that is of vital concern to every member in this House. We know the employment situation in Canada. I am not making political hay, but the unemployment figures are up a little bit. They are terrible in Newfoundland and I am not saying this for political reasons. I am saying this as a lead in to the employment opportunities and the training opportunities that are under way. People call me on the telephone. Last night, when I got back from a reception after the House closed down, I got a call from one of my constituents. He said, "Can you tell me what is going on with Hibernia. How do you get a job? When are we going to start training for this?"
We do have foresight in Newfoundland. We have a thing called the Cabot Institute, a great institution that has graduated 20,000 people since the mid-sixties. In
fact, just two hours ago I spoke with the president, Dr. Linda Inkpen and she indicated to me some of the things that are going on. We have been training people for a year and some to have the skills in Newfoundland and indeed in eastern Canada that are specifically related to the Hibernia project and in some of the spin-off areas like hotel management, hospitality management and just general business management of a kind that could look after some of the spin-off areas that would emanate from Hibernia.
Again, Mr. Speaker, one other point before I get into the detail of this. I have to make this point passionately. I am a believer of hands-on information. Something means more to me if I go to see it, touch it and get a feeling for it than if somebody tells me about it or I read it in a book. I live in Newfoundland. As I stand in this House this morning, there are 42,000 people that do not have jobs. There are 42,000 people that get up in the morning and have no place to go, except perhaps the post office to pick up their mail and chat with their colleagues. Regrettably some of the post offices are closing down, so they do not even have that to do these days.
Mr. Speaker, you and I have a job, and I expect we have always had a job. We have not experienced that. I would suggest that-you say, maybe not. If you have, then to experience the feeling of waking up in the morning and not having a job, I am told, is a terrible feeling and there are 42,000 people like that in Newfoundland. They speak to me. A lot of them are in my riding.
This project, to me, the centrefold of this project-if it were a Playboy magazine or a magazine of any kind, an automobile magazine-the centrefold is really the number of jobs and the hope that stems from these jobs.
Mr. Speaker, you would probably want to call it one o'clock and I will continue after Question Period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
October 4, 1990



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Family Week and therefore a wonderful opportunity for me to pay special tribute to a remarkable Quebec family headed by Ms. Louise Brissette.
This 44 year old single woman, a physiotherapist and osteopath, has adopted 14 handicapped children. Only five are able to eat unassisted. Three can walk, but the others are in wheelchairs. The children have major handicaps, but this courageous woman says that, to her, a handicapped child is like a poorly-wrapped gift, a human being encased in an imperfect shell, but nevertheless part of the marvelous world God has created, part of Creation.
A tireless worker and an example to us all, Ms. Brissette plans to open a centre this fall in Sillery to provide temporary accommodation for handicapped children and their parents.
Mr. Speaker, we wish Ms. Louise Brissette and her fourteen children, her "real" family as she points out, all the happiness and success they deserve.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


GERMANY
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, today is the first sitting day of the new Parliament of the newly united Germany. The Parliament is sitting at the Reichstag in Berlin 45 years after the creation of and only 11 months after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
It was only fitting that on Monday following the ratification by the four allied powers preparations for the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to be held in November were begun by the foreign ministers of the 35 participating states.
Canada looks forward to playing a significant role in the new Europe and, as assured to us by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, we will strive to achieve a commitment by the heads of state in obtaining new security arrangements for all of Europe and North America.
In closing, the House joins Canadians of German descent in congratulating Germans of former East and West Germany for this remarkable achievement. We share in their joy and hope that this unity will lead to greater prosperity and a better life for all Germans and for all peoples of Europe.


THE SENATE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, Roman Emperor Caligula tried to appoint his horse as consul of ancient Rome. This was probably legal because he was the dictator at the time.
This government has packed the Canadian Senate with eight extra Tory horses, now called honourable senators, but is it legal? Does the fact that this extraordinary power has never been used in 126 years make it inoperative? A former Supreme Court judge says that may well be true.
By appointing extra senators from New Brunswick-more than they have members of Parliament-is that a constitutional amendment done unilaterally and therefore would be unconstitutional? The legal experts differ. Even the Minister of Justice is confused about this issue.
We in the NDP believe it is irresponsible for government to proceed with the GST without a court reference on its legality. Why take the chance that later acts of Parliament could be illegal or unconstitutional. This will bring legal and economic instability.
Who does the Prime Minister think-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, since the August 20 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade update seminar in Abbotsford, British Columbia, attended by over 700 farm producers, I have received 180-odd follow up letters seeking assurances that supply

October 4, 1990
management not be bargained away. I share this concern.
The Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture have continually pledged their commitment to fight for the integrity of supply management in Canada by seeking clarification and strengthening of article XI of the GAIT. I encourage the ministers and our negotiators at the GATT to do their utmost to ensure this position stays firm.
Further, we need to preserve the integrity of supply management by exempting supply managed commodities from the application of a damaging aggregate measure of support and by maintaining existing internal support and border measures which are the underpinnings of supply management.
I believe this stand is needed and appropriate.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday the world's first ever monument to human rights was unveiled here in the nation's capital. To be in attendance at the unveiling ceremony, the celebration dinner, and the human rights committee, where the Dalai Lama graced the members with his presence, was indeed a pleasure and a privilege.
Three years ago I was part of the negotiating process that secured the Elgin Street site. The hard work of George Wilkes and his committee for a monument to human rights, the chosen design of artist Melvin Char-ney, and the approval of regional government should each be recognized and commended by this House.
Nobel Peace Prize winner, the Dalai Lama of Tibet, is an outstanding example of dedication to non-violence, conciliation, and maintenance of human rights. Canada should take the initiative in its bilateral relations with China to support the intent of the Dalai Lama's five-point plan for greater Tibetan autonomy and help
facilitate a more constructive dialogue between China and the Tibetan people.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the cause for national unity in Canada prevails more strongly than ever.
In recent months feelings of alienation have intensified in many quarters, not only in Quebec but among native Indians and between regions of the country as well. The search for Canada's vision goes on in Quebec, in New Brunswick, and all across the nation.
This is a process that should be encouraged. It will not be harmful. In fact it will be helpful that citizens throughout Canada stop to reflect seriously about the kind of country we really want and, more important, about how we can attain our vision.
As these examinations mature I am confident that this federal government will lead the consensus toward the obvious reality of a national vision which will express our country's collective and united will as a whole.
I believe that history will reveal we are even now at work in Canada to build a special nation, one that will be a model for the world.
To reach that destiny we must each take a stand. I stand firmly for one united country. In my opinion there is no tolerable alternative for Canada's future.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, something is wrong when readers and writers across this country have to rely on the unelected Senate to block the GST which will do irrepairable damage to their industry.
Quebec's advisory council on books and literature, among others, has stated that sales of French books will decline by 25 per cent, which will have a disastrous impact on Quebec's culture. Similar effects will be felt by the scientific community throughout Canada, Mr. Speaker.
October 4, 1990

This dire warning of the council echoes those of Quebec Cultural Affairs Minister Lucienne Robillard, the PQ opposition, the Quebec writers' union, and the coalition against taxes on books.
When will the government finally withdraw this harmful bill?


FORESTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, there is some pressure to reopen the memorandum of understanding between U.S. and Canada regarding the forestry industry.
However, there are strong economic national reasons for maintaining the memorandum of understanding for the long-term good of Canada's forestry industry.
Only after proper replacement measures are in place should any negotiations be considered. Then the ministers and officials should work closely with the industry representatives and MPs from Atlantic Canada to avoid potential countermeasures from the United States.
U.S. representatives are already preparing their case and Canada should move very cautiously.


THE ECONOMY
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the minister of secrecy has struck again.
In 1989 the Minister of Finance refused to hand over to The Ottawa Citizen some 530 pages of departmental documents which showed that during the 1988 election campaign, when the minister was telling Canadians our fiscal house was in order, he in fact knew our economy was headed downward and the deficit was growing out of control.
As if that deception were not enough, we now learn that the minister has also refused an access to information request for the results of an opinion poll commissioned by his department in 1989, which measured reaction to the government's economic policies. Only after a complaint was lodged with the Privacy Commissioner did the minister finally release the results.
By stonewalling and obstructing the minister shows that he and his government will go to any length to keep information from Canadians and that, given the opportunity, they will bamboozle the public at every turn.
Surely the days of such a government are numbered.


FRANCOPHONES
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, while touring New Brunswick last week Jean Chretien told reporters that apparently, under pressure from governments which support them financially, Acadian organizations had revised their position concerning the Meech Lake Accord.
Well, Mr. Speaker, not only did Jean Chretien return to politics to put Quebec in its place, but now he is questioning the credibility and intellectual integrity of the leaders of Acadian organizations.
Properly so, the Society of Acadians of New Brunswick and the Federation des francophones hors Quebec have asked Mr. Chretien to withdraw and apologize for his contemptuous remarks.
However, true to the Liberal tradition, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chretien chose to go even further instead of owning up to his mistake.
True to the Liberal tradition, Mr. Speaker, Jean Chretien chose to insult and ridicule those who dare speak freely.
Acadians remember the Liberal regime when dissenting and diverging views were banned.
Mr. Speaker, the more Liberals change the more they remain the same.


CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the recent world summit on children's rights was not just a gathering of world leaders. It was also an opportunity for young people across the globe to tell the rest of us, the adult world, to stop, take notice and listen to their concerns.

October 4, 1990
In my own riding there was a whole series of events sponsored through the schools where children wrote essays, drew posters, and where high school students organized a mock summit on children's rights. Delegates to this mock summit presented a whole series of very impressive resolutions which highlighted their own hopes and concerns, hopes that they would want to have expressed by world leaders.
The resolution spoke to the need for more resources for education, sanitation, clothes, and water supplies for children. It called for the establishment of a peace dividend committee among nations of the world to oversee the reallocation of money away from defence spending and toward more productive uses such as housing, substance abuse, and AIDS.
If the world summit has taught us anything, it is that we must listen to our young people and to our children. In the words of Tanya Bailey, a grade 7 student-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.


FRANCOPHONES
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, in the early 80s, the Liberal government with Trudeau, Chretien and Leblanc muzzled Acadian groups by making drastic cuts in their operating budgets.
In the early 90s, Jean Chretien uses more subtle but equally damaging ways to undermine the credibility of spokespersons for the Acadian community.
The Liberals always fall back on their tried and true strategies, so that it should come as no surprise that we now see the same arrogance, contempt and intolerance being shown under the leadership of Mr. Chretien.
Mr. Speaker, our government is proud of what it has accomplished with the co-operation of Francophone groups across this country. Our approach is based on the principles of justice, tolerance and respect, and we are working very closely with all those who would like to see
the francophone presence enhanced in all spheres of our society.


POVERTY
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Assistance Plan Act states clearly that Parliament recognizes the provision of adequate assistance to needy Canadians. As we prepare for Thanksgiving weekend, we are reminded just how dramatically the poor have been abandoned by this government.
Winnipeg Harvest, a food bank in my own province of Manitoba, indicates that nationally there has been an increase of about 30 per cent in Canadians using food banks. Some 40 per cent of these are children.
No longer can we count on the poor being fed. Canadian food banks are facing the worst shortages of food ever due to the drastic increase in users. Who are these users?
They are the low income Canadians soon to be burdened with the GST. They are unemployed Canadians needing jobs. They are refugees caught in the backlog. They are single parents who cannot afford to work and pay for day care.
The inability of the Canadian government to provide food, the most basic need of its poor people, is scandalous. May this government spend its Thanksgiving weekend thinking about the poor they have abandoned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


FRANCOPHONES
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to show my solidarity with Acadians in New Brunswick and my own riding, with the Federation des Francophones hors Quebec, the Societe des Acadiens et des Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick and with all Francophone groups and associations outside Quebec that today feel they were insulted by Jean Chretien.
Mr. Speaker, Francophones outside Quebec have suffered an affront without reason. Last Saturday, Mr. Chretien stated that Acadians changed their minds about Meech Lake under pressure from the governments that subsidized their associations. This statement was severely criticized by the groups in question, and I want to take this opportunity to censure these libellous remarks.
Mr. Speaker, Jean Chretien's statements are typical of the old-style Liberal Party that was rejected twice at the
October 4, 1990

polls by Canadians. Jean Chretien represents all that was petty and arrogant in the Trudeau government. I hope he will have the decency to withdraw his erroneous and unjustified comments and apologize to all Acadians.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, once again I feel compelled to rise and condemn the complicity of the Liberal Party in the passage of the goods and services tax.
Do the Liberals really oppose the GST?


Some hon. members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Did the Liberal senators refuse to let the GST bill into the Senate?


Some hon. members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Did the Liberal senators defeat the GST bill at first reading?


Some hon. members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Did the Liberal senators defeat the GST bill at second reading?


Some hon. members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Did the Liberal senators use their majority to defeat the GST in April?


Some hon. members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In May?


Some hon. members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In June?


Some hon. members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Did the Liberal senators' bell ringing hold up the Senate business for more than 59 minutes?


Some hon. members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In short, the Liberals have no intention of defeating the GST. Their business friends will not let
Oral Questions
them. Just watch Allan MacEachen fumble the parliamentary procedural ball. They will not block the GST.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Willard Estey, speaking of the controversy over the government's decision to stack the Senate to force through the GST said:
The federal government could have anticipated all that and referred the thing themselves to the Supreme Court of Canada. That would have been a good move.
I ask the Prime Minister: why will he not take the advice of that distinguished jurist whom he has cited with approval in the past and personally refer this matter of the Senate to the Supreme Court of Canada today? Why does he want this doubt, uncertainty and controversy to continue?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to a statement by the Hon. Willard Estey yesterday.
I have just been informed that former Justice Willard Estey issued a statement which has just been handed to me. It reads as follows:
I understand -that there is an article in one or more newspapers in Canada, yesterday or today, stating that I had expressed a view about the legality of the appointment of people to the Senate of Canada through the machinery of section 26 -
Let me make it absolutely clear at the outset that at no time and in no arena or forum have I expressed an opinion on the legality or otherwise of the appointment of anybody to the Senate at any time and particularly the recent invocation of section 26 of the Constitution.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Prime Minister.

October 4, 1990
Oral Questions
I note in passing that the Prime Minister did not quote the words of Mr. Justice Estey about the usefulness for the country of having this question referred to the Supreme Court.
Yesterday, in this House, the Minister of Justice said that this issue is "an arguable one". In 1981, when there was similar argument over the process the then federal government was using to refer the issue of constitutional change and have it decided on, that government, after some initial reluctance, did in fact itself refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling.
I ask the Prime Minister why he will not follow the precedent of that government, a precedent asked for by his party when in opposition, and refer this matter of the appointments to the Senate to force through the GST to the Supreme Court of Canada today? I again ask him why he wants this uncertainty to continue.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I responded directly to the question and the quote attributed by my hon. friend to Mr. Justice Estey which Mr. Justice Estey had repudiated prior to the House of Commons beginning Question Period.
Inasmuch as my hon. friend then goes on to raise another point in the allegations associated with Mr. Justice Estey, I would refer him to the next paragraph. Mr. Justice Estey, after having denied categorically the statement imputed to him by my hon. friend, says:
I did say to the reporter that if the Prime Minister had been given the foresight beyond anything I ever witnessed in any other human being, he probably would have thought about referring the whole business to the Supreme Court before some lower court, which, if it were a valid question, would take some time to percolate upwards to the Supreme Court, but I pointed out that in 1981-1982 the then government showed no such foresight and did not put to the Supreme Court a reference as to the legality of the then process being invoked by the government of the day for the amendment and other revisions to the Constitution, then known as the B.N.A. Act of 19S7. Now, that comes back through hearsay to me through broadcasters calling and inviting me to join their programs as being a comment that the Prime Minister should have made such an application or reference to the court. That is entirely wrong because 1 have made no such comment.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in the 80s the federal government did refer the constitutional amendment process to the Supreme Court of Canada. I ask the Prime Minister why is he not prepared to follow that precedent, as requested by his own party when in opposition, and refer the matter of Senate appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada if only to clear up the uncertainty created by a series of related legal cases now before three or four courts across Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all this has been repudiated by Mr. Justice Estey. The Leader of the Opposition is now asking me for what is the equivalent of a legal opinion. I would draw his attention to Senator Forsey's viewpoint aired on the CBC network, for I think it is a direct answer to my friend's question. Here is how the question was put to Senator Forsey:

CBC: So what do you think then of these challenges, that are being mounted by British Columbia and Alberta? You are a man that knows the Constitution well.
Senator Forsey: Well, I don't think they will get anywhere. I think the government's legal position and constitutional position on this is perfectly correct.


Some hon. members:: More.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is in the business now of releasing legal opinions. As he knows from the point of-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: In a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, the Governor General said that he sought independent legal opinion before he made a decision on the question of the eight new senators.
Would the Prime Minister tell us who gave that legal opinion to the Governor General, when it was given, and would he table the results of that legal opinion.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General will, I am sure, be happy to respond to my hon. friend, if the question were deemed to be appropriate.
October 4, 1990

My hon. friend is impugning the independence and integrity of the Governor General. He takes his orders from no one. He represents the Queen in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fontana:: He takes his orders from the emperor. Hail the king.


Martin Brian Mulroney: But, Mr. Speaker, there is-


John V. Nunziata: Do you call him Ray or Your Excellency?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It obviously depends on the issue.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, however there is no dearth of opinions around. I understand that Senator Forsey, the most distinguished constitutional scholar, said this:


An hon. member:: The latest.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is yesterday, hot off the presses of CBC Newsworld:


Mr. Forsey:: Yes, because there's a special division in Section 22 of
the act of 1867, that this is subject to the provisions of this Act. Well
Section 26 provides for the extra senators, the eight extra senators.
CBC: So you don't think the NDP has a hope on this one.


Eugene Alfred Forsey: No, not a thing.
CBC: Oh okay. Let's go to Ottawa and Evelyn. Hi, Evelyn.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister as well. Whereas the Governor General acts on the advice of his ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, will the Prime Minister ask the Governor General to release that legal opinion and from whom he got the legal opinion. Will the government as well tell us what advice it gave to the Queen and did it state the intervention of the Opposition and to what extent was that intervention stated when it sent the message to the Queen?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that Her Majesty, who reads the Canadian papers avidly, and the Governor
Oral Questions
General were well acquainted with the statements of the new leader of the Liberal Party who said that he was going to kill the GST. I think the Governor General may very well have been acquainted with that. He was also acquainted probably with the statement made by the leader of the Liberal Party to Michel Vastel-

-last week when he told Mr. Vastel: "The Liberal senators, 52 of them, will do as I say". What a pejorative comment on the independence of senators!
As to the legal opinion-

I think the answer to my hon. friend's statement is very straightforward. Senator Forsey says:
- he's asked for the appointment of eight extra senators, he's got the appointment of the eight extra senators. I think that legally and constitutionally the appointment is perfectly proper and cannot be assailed on any possible legal or constitutional ground.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We have a very serious matter here of constitutionality and legality by the actions of this government in appointing eight new GST senators. Today Michael Meighen, one of those eight GST senators, said that there should have been a reference to the Supreme Court if there had been time.
Surely, now is the time.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is well aware that only he can end this chaos. Make a direct reference to the Supreme Court. We know from a case that was held last year that he can get a fairly quick reference on a case sent directly to the Supreme Court. So I say to the Prime Minister: Why not take the advice of one of your GST senators? Why not end the chaos? Send this to the Supreme Court now.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. leader for inviting me to take the advice of one of the newly minted senators. Perhaps she could take the advice of her very distinguished senior colleague, the House leader of the NDP, who in regard to Bill C-22 said, and I quote: "Quite frankly, I am very disappointed with the Senate because I don't think the Senate has the right to be holding up legislation."

October 4, 1990
Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may not take this issue seriously, but I assure you that the New Democratic Party does.

Mr. Speaker, many experts across the country say that the government may have acted illegally. The list is getting longer by the minute and it includes the dean of Queen's University law faculty, University of Ottawa and University of Victoria law professors, and a Montreal constitutional law Ph.D. Apparently the only advice the Prime Minister got came from experts who support his action.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will table these expert opinions in the House, or else withdraw the tax?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I agreed with the hon. member that there will always be diverging views concerning any legal or constitutional issue raised in Canada. Most writers, law experts and legal advisers maintain that the government acted properly and that the Senate has no right to thwart the will of elected members.
In any event if my friend is not impressed by the member to her right I would urge her to listen to the reaction of her own member to her left.

My hon. friend is clearly not impressed with the statements of the member from British Columbia. The member for Yorton-Mellville, speaking on Bill C-62, said: "I believe the Commons should have the final say. I don't think the unelected body of the Senate should ever usurp the elected body."


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister refuses to listen to the Canadian people about the goods and services tax. He refuses to take seriously the issues of the legality of his decision to appoint eight new GST senators, in order to ram through the GST. The Prime Minister refuses to show confidence in his decision by making a referral to the Supreme Court, and his disregard of the Canadian public is unprecedented. I say to the Prime Minister: if he will not go to the court, then we will.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My question to the Prime Minister is this: Will he save the public money?


Mr. Boyer:: What argument are you going to use?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Ah, shut up.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister simply start taking this issue seriously, as 80 per cent of Canadians do, save the public moneys, reassure the business community that the government has some plan, and simply make a reference to the Supreme Court to end this chaos now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that I, along with all other members of the House, will live in trepidation and apprehension while waiting for that legal assault that will be coming from the NDP. I presume that it probably is not unconnected to a newspaper report this morning that states: NDP Leader Audrey McLaughlin distributed copies of a legal opinion from a prominent Saskatoon law firm with solid NDP connections, saying the appointment of the eight Conservative senators breaches constitutional amendments -
The law firm of Mitchell, Thylor, Mattison and Ching says that under the patriated Constitution of 1982, the composition of the Senate can only be changed by a constitutional amendment.
I have no quarrel with the right of that law firm of the NDP to hold that view and to challenge the government in court.
I refer my hon. friend to a statement made this morning again by Senator Forsey when he said, "So, Mr. Mulroney was faced with a deadlock and he advised the Governor General to recommend to the Queen of Canada the appointment of eight extra senators. I think he was perfectly entitled to do it."


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle -Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Taking care of the environment will involve spending enormous amounts of money on clean-up, recycling waste, research and development and consulting services. Today these areas are not subject to the manufacturers' tax but they will be affected by the GST.
October 4, 1990

What grounds does the minister have for taxing processes that improve the quality of the water we drink and the air we breathe?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I quite understand the concerns that the hon. member has expressed about the environment and the need to do everything we can to improve the environment in the country. That is precisely why the Minister of the Environment will be tabling a green plan shortly which will set out very clearly what the government's intentions are in that regard.
We appreciate how uncomfortable he is with the position that the Senate is taking on the matter of the GST and we understand that that is a concern that he has, but I think he must realize that the matter of the GST has been dealt with in this House. The matter is now in the Senate. The matter is to be dealt with in the Senate. I am sure that the hon. member, because of the discomfort that he feels about this, will be encouraging his friends in the other place to get on with dealing with the GST as quickly as possible.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary, certainly given what the minister has just said, is directed to the Minister of the Environment.
The clean-up of the environment implies an industrial revolution of profound proportions. It entails an investment in research and development and other costs which are not currently taxed. Other nations have recognized that sustainable development is not a milk cow, but represents a fundamental shift in values. Other nations are facilitating environmental clean-up. Other nations are funding it; they are not taxing it.
The Minister of Finance has just given the minister the opening. He has said that within the green plan he had the opportunity to reverse the application of the GST as far as it applies to the environment.
Is he going to stop taxing the environment? Is the minister not going to allow himself to be run roughshod
Oral Questions
over by the Minister of Finance? Will he, in the green plan, deal with the nefarious effects of the GST?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. colleague that the green plan, which was developed, as he well knows, in consultation with over 11,000 Canadians over the months of April, May and June and August of this year, will be presented to the House later on this fall.
It is a comprehensive plan. It is a plan that addresses our main concerns about the environment. It touches on every item that has been raised in terms of environmental protection for the future and generations to come. I could only assume that my hon. colleague will applaud the initiatives contained in the Green Plan.


AIRLINES INDUSTRY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Yesterday, the minister signalled the government's intention to negotiate a new and wide open air agreement with the U.S. The minister should know that Canadians will not accept the victimization of our airline industry the way other sectors were in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
I ask the minister this: What guarantees and safeguards is he prepared to make in order to fully protect the viability of our Canadian air industry and the quality of a national service to all parts of the country?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, prior to the announcement yesterday, I discussed in broad terms the possibility of going into a liberalization of the air services between Canada and the United States with the airlines. They both told me they were fully in favour of it.
I suggested to them that there would we would be drafting a negotiating mandate with the interested parties during the fall. That includes the communities, the unions, the airlines, the tourism industry, and the provinces.

October 4, 1990
Oral Questions
We are completely open to their suggestions as to phase-ins and safety nets in order that this can happen for the benefit of all Canadians.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the key words for both those airlines were that they want negotiated safeguards.
Why did the minister choose to enter into negotiations with the U.S. on a wide open skies basis, when a task force he appointed to study in part the same issue is not due to report until the spring of 1991, and when Canadians have not had a say? Why decide, Mr. Minister, and then ask Canadians for their views?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: On the
contrary, Mr. Speaker, I fully intend that Canadians have the say that my hon. friend quite rightly suggests.
I suggested to my hon. friend yesterday that we take this matter to the Standing Committee on Transport for a full open review by all interested parties for input into the negotiating process.
We think this is going to be a good deal for Canada. The reason is this: The President of Air Canada told me that presently American airlines have access to 90 per cent of our market, and we have access only to less than 30 per cent of theirs. We are going to get that access.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Surely, the Minister of Finance realizes that at the heart of the matter that is going on in the other chamber right now is the radical unacceptability of the goods and services tax.
Instead of imposing the GST on the country in the various ways in which the government has tried to do this-most recently with the eight senators-when is the Minister of Finance going to announce what he intends to do about the fact that many tens of thousands of profitable corporations in the country do not pay any taxes at all? When is he going to announce what he intends to do about that? Perhaps then we would get to the heart of the matter.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is in a time warp.
We have done an awful lot of things to-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I have not.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He says he has not. I know that he has not been involved in the finance issues, but we have closed more loopholes that were resulting in companies not paying tax.
The statistics that the NDP persist in referring to relate to the year 1987 which is the year-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I do not quote statistics.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He says he does not quote statistics, but his colleague down the way has.
Time and again, they refer to statistics that refer to 1987 which is the year before corporate tax reform became effective. Let me give my friend an example.
In 1987, the chartered banks hardly paid any tax at all. This year, the chartered banks are paying $1 billion in taxes.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that this minister has no interest in fair taxation. He has told us over and over that people under $30,000 a year in income will be better off under the GST. The minister knows that this simply is not true. He knows the manufacturers will not pass on savings for scrapping the MST. They have told him that. The minister knows that the GST tax credit, the old age supplement and guaranteed income supplement will not be indexed in 1991. The government's own National Council on Welfare said that lower income Canadians will be worse off-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, Canadians will be worse oi'f in 1992 than in 1991. Why does the minister not come clean with Canadians just this once and acknowledge that the GST is bad for lower income Canadians or, better still, why does the government not-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member say that Canadians will not see any reduction in taxes in 1991. Let me refer him to some advertisements that are on television right now by the Chrysler Corporation. Chrysler is saying that they are going to reduce prices now so that Canadians who buy a car now will be able to take full advantage of the savings in price that will come as a result of the GST on January 1. If my friend is looking for some very real examples, there is about a $800 example for him.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, according to Hamilton Harbour Commissioner, Duncan Beattie, a former Conservative member of this place, the Deputy Prime Minister knew four years ago when he was Minister of Transport that the Hamilton Harbour Commission was interested in buying J. I. Case property and that Peter Lush was an agent for J. I. Case. Mr. Lush was appointed commissioner anyway.
Then last January, Peter Lush became chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission. He is still the agent for yet another piece of J. I. Case property. What does the current Minister of Transport know about any of this and when did he learn it?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a difference in substance between the questions from the two transport critics over there. One is substance, the other is slander.


Mr. Boudria:: Withdraw.


An hon. member:: Which one?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You are absolutely correct. I withdraw the allegation. You are absolutely correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister could answer the question.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the question of a conflict of interest came up last March. The question was cleared by the law firm that was hired to investigate it, Borden & Elliot. I have a full report on it. My hon. friend knows it was cleared at that time. My hon. said so in print. That case is closed.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but notice that the minister neglected to
Oral Questions
read the entire headline in the print to which he refers. It says: "Lush severs firm's ties to harbour land". In fact, the paragraph before my statement says, "Mr. Lush wouldn't reveal the amount of commission his firm could have expected to receive for selling the second parcel of land", but he took the $400,000 cheque anyway. No wonder I said what I had to say.
Today, Hamilton's finance and administration committee has unanimously requested that the Minister of Transport initiate an open public inquiry into this whole matter. The minister will hide behind the Ontario Supreme Court decision, but it states:
This is clearly a provincial power-
The federal government can hold a full public inquiry.
Can the Minister of Transport tell this House if the Minister of State for Indian Affairs was aware that Peter Lush was the agent for J. I. Case when she asked Mr. Peter Lush to be the chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission?


An hon. member:: Another one at the trough. Shame.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The very day Mr. Peter Lush resigned his patronage appointment as chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission because of information revealed in this Chamber, and before the law firm to conduct the investigation in the whole affair was even named, Mr. Glen Shortliffe was moved out of his position as deputy minister of transport and into the Privy Council Office.
Will the Prime Minister guarantee that despite this move, the former deputy minister of transport will be fully available to answer any questions on this issue?


Harvie Andre: I do not believe a question like that is allowed.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Let me
just say two things. I will respond by saying that Mr. Shortliffe, who is an outstanding public servant, has done a remarkable job on behalf of Canada. He will be there to respond to questions whether he is associate secretary of the Privy Council, deputy minister of National Defence or wherever he happens to be in the continued service of Canada.

October 4, 1990
Oral Questions
What I think all Canadians and all members of this House would reject with vehemence is any suggestion, including that inferentially made by my hon. friend, that there is somehow something improper in the Clerk of the Privy Council recommending that senior public servants in the normal course of events be transferred from position to position. It was because of his extraordinary performance throughout his entire career that Mr. Shortliffe and the other appointments were announced at this particular time. I know that my hon. friend will want to stand up and say how proud she is of the public service of Mr. Shortliffe.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. It is difficult for Canadians to have any confidence that public servants will not be pressured and manipulated-
Some lion, members: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The public may or may not have confidence, but the hon. member is well on the way to making a charge that the Public Service is being manipulated. The hon. member knows that that is just not appropriate. I am going to the next question. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton -Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I think the House knows that Premier Devine of Saskatchewan has in effect thrown in the towel and will not join other provinces in a legal battle against the GST.
We also know, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Devine has been a bit of a political poodle for the Prime Minister for a long time.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member can put his question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I did not mean to insult poodles, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that the Devine government is on the verge of making an
agreement with the federal government to collect the GST in Saskatchewan in a similar way that the Prime Minister's other friend, Quebec's Robert Bourassa, is going to do in the province of Quebec? If that is the case, when will that announcement be made? Can the Prime Minister tell us in the House today if that is indeed the case.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, during the the premiers' conference last summer, Premier McKenna of New Brunswick said that it would be irresponsible in the extreme for the premiers to come together and oppose the GST, spend three days in conference opposing the GST if they failed to come up with an alternative.
They met for three days. They failed miserably to come up with an alternative. Premier McKenna, who is not a Conservative yet-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Premier McKenna turned out to be right.


Sergio Marchi: Are you putting him in the Senate too?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, there are a couple of spaces left.


An hon. member:: John is really upset.


An hon. member:: John knows there is no future. [Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Premier of Quebec decided it was in the interests of Quebec and Canada to harmonize Quebec's tax position in this area with the federal government's. It was a tax initiative and also a major contribution to national unity, and I think that is something that should not be overlooked. The Government of Quebec, by the way, made its own decisions, which were announced by Mr. Gerard-D. Levesque.

If Premier Devine comes to the conclusion that indeed Premier McKenna was right and it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue to oppose the GST without an alternative and decided to join the federal program which is designed to create new wealth and prosperity for Saskatchewan-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should move on. The hon. member for Edmonton East.

October 4, 1990


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Not all premiers have thrown in the towel just yet.
The people of Alberta from Coutts to Chip, from Lloyd to Lake Louise have had one consistent and compelling message for this government for the last year and a half. We don't want a general sales tax in Alberta.
Will the government continue to ignore the overwhelming majority of Albertans, or will it now withdraw the GST and begin instead to implement a fair taxation system where everyone, including the wealthy and the big corporations, pay their fair share?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it really astounds me how the hon. member can get up and talk about what we have been doing to the large corporations when we have passed a large corporations tax in this House. The hon. member is supporting the Senate in blocking that large corporations tax as well as other pieces of legislation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me draw a distinction that my hon. friend may not understand. The Premier of Alberta has said he does not like the GST, but he is a man of principle and he has said: "I believe it has passed the House of Commons, an elected House of Commons, and he, (the Prime Minister) has in fact a duty to appoint the senators".
He goes on to say: "I do feel strongly that elected people are there to govern and they should not be over-ruled by those who have no credibility".


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward -Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister knows that his department has approved funding of $3.5 million for a guarantee for the Southern Ontario Tomato Co-op under the Advance Payments for Crops Act.
This co-operative is an unlicensed facility to process food. It has been charged more than once, has paid fines,
Oral Questions
is presently charged again, and is operating illegally in Ontario.
Why is government funding to such a massive extent, or to any extent at all, an unlicensed, illegal food processing facility?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the producer organization which the hon. member refers to meets all of the requirements under the provisions of that act and so therefore the act is being followed in accordance with the rules and regulations.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. I would like to point out to the government that this processing facility is unlicensed and illegal in the province of Ontario.
I find it intriguing that in 1986 this facility was given a $1.5 million grant. It has now been funded and guaranteed this. It is still unlicensed. It is still illegal and has been given another $1 million grant on top of this funding back in April of this year.
I would ask the minister if he would explain and account to the taxpayers of Canada why this type of funding and support is being given to this type of facility.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has some concerns perhaps he may want to also take it up with the members of the Liberal administration in Ontario who also supported this co-operative.
The Alternate Enterprise Program was provided to switch into other production from tobacco production, which I think the hon. member has supported very much. It was under that program that we were attempting to diversify the industry in that particular area.
It was found to be legal in so far as the Government of Ontario is concerned and the federal government took the same position.
Points of Order POINT OF ORDER

October 4, 1990


VACANCIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order dealing with a very important matter. It is called leadership in this country. It is also called courage in this country.
It deals with the vacancies in two ridings of this country, namely Beausejour, New Brunswick and York North, Ontario. I would like to ask a question of the government. I take it the leader of the government in the House will be able to answer it.
I have drafted a copy of the required Order in Council to name or to declare the date of that election. If I send a copy to the minister, could he give us the exact dale of the by-elections in Beausejour, New Brunswick and York North, Ontario?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in 1983 when our leader was elected and did not have a seat in the House, a member of our caucus, the current Minister of Public Works from Central Nova, stepped down to allow the leader to run in that riding.
At that time Prime Minister Trudeau took 20 days to call a by-election. This Prime Minister will call a by-election in Beausejour well before 20 days.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 20 days from the date of vacancy would make York North pretty well vacant at this time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister the usual Thursday question. What kind of menu does he have in mind for the coming days, that is, Friday, Tuesday, and Wednesday next?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow it is my intention to call report stage and perhaps third reading, if there were to be agreement, on Bill C-37, the bill to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute.
If we make progress on that I would call Bill C-54, the joinder of counts bill, on which I believe there is fairly wide agreement within the House.


Ms. Blondin:: What about the aboriginal languages bill?


Harvie Andre: I cannot hear the hon. member for Western Arctic. I am trying to speak. I will listen to her after. Perhaps she would like me to answer her House leader's question first.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: You heard me.


Harvie Andre: No, I did not hear you. All I heard was noise and barracking. I will listen later.
Monday, being Thanksgiving, the House will be adjourned. On Thesday it will be my intention to call an allotted day. On Wednesday there is a number of possibilities that I would like to talk to House leaders about before giving an indication. I would intend to do that before we adjourn for the weekend.


REQUEST FOR TABLING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, earlier in Question Period today in an exchange the Prime Minister referred to some communication that he had received from a former Supreme Court justice.
According to Citation 159, subsection 3, of Beau-chesne's, when the Prime Minister reads from a communique it is said that he will table it in the House. I would ask that the Prime Minister do what is expected of him in Beauchesne's and table the communique that he referred to.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I believe that was a statement issued publicly by the former Justice Willard Estey of the Supreme Court.
I am certain there will be no problem whatsoever. As soon as I get a copy I would be willing to table it before the House on behalf of the Prime Minister.


COMMENTS IN CHAMBER
Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: It seems to me that the member for Ottawa West drew a very long bow today in starting a rumour rather than even reacting to a rumour regarding a public servant who has no right to defend himself, no forum in which to defend himself.
I would like to know if those kinds of questions are going to be permitted in this House, lest we violate the civil rights of individuals who cannot protect themselves.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for raising a matter of some importance. The hon. member for Ottawa West may want to rise to discuss this in a moment.
I have a matter of privilege from the hon. member for York South-Weston which I will come to in a moment. I have another point of order and there may be more.
To reply specifically to the question of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, he referred to a question which the hon. member for Ottawa West started to put and has asked what I would do under the circumstances. The hon. member will notice that I interrupted the question and went on to the next question. I do not know what the rest of the question was going to be. I felt that it had erred against the very comment which the hon. member has brought to the attention of the House.


CALLING IN THE MEMBERS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is very brief but I think nonetheless important to those of us who want to vote in this place. On Tuesday of this week, about noon, I and a number of other MPs were not able to vote. I just want to share with you the circumstances of that particular event, Mr. Speaker.
I left Centre Block about 11.48 and got a bus to go over to the Wellington Building. At the foot of the street, at Confederation Building, I crossed the street, having had to wait for the traffic light. I got into the Wellington Building and, Sir, the bells were not ringing. I took the elevator up to the fifth lloor where I was to meet with the CPA in a selections committee meeting at 11.45. When I got to the fifth floor, Sir, the bells were ringing.
Points of Order
I immediately spoke to the clerk who said she would find out about the vote, when the vote indeed would take place. She got back as quickly as possible and said that the vote would be in three minutes and that I would not be able to get there in time.
Had there been in the time it took the bus to travel from Centre Block, stopping at West Block and then going down to the foot of the street, some means of alerting members of Parliament in this wonderful world of technology and communications, had we had bells, whistles, lights or something in that little bus, other members of Parliament including myself could have been alerted and I am sure we would have been back, each of us in his place, to vote as he or she wanted.
I make the strong recommendation and suggestion to you, Sir, that we try to have a way of alerting members of Parliament in buses regarding votes that take place here.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear first of all the hon. member for Western Arctic, and then I will hear the hon. member for Shefford.


HERITAGE LANGUAGE FOUNDATION
Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order and a question for the House leader opposite.
I would like to first of all state that Bill C-37, the bill to establish the heritage language foundation, is one that is being greatly opposed by the aboriginal leadership and individual groups. They are collectively opposed to being included under the heritage language foundation. They would like to have unanimous consent for the House to proceed on the establishment of an aboriginal language foundation under Bill C-269, which is a private member's bill.
I have written to the leader of the House this summer. He applauded my effort but would not give unanimous consent. The NDP has agreed and the Liberal Party has agreed, but we are lacking support from the Conservative government. Can we have-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has risen on a point of order to make a point. However, the hon. member's position is not really a point of order. I suppose that if her hon. House leader had raised it with the hon. government House leader it might have been a matter that would have been appropriate, but it is really

October 4, 1990
Privilege
a matter that has to be discussed between hon. members. I know that she would want to do that.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, one of our colleagues pointed out earlier that the bells rang very fast and stopped quite abruptly.
Mr. Speaker, this is a genuine point of order. Yesterday, we saw the whips more or less make fools of themselves, and I wonder whether this race against the clock to keep members from voting or from getting to their seats is established practice, and would you not agree this is somewhat detrimental to the order of this House?
This is too much! They rush from their seats in such a hurry, they are liable to bump into the mace, Mr. Speaker!


Mr. Speaker:: The Whips quite often move with great speed. I think the difficulty which the hon. member for Erie has brought to the attention of the House is a technical one. I am taking it very seriously. I will do everything I can to correct the difficulty.


CALLING IN THE MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Nun/.iata (York South-Weston): Mr. Speaker, you are considering the question of voting and the ringing of the bells. We have had on a number of occasions over the last number of days a number of votes called on certain matters. I would ask you to consider the reasons why the members were being called in.
As you know or as you have been advised, Mr. Speaker, the members were being called in because of the obstructionist tactics of certain independent members of this House. They were obstructing the debate that was going on in this House. I would ask you to take into consideration the tactics of the hon. member for Shefford who was causing all these votes to take place yesterday and days preceding.
Mr. Speaker:: Provided that the hon. member for Shefford was operating within the rules, there is nothing that the Speaker can do. If there is another kind of complaint, perhaps it will be made in the appropriate way.
However, I want to say to the hon. member for Shefford and all hon. members that if there is a problem in the ringing of the bells, I will have somebody attend to it right away. The question of tactics in the Chamber of course is another matter.


PRIVILEGE
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice that I wanted to rise after Question Period on a question of privilege arising out of Question Period itself. Since then there has been a statement in this House in respect of a question I asked during Question Period that certainly needs to be responded to, and I look for your guidance as to whether or not that is a separate question of privilege.
However, on my first question of privilege, it was wrongly implied during Question Period by the Prime Minister that my question was questioning the integrity of a senior Public Service employee. Any objective reading of the question would make it absolutely clear that I was doing no such thing, that I was in fact questioning an appointment, an act of appointment by the Prime Minister, and asking-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member would not want anybody to misunderstand her motivation or her position. The difficulty with this is that in the exchange that goes on here we could have members getting up all of the time to carry on further debate in the question and answer.
I think the difficulty in this case arises from the fact that if the hon. member had been permitted by the Chair to proceed with her second question the matter might have been clarified.
I would ask that perhaps she consider whether it could be clarified in another question or in another way.
I have let the hon. member go on so that the point is made, but I do not want hon. members to be getting up continually on points of order to re-debate an exchange in the House.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point of order. I am seeking some guidance from the Speaker regarding a very serious matter.
October 4, 1990

Over the last number of days, we have had legitimate questions from several members of the opposition calling for a public inquiry into a series of circumstances that led to a $400,000 commission being paid to the chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. There have been questions concerning the Hamilton Harbour and people engaged in it. They have been dealt with in the Chamber. It may be dealt with in the Chamber further, but it is not to be raised on a point of order.
There has not been just one question. There have been a number of questions. It is not appropriate to try to carry that on after Question Period by raising a point of order.
If I have misunderstood the hon. member for Hamilton East, I will listen to a word or two more. But I am not going to permit-I do not think it would be appropriate-carrying on that issue in the way of a point of order after Question Period.
It can be pursued at another time in this Chamber.


Sheila Maureen Copps: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, we spent about half an hour yesterday going through alleged possible points of order and questions of privilege on another matter.
What I have asked you for is a ruling on a very serious matter. There has been an implication by the government upon a legitimate request by the opposition for a public inquiry. The government is somehow claiming that we are running a smear campaign.
This is not debate. During Question Period-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. The government maybe implying all kinds of things. The opposition may be implying all kinds of things.
That has got to be dealt with in debate and not on points of order. Certainly the hon. member does not have a question of privilege. She may have a complaint, and it may be a very vigorous one, but I cannot let this proceed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in defence of my colleague, we had an experience in this House this week when the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were allowed 35 minutes on a point of order.
Privilege
They were allowed to debate. They were allowed to read. They were allowed to put motions that were out of order. I do not understand.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw to the attention of the House that today we had members of the government rising to get questions on, which were very important to them as individual members representing their constituencies.
However, they were not given that opportunity. Let us take that into account as well.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the legitimate request, two of our members stood in their places today and asked legitimate questions of the government. You, Sir, with all respect either suggested that their questions were not able to be answered on the floor of this House, or that somehow our members were impugning the integrity of public servants.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may very well have a complaint with the Chair.
If that is the case, I would expect her to discuss that with me. If her hon. House leader has a complaint with the Chair or if other members have a complaint with the Chair, I would expect them to see me too.
What the hon. member is doing now is literally arguing an appeal against a ruling I made. That is not appropriate. I am prepared to meet with the hon. member, the hon. House leader and discuss the matter.
If I am at fault, then I shall try to correct it. But I make it very clear: I have given the hon. member more time under the circumstances with that point of order than is appropriate.
Points of order ought not to be used to carry on the debate in Question Period.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Just give me 30 about seconds to complete my point.


Mr. Speaker:: No. I am sorry. I have asked the hon. member to co-operate. If the hon. member wants to rise at another time in another way, then I will hear her, but I have made my decision. The hon. member for Ottawa West.


Marlene Catterall: On the point of order strictly, Mr. Speaker. I do certainly intend to come and see you and discuss with you some of the proceedings this afternoon,

October 4, 1990
Privilege
but I do not want to miss this opportunity to protect my right, so I am seeking your advice to address a second point of privilege. I gave you notice prior to the termination of Question Period as to a point of privilege arising from the Prime Minister's answer to my question.
My second point of privilege which I did not have the opportunity to address arose from a comment made by another member of the House, following Question Period in which he drew on the Prime Minister's answer, not on my question, to make an accusation. I would like to know if it is not appropriate now, at what point in time is it appropriate for me to make that point of privilege.


An hon. member:: It is appropriate now.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help the hon. member. As soon as she has a chance to consider the blues, she could consult with colleagues or with myself. If there has been something unparliamentary done, something which has impinged upon the hon. member's privilege, then I, of course, will hear the hon. member on that point.
In any event, I take it now as notice the hon. member is raising a matter. I would ask the hon. member to take careful look at what Hansard shows, and I will hear her further. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the member for Ottawa West is known in this caucus as one who has human rights at heart. She is one of the greatest defenders of human rights. Her reputation was impugned. Her reputation was taken to task. I object strongly to that, Mr. Speaker, because the member for Surrey-White Rock had no business doing what he did, or being allowed to say what he said.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order which was made by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton East, I just want to say that no one is questioning your ruling. In fact, the hon. member said not once, not twice, but I believe three times that she was seeking direction and guidance from the Chair with regard to the proceedings which have happened today.
Mr. Speaker, it should be well noted, and perhaps it should serve as notice, that members on this side of the House are extremely frustrated-extremely frustrated- and annoyed at the way in which hon. members opposite following Question Period are allowed to get up on spurious points of order, debate for extended periods of time-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: To debate ad nauseam.


David Charles Dingwall: -to debate at length, Mr. Speaker, points of order which in point of fact are not in accordance with Beauchesne.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in terms of your rulings which may come subsequent to my intervention as well as other interventions by hon. members on this side that hopefully we would be given the opportunity and the full impact, if you will, of the rules of natural justice and order to present our case on the floor of the House of Commons.


An hon. member:: That's right.


Mr. Speaker:: I will do the very best I can. I am more than prepared to have a discussion with the hon. member for Hamilton East and other hon. members.
Perhaps clarification is needed. Perhaps there is an approach that would be appropriate. It might very well be a helpful idea to take some of the questions in which there seems to be some feeling that full latitude or enough latitude was not allowed, rise on a point of order, bring them to the attention of the Chair, which I would be very prepared to listen to, and then I will go away and try to respond in such a way that will be helpful to all hon. members.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is what I tried to do, yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton East says that she is what she tried to do. If that is what her purpose is, and the purpose of other members, I just want to say that I would be very pleased to see those particular incidents collected at the appropriate time in consultation with the House leader, rise, bring them to my attention. I may not be able to respond immediately, but I certainly will respond and I will try to be of assistance to hon. members.
In general terms, I do want to say this. It is very difficult for a Speaker to always know what is going to be said before it is said. I sometimes made comments in a wry way about that, but there is a fundamental here and that is that questions ought not to be used in the guise of
October 4, 1990

allegations or in the guise of imputations of wrongdoing. The hon. members are correct, but by the same token answers given have to respect that also. I would ask the hon. member for Hamilton East, because I know she wants to co-operate with the Chair and I do appreciate that, to collect some of the matters that are troubling members and rise, bring them to me and I will try to deal with them.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly abide by your suggestion and your guidance. But, to bring home very clearly for your edification, and perhaps you will have an opportunity in the very near future to watch some of the proceedings and read Hansard, the frustration is exacerbated when individuals such as the right hon. Prime Minister make statements in response to questions put to them, which are knowingly, by all members of the House, incorrect.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I think if there are some examples which hon. members want to bring to me, where there is a complaint, as I have invited hon. members to do, please do so. It is not appropriate to carry on continually talking about what one person on one side said and one person on the other side said. I have been here for a great many years and I have heard some fierce things said in this Chamber, on both sides. I have also seen a good deal of badinage, I suppose we could call it, that goes on in the exchange in Question Period and other places. However, I have invited hon. members to bring their complaints in an appropriate way to me and I most clearly will try to deal with them and I will try to be helpful.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will not belabour this point of order other than to suggest to you that perhaps you will review very carefully the comments made by the right hon. Prime Minister whereby he knowingly-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a particular complaint, I have asked hon. members to come to me in a specific way. I am not going to try to rule on things when Hansard is not in front of us, when we are running on memory, and when they may very well be barely matters of debate.
Privilege
I do have a question of privilege which I must under the rules at least start to hear.
The Hon. member for Edmonton Southeast.


PARLIAMENTARY READING ROOM
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, it is the Reading Room point of privilege which was raised on September 24. You will recall that you invited me to contact a spokesman for the Board of Internal Economy, which I did. I have indicated in my letter to you today that the answer that came back did not deal in substantive terms with the point.
I would stress two points today, Sir, one having to do with the fire hazard. As I indicated, you will recall that the fire in 1916 broke out in a small reading room-


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I have read very carefully the hon. member's letter. Unless he has something to add to it, I must say that it is not a question of privilege. However, it is a question of the administration of this place, and I would invite the hon. member to pursue it further in two different ways. One, if the hon. member wishes, he can raise and ask a question of the nominated member of the board. There is also another way. The hon. member can come before the Board of Internal Economy and raise his concerns. It is not a question of privilege.
I have to insist to the hon. member. It is not a question of privilege. It may well be a question of the administration of the buildings. It is not a question of privilege.
I have looked carefully at the material that the hon. member has put to me. The hon. member may not be satisfied with the response he got from one of the members of the Board of Internal Economy, and I invite him to come before the Board of Internal Economy if he wishes. This is a matter of administration, not a matter of privilege.
The hon. member for Edmonton East.


Ross Harvey: I do apologize, Mr. Speaker, if I am doing this wrong, but may I now move that we hear from the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary.

October 4, 1990
Government Orders


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I think that that is out of order in that you had not recognized anybody by yet calling Orders of the Day. It is a nice anticipatory move, but out of order, nevertheless.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, on rising I would like to start off by thanking my hon. friend from Edmonton East for his very kind and, I am sure, usual but somewhat unexpected concern and I thank him veiy much.


An hon. member:: He should have been a Liberal.


Fred J. Mifflin: Indeed, I am going to work on that, too, I can assure you.
Before we called it one o'clock earlier this afternoon, I had risen to speak as the associate energy critic and as the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception where a large part of the construction of Hibernia will take place, to address elements of the project that had concerned a lot of people. I went through some background. I covered some of the details that perhaps were not well known to the House and, indeed, to the public. Then, I specifically covered two areas concerning members of the House, perhaps with the indication and certainly the aim of putting their minds at rest and to make them feel more supportive of this project. After all, it is going to be going on for 25 years.
Just before one o'clock, I looked at the materials and the equipment for this project that will total some $600 million. I gave what I believe to be the reasons why we physically cannot make this a 100 per cent project, purely in the area of materials and equipment.
I will now talk about what certainly in the interim period-the construction and production phase- will be the most important aspect to a lot of Newfoundlanders, to a lot of Atlantic Canadians, and indeed to all Canadians, but I may add the least understood aspect of this
particular megaproject. I am referring to of course the employment opportunities.
I read in The Globe and Mail this morning, for example, an article with this headline: "Thousands scramble for few Hibernia jobs". The gist of the article is that there are thousands of people lining up and before the end of this year, it states that there will be only anywhere from 40 to 60 jobs.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this because I have been following this project for a long time. I have spoken to members on the other side of the House, to the hon. ministers involved in this, to the hon. members, my own colleagues here, members of industry, bureaucrats, and those involved in the actual doing of this project. I hope, I say in all modesty, what I have to say will be instructive and informative.
It is well known that Hibernia will create thousands of employment opportunities across Canada. These opportunities will be offered generally, not by Mobil Oil, but by the major contractors or the service companies working on the project. I think that is a very important point. Most of the jobs during the development phase will fall into one of five industrial categories: construction, shipbuilding, manufacturing, engineering, and offshore contracting. There will be a wide range of skills and skill levels that will be required over the six-year project development schedule and during the approximate 20 years of production. I think it would be worthwhile perhaps to get into that in more detail, but, on a general note, employment on the project is measured in terms of person-years.
There sometimes is confusion as to what a person-year is. Very simply, one-year's employment for one person equals one person-year. Sometimes a million of manhours is the term used, but I will deal with person-years, exclusively, so that we do not switch from one measure to the other.
During the development phase, the project will create an estimated 21,500 person-years of employment with 14,500 of those expected to be in Canada. According to the project schedule, the demand will begin to grow late this year. I have to use a range and am told that it will be between 40 and 100, depending on how rapidly the project gets under way and, indeed, what the weather is going to be like in November and December. But the employment is expected to peak in about 1993-1994, with work on several activities occurring at the same time in different locations.
October 4, 1990

You can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you start off with one aspect of this and then you go on to another aspect and then there are three or four aspects happening at once. Then there are five or six and, then, I suppose, at the end of the project, using a PERT diagram-a very complex mechanism to make sure that everything is co-ordinated in the time schedule-there will probably be hundreds and hundreds of things going on at the same time.
The first six-year phase, the development phase, from now to 1995-1996, can be broken down into seven main activities. First is the gravity base structure, that is, the big concrete platform that is going to be launched, towed out to sea, and sunk in about 250 feet of water, 80 metres of water. This will employ 4,545 person-years. For the topsides that are built onto the gravity base structure it will be 6,305.
There is the articulated loading platform. From this gravity base structure and the modules that I just described will be an undersea component, a manifold, and 1.3 million tonnes will be stored in the gravity base structure itself. The large tankers, of which there will be three at 120,000 tonnes, a fair-sized ship, will load from what is called the articulated loading platforms that are going to be spaced some distance from the gravity base structure itself. Of course, associated with that will be a pipeline, and there will be 290 man-hours.
For the sub-sea manifolds, the mechanism under the sea that is involved in the flow of the light crude oil that will go to the articulated loading platform, there will be 1,110. Then, for the drilling itself, there will be 1,650 and for the vessel construction to which I made reference, the three 120,000 tonne shuttle tankers, 450 man-years. Quite frankly, I think that is conservative but I will use the figures that I was given two days ago. For the startup there will be 150. That comprises the 14,500.
I know there are people listening to this who would like to know with what kind of trades are we dealing. With the indulgence of the Chair, I would like to give you some indication of the trades that are involved. They range from management administration to carpenters. I will just read out some of them: management adminis-
Government Orders
tration, production management, petroleum engineer, straight engineer, surveyors, draughtsmen, engineering technician, medics, EDP operators, telephone operators, clerks, caterers, divers, drill rig crews, blasting occupations, machinists, sheet metal workers, welders, boiler makers, grinders, supervisors, in a general sense, air craft mechanics, industrial mechanics, instrument fitters, marine fabricators, painters, construction equipment operators, general labourers, electricians, carpenters, concrete workers, insulators, pipefitters, maintenance (general), pilots-that is an air pilot-deck officers for the shuttle tankers, ships' engineers, marine crew, truck drivers, crane operators, material handlers and technical testers. There are more. I just listed about 40 of them.
I will not indulge the Chair in the number of manhours that are involved from 1990 to 1996. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, they start low. They peak about the middle of the production stage. They stay a little high, and then towards the end they tail off.
I want to talk about the production phase. Once the platform is built, the topsides are put on and the gravity of the structure is towed out 200 miles southeast of St. John's. It is anchored and connected up. We then get into the production stage.
At this point in time, the project will create 1,150 long-term jobs, long-term being 18 to 20 years or however long the oil field lasts. They will be on the production platform, in other offshore operations, and in related shore based jobs in Newfoundland and elsewhere in Canada.
I referred to the 1,150 jobs directly involved, but there will be business second and third derivatives of this in the St. John's area, in Atlantic Canada, and certainly in Newfoundland that would be presumptuous of me to put a figure on. Using our imaginations, we can see how the industries will be created as a direct result of the production input that I refer to now.
Many of the jobs during the production phase require direct experience in the management and operation of the offshore production facilities. We have not done this in Newfoundland and we certainly will be training for some of them, but I will come to that later.

October 4, 1990
Government Orders
A number of these jobs will have to come from outside Newfoundland. While certainly the intent of the project is Canadians first and Newfoundlanders first, just as it is with materials and equipments, I think we have to accept in order to make sure this project stays on stream and is done properly that we will have to recruit, if you like, certain restricted areas of expertise.
Through advance recruiting and continuing training programs, most of these jobs will eventually be filled by Canadians. That is, once the outside expertise comes in and we train Newfoundlanders and other Canadians for the job, they will be able to relieve those people who can return to Norway, Britain, Scotland or wherever they are from.
Again, very briefly, I have a listing of the main occupations involved in this. There are five major areas: the platform operations, that is, the involvement of the working of the structure and the business of oil drilling. That will be 540 man-years. For tanker operations it will be 180; marine and air support-


Mr. Duceppe:: On a point of order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Ma-rie has the floor.


Gilles Duceppe: We do
not have a quorum, Mr. Speaker.
You won't make a decision, because you know members will be back.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We do have a quorum, and the debate may continue. The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.


Fred J. Mifflin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 was making reference to the production phase main occupations, and I will continue.
For platform operations it will be 540 person-years; tanker operations, the operation of the shuttle tankers, 180 person-years; marine and air support, 120 person years; engineering and the omni-present administration that will be required to make this work, 160 person-years; and, the actual well workers themselves, the coal face of this whole operation, 100 person-years.
It must be emphasized that the employment estimates should be considered as orders of magnitude. This morning I made reference to the uncertainties in these kinds of projects. What might be 120 man-years now, may be 110 or 140-hopefully 140-by the time the production phase starts in 1995-96. They are based on preliminary designs, and both the numbers required and the timing may change substantially once detailed engineering is completed.
In fact, with the kind of experience I have had in these megaprojects, I can almost assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that there will be changes in both the time and the scheduling, which will I am sure will be flexible over time, but not the cost schedule.
I am going to speak later on about the training but I want to say that a substantial training effort is required to develop those skills in Canada that now do not exist. It is unlikely that the shortages can be completely avoided as I mentioned earlier.
However, since the training must be supplemented with considerable on-the-job training in order to meet the skill levels required, then we have to key ourselves to this kind of activity. The results of Newfoundland employment-I have a chart with that but I am not going to go through that in detail. Suffice it to say that it will start from 40 to 100 persons by the end of this year and the beginning of next year, and it will peak at about 2,145 person-years. The proportion of those jobs likely to be filled by members of the provincial labour force as it gets bigger will start from 60 per cent and hopefully will go up to 90 per cent and, I hope, 100 per cent eventually. And I do not see any problems with that happening.
For the production phase the annual employment that I mentioned earlier will work the same way. There will be on-the-job training and then eventually as the skills are acquired in this relatively new operation, certainly brand new operation, for the eastern coast of Canada then expertise will be developed as people are recruited and as on-the-job training takes place.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would be interested to know that not too long ago, a year and a half I think it was, the Newfoundland government sent 37 instructors to Holland and to Norway and the United Kingdom for training so that they would be prepared once Hibernia gets into its stride to embark on exactly the kind of operation to which I made reference.
October 4, 1990

Government Orders
At the beginning there will be one major impact area and then as the project fans out there will be two and three, and in Newfoundland I visualize that there will be four major impact areas. The St. John's impact area is obvious. St. John's is the capital of Newfoundland and we are going to be involved in employment opportunities in the St. John's area, project management, supply base operations, and support for development drilling. I am very pleased to report and I regret that my hon. friend from St. John's East, although he has heard me say this before, that the city of St. John's and indeed those people who will be employed from the St. John's area have already developed a fair amount of expertise which we have both witnessed ourselves in the last 20 years. Regrettably it has slackened off in the last few years but I recall in 1981 walking down the piers on Water Street and seeing the unforgettable type of activity that was involved in the offshore production at a time when the drilling that has culminated in Hibernia was going on.
So I feel comfortable and sanguine that there is a lot of expertise in the St. John's area and I am not going to speak to that any further.
An area that involves me directly is the Sunnyside- Come-By-Chance area and the employment opportunities in this area of course will be, I would expect, maximum.
As I mentioned, the gravity base structure will be built in Great Mosquito Cove-a beautiful name-at the end of Bull Arm, near Sunnyside, which is close to Come-By-Chance. Mr. Speaker, those are lovely names.
The trades required for the gravity base structure construction are similar to those-and I went into some of them earlier-required for major civil works projects such as a hydroelectric generating station, and we have those in Newfoundland of course, so that there are some skills that are already on the ground. They be involved in doing something else, they may be unemployed, but, Mr. Speaker, they are there. I feel very good about that.
[Translation)


Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, at a time when we are discussing a project worth $5.2 billion, we do not have a quorum in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I see we do have a quorum. The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is not a rebuke to the hon. member who is trying to learn the Standing Orders of the House, but only the Chair can determine whether or not there is a quorum. Members may ask the Chair to decide if there is a quorum. However, no member, except for the Speaker in the chair, may decide whether there is a quorum.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford, on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I think it is wonderful that the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is acting as your assistant, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is that it is entirely legitimate for a member whenever he observes a lack of interest in this House, to ask for a quorum. And I believe it was entirely appropriate for the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie to do so, since as a very junior member, he is particularly aware of the frivolous attitude of a number of members of our traditional parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since it has been established that there is a quorum, the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception still has the floor.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the impact areas in the St. John's area. I had already begun to speak on the Sunnyside-Come-by-Chance impact area.
I talked about the skills that would be used for a major civil works project and they include such trades as ironworkers, scaffolders, reinforcing steel fixers, concrete workers, mechanical and outfitting engineers, elec-

October 4, 1990
Government Orders
tricians, welders, pipe fitters and heavy equipment operators. I know a lot of heavy equipment operators in the area who will be looking forward to getting some work in this area.
The minimum qualification for most trades would be a journeyman level training and some experience. Indeed, there will be some opportunity for on-the-job experience. Pipe welders will have to be certified according to provincial regulations. Industry standards will likely be required by the contractor to hold all-position tickets.
There are two other areas I am going to cover very briefly. There is the Argentia impact area that will be involved in the putting together of the gravity base structure, the full line fabrication, the deck and the top side of the assembly and the actual hook-up itself. I am going to leave that because that is later on in the project and I think it can be covered somewhat downstream.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: Do it now, Fred.


Fred J. Mifflin: On second thought, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should cover this because it is a very important aspect of the area.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Fred J. Mifflin: Just to expand on Argentia itself, Mr. Speaker, the full line fabrication and the installation activities of this hook-up are going to involve a lot of man-hours and again the kind of expertise that we hope we will develop between now and the time that this is put together. For this actual job itself, we are looking at 1,960 person-years of employment and that is going to be created in the Argentia impact area.
While it is not in my riding, I know the people from Argentia. I was down there about three weeks ago and I know that they are very concerned about the reduction in the U.S. naval station down there and other activities that have shut down. I say to them that they, as it stands now, will be a very large part of this project.
The whole thing will impact all over Newfoundland and Canada eventually, but the fourth area is the Marystown area. I have spoken to my hon. colleague for Burin-St. George's on this and I know that he was instrumental in fighting for this particular piece of the pie, if you like. He has been instrumental in working together with all our colleagues in ensuring that with the floating system, approximately 1,490 person-years of employment could be generated in the production phase
and hopefully just over 1,000 in the production phase itself.
There is work going on in Cow Head, I think it is, across from the Marystown shipyard, basically to bring the shipyard facility up to the state of the art so that they will be in a position to bid on the considerable technical work that will happen downstream.
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly to the training and the experience required. From the perspective of training and experience, the jobs created by Hibernia will vary widely from occupation to occupation. I want to use these examples from one end of the spectrum to the other. Senior managers and engineers will ordinarily require engineering degrees and several years of direct experience in the design and construction of offshore facilities. Some of the key fabrication and construction occupations will require journeymen status or equivalent and, in addition, may require some upgrading skills to meet special certification standards.
For the other occupations, the standard requirement of the particular industry, whether it is construction or steel fabrication, I expect will be sufficient. That is what is envisaged by the project management team right now.
During the development phase of the project, the major activities that I made reference to, for example, the gravity base structure, will rely largely on the mechanical and civil trades available in the construction industry. The skill levels and mechanical outfitting are required to be higher in some cases but the standard requirement is sufficient in others.
Module fabrication will require mainly the steel fabrication trades, plate and pipefitters, welders, riggers and electricians. Again the skill levels required are high, particularly for fitters and welders.
Then we come to the topside assembly which will require mainly mechanical trades involved in marine fabrication. It is likely that many of those skills, particularly the fitters, welders and electricians will require some upgrading in order to qualify for the jobs with the state of the art techniques required.
In the closing moments of my presentation, I want to just give you some indication of what preparations have taken place in Newfoundland. I am sure that other preparations have taken place across Canada, and I am aware of some of them, but I am directly involved in the preparations taking place in Newfoundland. I just want to make reference to one institution that is well known. I made reference to it this morning, the Cabot Institute.
h

October 4, 1990	COMMONS DEBATES	13817
In 1989 the faculty and administrative staff of the Cabot Institute authorized a strategic plan for the year 2000, which is the time frame for this particular project. The impact of the offshore oil development was a major consideration which influenced the over-all contents of the document. This was worked on for over four years. The people involved worked with management and with the knowledge of the skills required, they travelled to North American and European offshore construction and production sites. Some of the faculty members received on-site training themselves in such diverse disciplines as well logging, dimensional control, pipefitting, structural welding, project management, computer aided design and drafting, computer aided manufacturing and quality assurance and quality control.
As part of this, the computer facilities at Cabot itself have been substantially upgraded and are currently considered to be the best, certainly in our provincial college system, and could rate with any of those in eastern Canada. I may be challenged on that, but I know they are certainly of a very high quality.
There are some other specific things that have been done, again in the Cabot Institute, to make ready the system of education and training in Newfoundland for this project. I mentioned the strategic plan and I will not expand on that any more.
There is a second computer assisted drafting and design lab that recently was installed to serve all the engineering technologies. Riely's Datashare of Calgary-and here we have some involvement from western Canada-has agreed to make available to Cabot Institute a database with a commercial value of $750,000 containing data from over 20 wells in the Hibernia and related geological structures. This, with the relatively scant knowledge I have of the oil drilling operation, is an invaluable resource that will be used by students in the petroleum engineering technology. Another thing, again at the Cabot Institute, a state of the art geographical information system has been purchased and forms the basis of a revised survey and engineering technology program. All other engineering technologies will be made aware of the versatility of the computer software that is involved in this program.
Government Orders
We have another item. This institute has enthusiastically endorsed the introduction of the co-operative education program. In fact, in September it introduced its first co-operative education program, a three-year, eight-term program in computer studies. I do not have to tell you the importance of computers in the operation of this business and in the instrumentation involved. They have a steering committee that will target further current offerings for delivery through co-operative education in 1991 and every year to follow. They have an advisory committee set up specifically to oversee skills related to the Hibernia project. They have other areas, as well.
I spoke with the president of the institute just this morning and I was quite impressed by many of the concerns it has. It is concerned that the appropriate labour relations, education, and training will continue to be offered as part of most, if not all, their 60 programs that they have, with a specific eye on what is required for Hibernia.
Such information will be timely, relevant, and appropriately imparted to give their students a clearer understanding of the labour climate within which they will work and to which they will contribute. It will be to no student's benefit to be denied relevant facts on basic labour relations theory and practice as it concerns management and workers. A labour relations management, of course, would do well to address more fully these issues as we get downstream and more people are employed in these activities.
With respect to the Cabot Institute, during the next few years many of the businesses and companies that will most probably be involved in the Hibernia project will be affected by the graduates of this institute. They have not forgotten their traditional programs and they must continue to educate and train Newfoundlanders, Labradorians, and indeed mainlanders who attend the institute for non-oil related jobs. These are the businesses that will be a spinoff from the project itself. It has been said that perhaps the largest workforce adjustment will occur as indirect effects of Hibernia. Homes must continue to be designed and built and carpenters, electricians and plumbers will continue to work in non-oil related occu-

October 4, 1990
Government Orders
pations. Business establishments will continue to require quality secretarial and business graduates, and all the education and training facilities must not just reflect Hibernia but the spillovers that will pertain to Hibernia.
Before I wrap up, I would like to summarize one of the main concerns that is pertained in this House from November 7 of last year, which is almost a year ago when we first started to discuss this project. Some will say it is a relatively short time, but it has been the style of the House. It went through first and second reading and committee stage. While some may disagree with the length of time it took, we are now at this stage and third reading.
The one thread that went through this whole thing was the project's commitment to Canada. I think there were well founded suspicions. I never impute the motives of those people who are concerned about how we spend the taxpayers' money. I would like to cover basically what the project's commitment is to Canada.
I take great comfort from the knowledge that I have of this project, but I would like to emphasize that this is a megaproject. There are risks and benefits involved. At this point in time, as we search out into the uncertainty, we on this side of the House believe and I am sure many of my colleagues believe that the benefits are greater than the risks. The Governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador have entered into an agreement with Mobil Oil and the joint venture participants on the development of Hibernia.
A lot of this will be summary, but as a result of the fiscal agreement the Government of Canada will contribute 25 per cent of the pre-production capital costs, up to a value of $1 billion. It will guarantee loans for 40 per cent of the pre-production capital costs, up to a maximum guarantee of $1.7 billion. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will remove the retail sales tax on project capital costs, reduce the retail sales tax on operating costs to 4 per cent, accept a price sensitive royalty regime, and provide $10 million to the project for specific engineering activities in the province. In return, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will earn net revenues from the project of between $2.6 billion and $5.1 billion, based on 1987 oil prices. I have not yet got the projections for the present oil prices. I
can only assume that they will be greater. These are conservative estimates.
Both governments will also earn a substantial share of the profits if the oil prices surge again, which they are now doing, but who knows where they are going to be 20 years from now, and if the reserves prove larger than expected.
I would have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that I believe like the song says: "This is going to be the start of something big." We know there are two more oil fields. Twenty miles south of Hibernia is the Terra Nova oil field, and not far from the Terra Nova oil field is the Ben Nevis oil field. Who knows, we believe there are more out there.
These revenue figures basically refer to the tax principles and the royalties involved. They do not include the economic benefits that accrue from the creation of jobs or industrial opportunities for individual firms.
As a result of the negotiations that were recently concluded, the commitments to Canada and Newfoundland benefits were reinforced, and certain aspects were incorporated as formal undertakings. These undertakings are summarized.
Regarding the employment and the procurement benefits, in a sense fair opportunity is given where fair opportunity can be given. Indeed, the best efforts are being made to achieve the Canadian and Newfoundland target content on a competitive basis of 45 per cent to 50 per cent. This includes the estimated 40 per cent to 50 per cent of module fabrication and up to 90 per cent and maybe 100 per cent of fabrication of decks and preassemblies in the outfitting of the concrete base.
They are to have their performance with respect to these targets monitored by the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, which will examine reasons for possible shortfalls and measures to overcome them.
I will say now I am aware that the Newfoundland government is setting up a combination of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Newfoundland provincially. I do not know the structure or the details. I believe that there is work under way to set up a special monitoring team to make sure that this project does what it says it was going to do and what it really should be doing.
October 4, 1990

Then we have the main support frame, assembly and outfitting. Of course that will take place in Newfoundland.
The engineering itself is again to make the best efforts to achieve a target of 80 per cent to 90 per cent in Canada for project management. Engineering design is for the gravity base structure, topsides and the articulated loading platform that I described earlier along with the subsea pipelines.
Fifty per cent of the gravity base structure design engineering and 100 per cent of the design engineering for the accommodation facilities-very important-flare boom, helideck and subsea export lines are in Newfoundland.
They are to package the engineering contracts, to promote participation of Canadian and Newfoundland businesses, to encourage the formation of national engineering consortia to qualify for the project, and to award the project services and topside engineering contract to a consortium with a majority Canadian equity participation and commensurate direction. That is in the process of happening now. In fact some of it has happened. Finally, they are to include the assessment of benefits as a key factor in the awarding of engineering contracts.
It has been my great privilege to stand in this House of Commons and to talk about this project. It is one that is dear to my heart. I know my colleagues support it. Many colleagues on both sides of the House see this as a vision that has come to fruition, a vision that is about to become a reality.
Again, I mentioned I was involved in two projects from the very beginning: the concept and the paper that now will be a Canadian patrol frigate program. It was written in 1977.1 first saw the frigate as a whole frigate 12 years later. I cannot convey to you, Mr. Speaker, the feeling of translating the vision and words on paper to something that is a reality.
I sense that perhaps it would be inadequate just to summarize and sort of say that I am finished.
I would like to quote King Solomon who I believe was recorded to have said: "Without vision the people perish." This was a vision, but I will say also that without jobs the people starve. Somewhere in between the vision and the jobs, there has been an awful lot of hard word that has gone on-and the hon. minister mentioned it
Government Orders
this morning-by politicians, by businessmen, by bureaucrats, by civil servants, by the average person in the field, by everybody involved.
I have not found any one person who has been touched by this project, who has been anything but positive. There are negative people, there are pessimists around and for reason. With the uncertainty involved, there are bound to be some people who will say it is not going to work, you are going to lose money, you are going to lose equalization payments or you will not get all those jobs. That is fair enough and I defend their right to feel that way, but I would say that as this project proceeds those who will be optimistic will far and increasingly outnumber those who are pessimistic about the success of this project and about the kind of benefits that we will derive from it.
There is a spirit in Hibernia. I call it the Hibernia spirit. People ask me: "Why is it called Hibernia". I say: "I don't know. I like the name Hibernia. I am sure there are all kinds of reasons for it". The spirit is there and the other thing that I sense is-I wish I could find a more musical, a more sophisticated, a more esoteric term to call it but I cannot-a psychological kick, and I like that psychological kick. I sense it in the province. I sense it on open line shows. I sense it in the newspaper, and I sense it in my colleagues when we talk about things.
One must not underestimate the power of confidence, both in the business world and among the general public. The tangible benefits of Hibernia itself may still be years away and sustained prosperity may yet still be a dream. I will acknowledge that, but the project will do its job if Canada in general and Newfoundland in particular can milk the mood of optimism and push the economic spectators and pessimists back into the playing field as we forge ahead with this omnipotent, wonderful, welcome, fantastic, project.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Before recognizing the hon. member for Edmonton East, 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 Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand)-Official languages; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn (Mr. Fisher)-Human rights; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Employment.

October 4, 1990
Government Orders

The hon. member for Edmonton East has the floor.


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton East, has 20 minutes. I certainly do not want to take any part of that from him, but I am wondering if I could get consent for government members to split the time in the next 20 minutes so that two of our colleagues could have the opportunity to speak.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House willing to agree to 10-minute speeches instead of 20-minute speeches?


Some hon. members:: No.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, having been a representative in this House for almost eight years and two weeks, there has always been a gentlemen's agreement that the opportunity-


Ms. Mitchell:: What about women?


An hon. member:: And gentlewomen.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: And gentlewomen. There has always been consent that the time allocation could be split. I am wondering if maybe we could continue along with the opportunity of individuals having the right to do so.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford, on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to harass the hon. member. However, I have been a member of this House for 11 years, and all I can say is that gentlemen's agreements belong to a time when people were prepared to respect the other person's right to speak.
Considering what happened yesterday, and I am referring to the obvious lack of co-operation with requests by the Bloc quebecois, we certainly are not prepared to do government members a favour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, on the same point of order.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think that if hon. members would care to look it up, they would find that according to Standing Order 43, the Chair has every right to recognize whom it wishes. If the Chair decides to recognize two members of the same party, one after the other, and if these two members decide they will each speak only ten minutes, I think the Chair would be perfectly free to accommodate the members. And if the members in question were each to speak only ten minutes, I would have no objection.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that after those ten minutes, members are also entitled to ten minutes of questions and answers.
Consequently, the matter is not as straightforward as he seems to think. In any case, if the hon. member wants to speak for five minutes or two minutes or whatever- In most cases, however, if they have nothing to say, they should refrain from taking the floor and give our colleagues a chance who do have some important things to say.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I think on this point of order it is worth bearing in mind that the only reason the question arises at all is because, for reasons known best to them, certainly not understood by us, it was the government that brought in the time allocation that is guillotining this debate a half an hour from now. It is their own damn fault, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but I did not hear the question put by the hon. member for Edmonton East.


An hon. member:: It's not a question. It was just a comment.

October 4, 1990


Ross Harvey: It is not a question, Mr. Speaker, it was a contribution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Now, on debate, do you wish to speak?


Ross Harvey: Pardon?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Do you want to speak on the debate?


Ross Harvey: Yes, please.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit there were times today when I thought the moment would never arrive at all. I realize the disappointment my rising now must inspire in some quarters of this House, however I feel compelled in the interests of the people of Canada to proceed, regardless, Mr. Speaker.
In setting out so to do I should like to note again for the record a brief remark delivered by the hon. minister close to the beginning of his speech this morning in which he, referring to all members that have participated in the debate over the Hibernia bill, said that they had "debated this bill but have always supported Hibernia".
I would like, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to note this once and for all. The bill that is before this House has received the vigorous opposition of the New Democratic Party caucus at every stage. Mr. Speaker, it is the bill that has received that opposition. We have no objection in principle to the Hibernia project. I wish that to be utterly clear.
Further, if a group of private sector proponents were to come to the Government of Canada and say: "Hey, Government of Canada, we've got all this money here. We want to build Hibernia," and if in so doing they were able to satisfy the EARP process, which by the way to this day has not been undertaken with regard to the Hibernia project, and if they were able to satisfy certain other social and economic criteria, fine, no problem. Let them at it.
But, Mr. Speaker, the minute a penny of public money becomes involved in a project, it is most legitimately the business of this House and it is the duty of the members of this House to closely consider the wisdom of the
Government Orders
regime under which it is proposed that public money be spent.
It is exactly the same thing as if I was to stumble into this House one day and say: "Hey, guys, gals, we got this plan out in Alberta. We are going to extract penicillin from cowhide. The only thing is we need a billion dollars. It is going to make all kinds of jobs. I mean, we are going to employ everybody from Coutts to Fort Chipewyan, but we do need the billion bucks."
I would expect that hon. members of this House would look at that, they would sort of scratch their chins and say: "Hm-m-m. Sounds a bit fuzzy but let's have a look."
That would be proper. It would be absolutely proper for the members of this House to adopt that attitude, which is precisely the attitude that the New Democratic Party caucus has adopted in this House. I am sorry if it has disappointed many of the hon. members here that we have declined to join in the hallelujah chorus in this instance, but it is a declination we shall maintain because the terms of the bill are inadequate. It is not a good deal for the people of Canada. In fact, it is a profoundly bad deal for the people of Canada.
I say this in the main because, right at the outset, the bill proposes to give $1,040 million to the proponents of the project. That is: give, Mr. Speaker. In the quaint language of the bill itself, it is called a "contribution". The same thing as "gift". That, we cannot support.
Time and time again I have raised the question, why not equity? If indeed the project is one that has merit- and we believe it is a project with merit - why then must we give the money away if government participation is required, and we are willing to accept the argument, given the risks involved and the huge capital nature of the project? Some public involvement is quite likely warranted. Why can we not invest it as, in fact, do the private sector proponents of the project?
Mobil Oil is not giving money to the Hibernia project. Petro-Canada is not giving money to the Hibernia project. They are investing money in the Hibernia project. It is only the people of Canada, through this bill and, I should note, the people of Newfoundland through the various concessions that have been wrested from their provincial government, that are giving away money to this project. It is not warranted because that public participation could easily be undertaken in the form of

October 4, 1990
Government Orders
equity, as has been the case in other energy megaprojects.
The Government of Ontario is a 25 per cent equity partner in the Suncor project, the very first of the large oil sands projects in northeastern Alberta. The government of Alberta, through its oil sands equity held by the trust fund is an equity participant in the Syncrude project. The Government of Canada is an equity participant to the tune of more than 31 per cent in the Lloydminster Bi-Provincial upgrader. All of these megaprojects have proceeded with public money. The difference is that in each instance that money has found its way into the project by way of equity earning a return for the people whose money it is; in this instance, the people of Canada.
I would note just in passing that in the 1980s the people of Alberta, from their 16 per cent share of the Syncrude project, reaped over $400 million net because of that equity participation. That is a tidy piece of change.
It is the sort of thing that could lighten the deficit load borne by our poor finance minister. But, no, Mr. Speaker, the bill before this House proposes simply to give that money away.
During the progress of this bill in this House and in committee, I could not help but be impressed by the wonderful congruence of interest apparently displayed by the Conservatives and the Liberals. There is a touching unanimity in this instance that has manifested itself in a number of ways and on a number of occasions from the merely obscurantist to the downright offensive.
In the former category, Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to the fact that on June 12, 1990, in committee, I directly questioned the Minister of Energy regarding the question of where the oil to be produced at Hibernia would go. I asked the minister, and I quote from the record of the committee:
What was the department's best estimate of the percentage of
Hibernia production that will be shipped to foreign market and
never seen in a Canadian refinery?
The minister answered:
Mr. Chairman, it is possible that some of the production over a given period of time entirely could go to a refinery other than Canadian, primarily refineries in the northeast United States. It will depend, quite frankly, on Canadian refineries bidding on some of that crude.
I asked the minister:
Have you a percentage?
The minister responded:
I do not think we do.
I asked the minister:
Have you a ballpark, a guess, a stab in the dark?
The minister responded:
It will only be that, Mr. Chairman, a stab in the dark.
I urged the minister, "go ahead". The minister responded:
I cannot say, Mr. Chairman, because it would relate to the oil flow of the consortium and their supplies, both national and international.
I asked:
So the department does not even have a guess?
The minister responded:
Well, Mr. Chairman, it gets into the whole matter of companies and their own contracts. That makes it very difficult for an energy minister to try to assert himself at this stage.
A half a year before, appearing in the Senate energy committee where there are only Liberals and Conservatives, where there is a comfortable muzzling of anything that may be raised, the chairman of that committee, a senator from Calgary, asked the minister: "I would like to return to Hibernia for a moment and a question prompted by Mr. Hopper's testimony to the effect that if Hibernia crude comes onstream it will probably move to the United States". The minister responded: "There is no question about probably, Mr. Chairman, it will move to the U.S."
It must be a terrible thing to be a minister of the Crown, to have what was certainty in December change to the ineffable, the indefinable, the airy and ethereal, by June. That is what happened here, or perhaps it was the change in altitude between the committee room, being a room in the Senate, and the committee meeting room in the House. But regardless of what it was, straightforward answers, answers with some kind of relation to reality, were not to be had, at least not by me in the committee.



We now move to the more grotesque elements of suppression of information here. In this very House yesterday, when a motion taking at face value the assertions of those who hold that this project will be a virtual economic second coming for the people of Newfoundland and for many others across Canada as well, that this will result in a level of prosperity and employment that will just leave everybody leaping up and down with joy, taking all that at face value, the hon. member for Kamloops, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, proposed an amendment at report stage which would simply ask that once a year somebody in government put together a detailed presentation on how wonderful it had become.
We asked in this motion that a report be presented annually to the House indicating (a) the net direct and indirect economic benefits in each Canadian province which results from the Hibernia development project; (b) the net employment benefits in each Canadian province which results from the Hibernia development project, including an analysis of job classifications and salary levels; and (c) the quantities and percentages of oil production which are exported in unrefined or semi-refined states from the project site. That was it in its entirety. It was just a request to see at annual intervals how swell the whole thing had become. You know what happened? Every single member of the Conservative and Liberal caucuses present rose in their places to vote against it, including the hon. member who just took up half a day singing the praises of the project.
These folk are willing to have us buy a pig in a poke. They are willing to have us take a flyer on this project, but they are not willing to let the people of Canada see how it works out over time. What are they afraid of? What are they hiding? What is it in these wonderful predictions that they fear will not be borne out? Could it be that these full time 1,100 jobs, for example, that we are going to wind up with at the end of the project are not going to be found in Newfoundland or even in Canada but, in fact, may be found in the majority in the offices of Mobil in the United States? We do not know. In the absence of any willingness by the Conservatives or the Liberals to engage in any kind of long-term disclosure, I must confess I got me some doubts.
Government Orders
There is another matter here, getting back again to the financing of the project. It is not just the $1,040 million that we will give to this project, which I would like every Canadian citizen to know, is $40 for every man, woman and child in this country. Forty dollars a head, straight to Hibernia in a gift. The people of Canada can amuse themselves thinking about that when they start paying the GST in January. They can think that first $40 of GST they paid-it will take $570 worth of purchases to do it-that first $40 of GST they paid: bang, off to Hibernia. If we roll in the loan guarantees and the loans as well, that is another $2,135 billion. That is $82 per capita. Eighty two bucks in GST. That is $1,170 worth of purchases in the new year on which the GST is paid, bang, off to Hibernia. That is just in the legislation authorizing the $1.4 billion contribution.
There is as well the matter before the House now of the privatization of Petro-Canada. Part of this privatization scheme is to take the first 15 per cent share offering and plough all that money right back into the company. Market analysts who know a lot more about this than I do have been quoted publicly as saying that that is going to generate somewhere around $500 million to $700 million for Petro-Canada. Do you know what the value of Petro-Canada's participation in Hibernia is, Mr. Speaker? It is somewhere between $500 million and $700 million. That is what their equity share will amount to. That means, given that the public purse is being ripped off for this 15 per cent share that is going to be ploughed back into this heroically privatized Petro-Canada, the people of Canada are in fact going to wind up footing a bill of somewhere between $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion. Free money to Hibernia. Not to put too fine an edge on it, this is nuts. This is bizarre.
When I came to the House less than two years ago, I never thought I would see the day when these Conservatives-who keep proclaiming their undying fealty to the free market, their unalloyed devotion to the market red in tooth and claw-propose that the Canadian taxpayer with a smile on her or his lips just give $1.5 billion so that Mobil Oil can ship oil out of the Atlantic Ocean down to the northeast United States. This defies credulity, but it seems to be the case. It is odd, it is bizarre, but it is the

October 4, 1990
Government Orders
case. It is why again I say, and again I note, that our caucus cannot in conscience support this bill.
I am astonished that the Liberals can put themselves through whatever contortions are required in order to do so. I have lost my capacity to be astounded at the actions of the government, however.
In conclusion, there are merits to the Hibernia project. These are merits that the NDP has recognized for a long time. These are merits that the NDP would like to see developed further, but not at any price and not as the consequence of a ludicrous deal struck by some irresponsible federal government with the sharpies of the private sector oil industry. Mr. Speaker, they was took and we ain't gonna to be a party to their being took.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Since I do not have much time, Mr. Speaker, I will ask a few questions to the hon. member for Edmonton East and perhaps he might respond when I am finished.
First I should like to hear his assessment of the national spin-offs from the Hibernia project. I should like to know whether he agrees with the statement that Canadian manufacturers and suppliers using Canadian resources can provide between 55 and 60 per cent of whatever will be needed to complete the project, as compared to 25 to 35 per cent in similar works in other countries with the kind of know-how we have in Canada.
My second question has to do with the benefits for the province of Quebec. We know that, for technical reasons, some of the facilities have to be built on site in Newfoundland, but 40 per cent of the remainder of the Canadian production will go to the province of Quebec.
In his response I would like the hon. member to elaborate on his remarks about the fact that a Montreal firm-SNC-will manage projects valued at $360 million in professional fees. I would also ask him to comment on the fact that companies in Montreal like Atlas and Janin which are going to manage all the subcontracts in this area- I wish you would comment on how important it is for a Quebec company to manage subcontracts and do business with its usual subcontractors. I also wish he would comment on the fact that since Quebec engineers will do the design work, and I am sure they will do so
knowledgeably, Quebec companies will tender for the projects concerned. I would appreciate his comments in this respect.
I also wish he would tell us what he thinks about the fact that his project will help develop, in Quebec and in Eastern Canada, the kind of expertise that is comparable to what they have in Calgary, a type of expertise we did not have before.
That being said, I would ask him whether he agrees that in my riding there would be two to three million hours worth of work for employees at the Lauzon shipyards and whether he agrees there might be two to three million hours of work for technicians, professionals and administrative personnel.
Finally, I wish the hon. member for Edmonton East would tell me whether he agrees that the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister for External Trade, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister of Canada are to be commended on an excellent project for Canada as a whole and for Quebec in particular.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the last question is no.
I am sorry. I realize I should have been taking notes through all that. Unfortunately I never did learn shorthand. I will try to wrap this all together in one lump.
What the hon. member seems to have been asking me is whether or not I think it is a good thing that all these wonderful things, allegedly, will be happening in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
Well, Mr. Speaker, yes. I applaud industrial work in Quebec and Canada. I think it is a good thing that Canadian working people have jobs. I think it is a good thing that Canadian working people have jobs with good pay, good benefits, and long-term security. That is one of the main reasons I am in this circus, Mr. Speaker.
But I am curious. Assuming that the hon. member is right-and that is all any of us can do unless there is somebody here with a crystal ball I don't know about- but assuming the hon. member is right why would he have been so distressed at the prospect of an annual report proving him to be right?
October 4, 1990

Government Orders
If in fact all these delightful benefits that he alleges will transpire in consequence of the spending of somewhere around $1.5 billion of public federal money free of charge into the Hibernia project, if he is right that in fact these benefits would accrue therefrom, why hide his light under a bushel? Why defeat or, at least, join in the defeating of a motion that would have made that plain to all for years to come?
I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I do not know, but I would like to ask one other question.


An hon. member:: You're supposed to answer the question.


Ross Harvey: It is the Socratic method, don't you know?


An hon. member:: No, we don't know.


Ross Harvey: Well, look it up some time.
Presumably these benefits would not evaporate like the dew in the morning if the public participation in the project were in the form of equity. Presumably, if the project proceeded with public equity, it would still need the same manufacturing, it would still require the employment of the same persons, and it would still produce the same spin-offs.
So, what's the problem? If in fact the members opposite are sincere in their desire for all these good things, and I have no reason to doubt that they are-


Mr. McCurdy:: Oh? Why not doubt?


Ross Harvey: Because I am a charitable man and I try always to believe the best of everyone.


An hon. member:: Don't be a naive man.


Ross Harvey: Oh, no, I would never be that. I hope I have proven that.
Mr. Speaker, add one more good thing on top. Add equity for the amount of money you put in so that the Canadian people can get the fair return to which they are entitled in the event of the success of the project. That is all we ask. Their consistent refusal to entertain that proposal leaves us asking questions. Sorry about that.


An hon. member:: They cannot do that, that is why.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. You have two minutes left.


Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, first of all, unlike what was said by the future ex-member for Levis, there are no guarantees in this project for contracts in Quebec.
Second, we must not forget that Quebec is an importer of oil, and as far as I know, the Hibernia project will not be subject to control by the National Energy Board of Canada, according to article 41C of the Canada-Newfoundland Agreement, which only provides guarantees for the Maritime Provinces.
When we know that Quebec imports 39 per cent of its oil from Western Canada, when we consider the Sarnia regulations that were made to prevent existing refineries in Quebec from exporting, when we consider all that, it is clear this project does not offer any economic benefits for Quebec and that in case of oil shortages, Quebec is not protected by the Canada-Newfoundland Agreement. The members of the Conservative Party certainly did not consider that aspect or, if they are aware of it, next time they will probably get 3.9 per cent or 4 per cent of the vote as they did in Laurier-Sainte-Marie!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The period for questions and comments has expired. There are two minutes left.

The hon. member for St. John's East.


Mr. Reid:: On debate, Mr. Speaker.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. member:: It is finished.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that I have the right to respond to my hon. colleague's comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but the period for questions and comments has now expired. The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.

October 4, 1990
Government Orders


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, in the two minutes that I have, I want to sum up, if I may, having spoken twice in the last week on this question.
The first question that we as a country must ask is, do we want an oil and gas industry developed off the east coast of the country for the benefit of all Canadians?
The second question, therefore, is how do we-as Canadians, as governments, as industries, as people who provide jobs, create wealth and create commerce in this country-accommodate that?
Then, we must ask, is it possible that the needs and the interests of all the parties can be met in designing a project that will lead to other projects and to the creation of these jobs and this wealth?
Over the last number of years the Newfoundland government, the Government of Canada, the oil and gas companies that have the knowledge, the capability, and the industrial capacity to develop this project, have come together in the interests of those parties individually, but also in the interests of all Canadians.
We have not been able to come up with a proposal that is 100 per cent satisfactory to everybody. We never will. That cannot happen. We have a proposal that makes everyone happy. It is in the best interests of all Canadians now and in the future.
As we move from this day to the development of this project into production; as we see other projects develop and move into production; as we see jobs created; as we see Canadians across the country work to contribute to this project, the financial commitment of the government and the people of Canada will have been worth while. As all Canadians witness the benefit of the growth of an offshore oil and gas industry on the east coast of the country, a benefit that will make Canadians competitive and develop an industry, we will see others develop around it.
Those who speak against this project do not have the interests of the country at heart. Those who speak against this bill are not being reasonable and-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. It being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, October 2, 1990 and in accordance with Standing Order 78, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to,	Bill read the third time and passed
Private Members' Business PRIVILEGE RIGHT TO DIFFER
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton East on a question of privilege.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, Madam Speaker, and I already gave you notice.
Madam Speaker, in Le Droit of today, October 4, there is an article headlined "Liberals Want Duceppe Out"-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. It is just that with the noise in the House I cannot hear her. It would be very difficult for me to have any opinion whatsoever on something I could not hear. If conversations could be held behind the curtains, it would be very helpful.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I want to dissociate myself from these remarks of a few colleagues who do not represent the views of all Liberals. Madam Speaker, may I say that in spite of all the efforts I make to fight the idea of separation in the province of Quebec, I will defend the rights of all duly elected members of the House, including those whose political opinion I do not share.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE ENVIRONMENT TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE OF WASTE WATERS
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of co-operating with municipal, regional, towardand provincial governments in establishing a cost-shared

October 4, 1990
Private Members' Business
program toward the implementation of innovative programs for the treatment and discharge of domestic and industrial waste waters, which programs would include alternative methods of land-based disposal.
He said: Madam Speaker, I would like you, for a moment, to imagine that you are on vacation in Quebec and you are strolling along the banks of the St. Lawrence River, enjoying the beauty of the oncoming fall colours and the peaceful respite of your solitude with nature. Suddenly, along the water's edge approaches no fewer than 15,000 garbage trucks. You are, naturally, mystified by the procession and horrified as each truck pulls up to the edge of the river bank and proceeds to dump its foul contents into the swirling waters. Naturally, as anyone would be, you are outraged. You rush to alert the authorities about the environmental horror and are even more shocked when you are politely told that this is in fact nothing unusual, that it happens every day.
Preposterous, you say. Well, quite the contrary, because although it does not happen in such an obvious manner, the fact is that these 15,000 garbage trucks represent the equivalent of the 500 million litres of untreated waste water and the 50 metric tons of raw sewage that are dumped into the St. Lawrence River every day of the year, and it represents the kind of despoliation that occurs daily across this country of ours, pollution that occurs because from Victoria to St. John's, our Canadian towns and municipalities are struggling with outdated and inadequate sewage treatment and waste management facilities.
A while back, some towns along the Ottawa River had to close beaches to swimming because the heavy rains had overwhelmed the municipal sewage treatment facilities. Out west, where six pulp mills along the Fraser River dump an estimated 32,000 tonnes of toxic waste into the river every year, environmental organizations have now labelled the Fraser the biggest open sewer line in British Columbia. In some areas, such as Newcastle, New Brunswick, creeping groundwater pollution from industrial leakage has contaminated the city water supply to the point that residents of that town have to rely on delivery trucks to supply bottled water, at a cost of some $32,000 each week.
There is a danger in our water. There is a danger in our lakes and our river systems that support our wildlife and our fisheries, and a danger to the Canadian people who must consume this resource. It is a danger that we,
as Canadians, are only now becoming aware of. Many Canadians today do not believe the assurances that Canada's tap water is safe to drink. According to a Gallup poll published last October, some 95 per cent of Canadians are concerned about the health quality of their drinking water, water that often must be treated extensively to remove sewage contaminants before actually being consumed. The fact is, we have been reckless. We have been reckless about the judicious husbandry of an invaluable resource in this country, a resource we have taken for granted because as everyone, including our envious neighbours to the south believe, Canada has oodles of water. But, does it? Despite the fact that Canada holds some 20 per cent of the world's freshwater supplies, only 9 per cent of that is available for our use. The rest is termed fossil water, a legacy of the last ice age, and that 9 per cent is a resource at risk.
As well, over 60 per cent of our rivers flow northward where only 10 per cent of Canada's population lives. Major sections of our population throughout the prairies and the interior dry belt of British Columbia live in areas of chronic water shortage and must rely on groundwater supplies that are becoming increasingly contaminated.
Canadians have, largely out of ignorance, squandered their water resources. Canadians on a per capita basis are the world's second largest consumer of freshwater. We squander some 4,100 litres of water each day for every man, woman and child in this country. For too long water in Canada has been treated as a free commodity with no incentive for conservation. It is estimated that it takes some 5,000 litres of water just to put a restaurant meal on the table. The average Canadian uses about 500 litres of water each day, although his or her biological needs are only about one or two litres a day. Think about this. It takes over 10,000 litres of water to raise half a pound of beef. When considering evaporation from irrigation, it requires some 1,500 litres of fresh water every day to nourish a single apple tree growing in the Okanagan Valley.
Evidence of our over-exploitation of fresh water resources is all around us. Experts have been warning us for years. We need to curb the wasteful use of fresh water supplies. We need to develop the appropriate methods to replenish our waste waters and we need to reduce the outrageous dumping of industrial and domestic wastes into our rivers and lakes.
October 4, 1990

Our groundwater reservoirs, or aquifers as they called, are increasingly polluted by pesticides, agricultural chemicals, runoff from domestic and industrial dumps, leakage from underground gasoline, oil and septic tanks. In our lakes and rivers, pollution from human activities has destroyed aquatic life, is inhibiting the reproductive capacity of mammals and birds and now seriously threatens the health of Canadian citizens. Such pollution has seriously disturbed the composition of wildlife species and has increased the rate of species extinction in Canada. It is estimated that aquatic ecosystems in some parts of North America have lost up to 20 per cent of their indigenous species because of acidification of our lakes.
Estimates of the number of lakes at risk in Canada from pollution of airborne contaminants range up to 600,000. Already as many as 100,000 lakes have been seriously damaged. Another 14,000 are biologically dead. Over 360 chemical compounds have been found in our Great Lakes. Among them are a number of persistent toxins which due to biomagnification and concentration build up in our food pyramid and affect those animal species at the top of the pyramid, including man.
Alkylated lead, benzopyrene, ethylenediamine tetra acetate, hexachlorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, words which are a mouthful in themselves, aromatic hydrocarbons with exotic names and a deadly reputation.
Industrial polluters annually discharge over 7.8 billion litres of liquid waste into Canadian lakes and rivers, an amount that is equal to the water that flows over the Niagara Falls in one 10-hour interval. It is no wonder that of the 10 most highly valued species of fish in Lake Ontario, seven have almost completely disappeared. It is no wonder that of the species still remaining, tumours and cancerous lesions have been found in their tissues. It is no wonder that the beluga whale, the friendly giants, as they call them, of the St. Lawrence have dwindled from a population of over 5,000 at the turn of the century to only 500 today. For the embattled beluga, the victims of deadly toxins spewing out of municipal and industrial waste sites, the St. Lawrence has become a war zone, a war in which the ultimate victim is man himself.
Private Members' Business
I could go on citing specific instances of serious pollution over Canada's waters from one coast to the other, but I think my point has been made perhaps alarmingly clear. The fact is that we can no longer use our waterways as convenient repositories for our wastes. To allow our mighty rivers, the St. Lawrence, the Fraser, the Columbia, the Saskatchewan, the Ottawa, to become nothing more than open sewers is to squander the trust that has been bestowed upon us as the caretakers of this great land.
To continue along our present path jeopardizes the integrity of our environment and with it our economic well-being. In fact, what is at stake here is our very survival. Yet, despite this impending reality Canadian governments, including this government, have been notoriously slow to respond.
The Ontario government's environmental ministry-I speak of the former government-showed that half of the province's industries and one-third of its municipal treatment plants violated water pollution guidelines in 1988.
The Quebec Chamber of Commerce recently commented, an astounding comment, that the provincial government would never close down an industry if it is going to cost jobs, no matter how badly it is harming the environment.
In British Columbia, the Vancouver Sun reported that many of B.C.'s pulp mills would face criminal prosecution if federal guidelines were simply enforced. In fact, it was recently exposed that senior officials and those above, as the quote says, in the federal ministry of fisheries actually blocked legal action against major industrial polluters in the pulp mill industry in B.C. That is an absolutely scandalous situation.
In many parts of Canada municipalities unable to afford the cost of upgrading their sewage treatment facilities continue to contribute knowingly, but what choice have they, to water pollution by dumping untreated or partially treated sewage into the lakes and into the surrounding streams.
In Quebec only 250 of the provinces 1,500 municipalities actually have sewage treatment plants. I think that is about 16 per cent, but it represents only about 6 per cent

October 4, 1990
Private Members' Business
of the province's population. Less than half of Montreal's sewage is treated. The rest is dumped, millions of gallons a day of raw sewage, into the St. Lawrence.
In Ontario, about one-third of the province's municipalities dump partially treated but substandard sewage into its lakes and rivers.
In Newfoundland, more than 48,000 households simply cannot afford and do not have adequate water and sewer service.
The Pearce report of 1985, entitled Currents of Change, calculated that on a national average, only 57 per cent of Canada's population is in fact served by sewage treatment plants. This compares with some 74 per cent of the American population that is serviced by sewage treatment and 99 per cent of the Swedish population who are also served by treatment facilities. So we are well behind the ballgame.
That report became the basis for this federal government's 1987 federal water policy, a policy which has been referred to in the government's often touted green plan, but a document like The Green Plan has remained a toothless statement of philosophical objectives with essentially no legislation to back it up.
However, the federal water policy does commit the government to co-operative approaches with respect to water management with the provinces who, under the provisions of the federal Constitution, exercise direct control over our water resources.
The policy states: "The federal government intends to work with the provinces and territories to encourage safe and sufficient supplies of fresh water" and to "encourage the use of fresh water in an efficient and equitable manner consistent with social, cultural, and environmental needs."
The policy also talks about protecting and enhancing the quality of Canada's waters. Also, it talks about promoting co-operative federal and provincial endeavours, as well as undertaking and supporting research and development in these issues. It also emphasizes the need for an integrated approach to water management.
A reasonable person could only interpret these comments as a commitment from the government, this administration, to become directly involved with water management in co-operation with other levels of government. This is what it says right there in the federal water policy. That commitment, I submit, although it may be well-intentioned, has never been realized.
I think it is time that the government replaced rhetoric with action. Consultants' studies, policy statements, and green plan documents-these must be supplanted with legislative commitments from the government that will take firm action on Canada's threatened water resources.
That is why my colleagues and I urge the Minister of the Environment to consider specific legislative initiatives that will allow the federal government to develop cost-shared programs for the implementation of innovative projects for the treatment and discharge of municipal and industrial waste waters.
Further, I would urge that these programs incorporate opportunities for the investigation and the experimentation of alternative methods of sewage disposal, such as land based sewage alternatives.
I have heard the arguments that, because water resources are a provincial concern, really the solutions should be left to the provinces. But I reiterate that the government's own stated policy is to work co-operatively with other governments with respect to our inland waters. When it comes right down to it, the pollution of one of our most precious resources should be everyone's concern.
I have made a lot of statements critical about the health of Canada's water resources, so I would like to point out that there are also some real success stories in the country.
For example, the communities of Vernon and Osoyoos in the Okanagan Valley have demonstrated what can be accomplished when a community sets its mind to the task of cleaning up its own back yard. These two communities-one in the north end of the valley and one in the south end of the valley-have put their sewage to work for them. They have been disposing of it as treated waste water on surrounding grasslands and crops. In so doing, they have actually helped keep the sewage out of the interior lakes and have aided in the restoration of the quality of the waters of those lakes.
I want to add at this point that the town of Vernon is now attempting to expand its spray irrigation program where the treated effluent is sprayed on the surrounding
October 4, 1990

agricultural land. It wants to expand that by implementing a pilot project for what it terms wildland irrigation. In this concept, treated effluent is applied to the wildlands such as forest crops. In the case of Vernon, the wildland crop is poplar trees. The nutrients are taken up by the trees, enhance the growth of the trees, and can actually be put to a commercial use.
I want to submit that these kinds of innovative efforts take money. They take more money than our financially strapped communities across Canada can afford. Often, they take more money than provinces can afford.
Many worthwhile projects for sewage treatment sit idle because the cost is too great for these smaller players to go it alone. That is why I submit that the federal government has to lend a helping hand to the communities, as well as to the provinces, in addressing this long-term and increasingly difficult problem. Cost-shared programs between municipal, provincial, and federal authorities to clean up Canada's waters are needed and have actually been sought for some time. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities warns that throughout Canada public health and safety, as well as economic development, are at risk because basic investments have not been made in the needed facilities.
In closing, I would like to say that the government has a unique opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to water quality through a number of initiatives. For example the community of Vernon, working with a local environmental society called the Save our Lakes, or SOL, society has made application for federal funding for their wildland irrigation project that I just talked about. Through this project, the town of Vernon and the community could well pave the way for the development throughout Canada of an innovative and commercially viable means of removing sewage from our lakes and our rivers.
The application for the project was made through the newly created Environmental Partners Fund and to date it has fallen only on deaf ears by the government. I appeal to the Minister of the Environment to seize the initiative by funding worthwhile projects such as Vernon's wildland irrigation schemes. Put your commitment on the line by funding these co-operative ventures.
Private Members' Business
The time for reports, the time for policy papers is over. The time is now for action.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap for his very illuminating address and his very sincere expression of interest in a major problem, a major area of concern to all Canadians.
I would like to address his subject from a different point of view and to talk a little bit about who pays. Obviously, all members in the House would support the objective to provide Canadians with safe clean water for drinking and for other uses. However, the underlying thrust of the motion seems to be aimed at drawing the federal government back into direct subsidies of municipal infrastructure.
I am pleased to say that I had the experience some years ago of acting as Mayor of Fredericton and as president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, participating and co-chairing the last tri-level conference of government in the country. We made a very serious effort at some formal structure to bring federal financing directly into the municipal stream through and around the provinces. We were not very successful. It was a very, I would say, aggressive effort by provincial governments to insist that municipalities were creatures of the provinces and therefore any aid to come from the federal government should go to the provinces and be distributed by them to the municipalities, and that the federal government should, in effect, keep its hands off direct municipal intervention. To some extent, I think that that remains true today.
The question of who should pay for municipal infrastructure was also debated, as many members will recall, at great length throughout the 1980s. To a large extent, the real questions being debated today is who will face the unpopular task of coaxing more dollars out of the taxpayers' pockets and who will do the more popular job of spending it.
There are three viewpoints which dominate that debate. The first group, not exclusively but primarily at the municipal level, paints legitimate horror stories about the state of our water supplies and sewage systems. They are emphatic that the job is just too big financially for municipalities to handle. They say that senior government must provide hefty subsidies and besides, they say,

October 4, 1990
Private Members' Business
the senior government will get it all back through fiscal recapture and it will, in addition, solve our unemployment problems in the process.
Critics of this group did not deny that municipalities were struggling with very real problems in municipal finance, particularly as their ratepayers demanded higher levels and more elaborate levels of service. However, they questioned the logic of municipalities and their taxpayers subsidizing each other through federal and provincial coffers. They also questioned whether the fiscal recapture was real or largely illusory.
The second group-let us call them constitutional purists-generally supported these criticisms. However, they went somewhat further. They pointed to the Constitution as giving one role to the federal government and another, for matters of local concern, to the provinces. They pointed to the hefty level of transfer payments already made to the provinces and to the huge deficit and debt service charges at the federal level, about which we debate in the House almost every day.
They questioned whether federal dollars would be regarded as found money with equivalent amounts being transferred to more glamorous municipal projects and very little being done over all toward putting water and sewer systems on a sound financial footing, ensuring technological improvement, or effecting conservation of water in quality and quantity terms.
Surprisingly, the constitutional purists' group was not found totally at the federal level. Provinces frequently reminded the federal government that municipalities are their business. That was their line back in 1974 when I was last involved in this debate. Ottawa may help to provide the money, but the provinces feel that the priority, distribution of funding, and the standards by which it is distributed are their prerogatives. This sentiment also found some expression at the municipal level. Municipalities, such as Fredericton where I reside, which had provided their own residents with a high level of services, objected to the prospect of contributing to the needs of other municipalities, both within and outside their provinces, that have not yet dealt with those problems.
These debates have been useful. Although very little has been resolved, at least two things have been accomplished. First, the financial needs camp has established in the minds of the citizenry the harsh reality that we have not done a very good job in handling municipal infrastructures. Second, the constitutional purists' camp has forced us to consider who is responsible and who is in the best position to effect over-all changes in our approach to municipal infrastructure.
The third view, and it is not necessarily new, but it is gaining rapid acceptance in water management circles, not just in Canada but all over the world. This group, which is supported by this government, claims that if the user pays most of the cost directly, we will not only get the least cost solution but we also get other other water management and environmental advantages.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, published a major study on the pricing of water services a few months ago. It found that the extent of subsidization of water services varied greatly within and across OECD countries, but was generally higher in the OECD's off-centre members in North America, Japan and Australia. The report strongly supported the general applicability of the user-pay principle. The essential element of that principle is that an incentive is provided for the user to economize in the use of the service of natural resources. Users of the service would in aggregate pay the full cost of the provision of the service and a charging system would share out these costs among users.
This is similar to, and indeed embraces, the more familiar polluter-pays principle, where the polluter pays for the cost which his pollution imposes on society. Under the user-pay principle, the OECD argues that subsidization by taxpayers and cross-subsidization among water service users should be abolished unless special social reasons exist for their retention.
As most hon. members are no doubt aware, the federal government supported these principles in its November, 1987, federal water policy. Since nobody likes to be characterized as unreasonable or rigid, we also hear a lot of variations and combinations of the three themes. The most common one is, yes, we accept that the real and lasting solution is full-cost pricing, but the country has
October 4, 1990

such a backlog that we should revert to the subsidy route for a few years until we catch up.
Another qualification which nobody really disputes is that there has to be some financial redistribution role played by senior governments. For example, through federal transfer payments and provincial assistance to smaller communities.
I would like to touch very briefly on the temporary subsidy for catch-up question. These are some of the problems I see with senior government bridge funding.
First, the municipalities which would be able to take advantage of such funding would be those which are planning to undertake the work anyway in the near future.
Second, eligible projects and costs would have to be determined by some government agency or agencies. The rules under the CMHC program became very complicated and where they were regarded by the province as excessive federal red tape, they were not used and eventually the program was withdrawn entirely.
Third, having restored the subsidy program, there would be inevitable pressures to extend it. The initial forgiveness feature of the CMHC program was only to last two or three years. In fact, through extension, it lasted 18 years.
Finally, and most important, a bridge funding program would be counterproductive in the sense that it would simply delay movement towards a more rational longterm solution.
In closing, I would like to quote from a speech which Harvard University's Peter Rodgers delivered to a Science Council of Canada workshop recently.
In the area of the water resources we should remember that we
get exactly what we pay for. In both Canada and the United States,
the prices charged for water are so low as to be not believable.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap said the same thing in his address.
We deliver a valuable commodity to very wealthy consumers who would be willing to pay substantial amounts for it. He suggests that by combining an aggressive pricing policy with tough, environmental laws, it will enable Canada to get control of its water resources in a way that will be efficient from the point of view of
Private Members' Business
the market and the environment. Everybody will be better off.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member for the NDP on his speech. It is encouraging to hear a member of the New Democratic Party in this House speak so positively about improving infrastructures in this country.

Mr. Speaker, as you will recall in the 1988 election, when this issue was raised by the Leader of the Opposition at the time, Mr. John Turner, the NDP refused to back up any kind of a plan or any kind of a thorough initiative when it came to infrastructure.
I am quite encouraged now to see that there is some sort of a policy or attitude change. That is very encouraging for the simple reason that as we in the Liberal Party have always called on all members of the House regardless of their political background, to support a federal initiative that will involve a partnership with the provinces, as well as the municipalities.
If you recall, Mr. Speaker, we had promised $5 billion towards infrastructure in Canada. In our rationale at the time, $5 billion over five years, would put us in a position to create approximately 314,000 jobs. Jobs are very much needed across the land. At the time, we used the rationale which was proposed by Informetrica, a consultant company, who stated that it was three times the number of jobs that would have been created by the then free trade agreement.
My colleague, representing the government side, have used some historical argument in order to back some of the statements he was making. He gave, in my view, a philosophical answer to a real problem. I would like to remind him that participation in municipal infrastructure goes back to between 1938 and 1949, when the Municipal Improvement Assistance Act was in place. The federal government then gave money towards roads, water and sewerage.
Then we had another program which was called the Sewage Treatment Program that was established in 1961 and went on to 1974. In 1963 to 1966, we had a Municipal Development and Loans Act which put a system into

October 4, 1990
Private Members' Business
place to help municipalities deal with issues of sewage as well as transportation systems.
In 1973 to 1979 the Neighbourhood Improvement Program was put in place with the objective to bring in funding for sewer, water distribution systems, parks and other related issues.
In 1975 to 1978 the Municipal Infrastructure Program was put in place to introduce grants for pollution, sewage treatment, land development. At that time, over $1 billion was granted in terms of loans and $395 million was given in terms of grants.
In 1979 the Community Service Contribution Program was put in place with the objective also to help municipalities deal with the issue of sewer and water projects, social and recreational programs. At the time we had put in place $221 million in grants, with the final disbursement which took place in 1984. At that time, the government which the hon. member represents ended the program and we have not seen any funding coming through since that time.
On Friday, May 25, 1990 I introduced a motion in this House, on behalf of our party, and I would just like to read it for the hon. member of the NDP so he can just recall what was said then. The motions reads:
That this House call upon the government to recognize that Canada's municipal infrastructure is facing a crisis of national proportions and that, given the serious implications to the nation's environment, economic prosperity and quality of life for Canadians, the government resume its traditional role as a partner with the provincial and municipal governments to address this national crisis.
We said that then, and we are saying the same thing again. For the Liberal Party and our caucus, the issue of infrastructure, sewage and waterways is important. We have launched a national task force to go across the land. For us it was a priority, it remains a priority and will always continue to be a priority. We have launched a task force where every single member of our caucus has participated in its deliberations and have encouraged groups in the municipalities within their ridings to come forward and make presentations. I would like to indicate that our task force had the total support of the board of management of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. For the information of the House and those who are watching, I would like to outline some of the recommendations the Liberal Party of Canada made as early as May 25, 1990.
We believe that there is no single action that will be enough to ensure the future health and viability of Canada's infrastructure. We believe that a broad range of measures is necessary to make a meaningful difference, specifically, those should include the following.
First, we want to see a federal recognition of municipal infrastructure as a crisis of national proportions. We want to see a federal commitment to share the responsibility for municipal infrastructure with its provincial and municipal counterparts. We want to see the establishment of minimum national criteria for infrastructure to provide environmental protection and uniform levels of service for all Canadians.
The Liberal Party would like to see a federal commitment to rehabilitate and expand the Trans-Canada Highway. The Liberal party supports the establishment of a process through which the federal government can take actions which include: clarifying the respective roles of federal, provincial and municipal governments in infrastructure construction and management. That would respond to some of the concerns my colleague was talking about a little earlier.
Also, the Liberal Party spoke about identifying and prioritizing needs on a national scale in consultation with, and with the concurrence of provincial and municipal governments. The Liberal Party also called for increased incentives for maintenance and reconstruction of existing capital assets and the use of low capital environmentally conscious techniques, such as waste reduction and recycling.
We spoke about exploring alternative funding sources, such options as rational user fees, as my colleague has indicated, for water services, applying fuel tax revenues to road construction and maintenance, and increased private sector involvement. Of course, we collect the taxes on oil, on fuel, but the money which comes through those taxes does not go toward specific projects such as road and sewer systems but, rather, it goes toward general revenues.
We also spoke about the increasing support for research and development to accelerate technological innovation. Finally, we are encouraging efficient municipal management methods to permit phased programs of rehabilitation and better management of infrastructure systems and effective use of funds.
October 4, 1990

These are some of the recommendations with which our task force has come forward. Of course, we in the Liberal Party do not have to be reminded about the crisis and the fact that it is reaching national proportions, because we were there. We were in Atlantic Canada. We were in Newfoundland, where 48,000 homes have inadequate water and sewer services and 80 per cent of the residents do not have properly treated drinking water.
In Nova Scotia, in the municipalities of Sydney and Halifax, sewage systems just simply do not exist, so we have to set up and put new systems in place.
P.E.I. is an excellent example again, where the problem there is out of proportion.
I want to cite this. In Quebec, 500 million litres of untreated water and 50 tonnes of raw sewage are dumped into the St. Lawrence River every day. That is incredible.
Of course I would appreciate it if my colleague in the NDP could speak to his colleagues, so at least we can in this House and Canadians can find out where the NDP are coming from, whether they have a heart or not and whether they do support the Liberal initiative or they do support a federal involvement on the issue of infrastructure. Having said all of this, I commend the hon. member. Of course, his heart is in the right place.


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may offer you my congratulations and wish you good luck in your new position.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to join in the debate today, a debate in which certain comments must be made. This debate is typical of the kind of speeches the Opposition tends to serve up in this House, the implication being that the government is doing absolutely nothing about the environment or about implementing a water policy, which is entirely false.
I was listening to the hon. member for Okanagan- Shuswap, who is to be commended for bringing such a serious matter before the House for debate, and I agree
Private Members' Business
this country has some major environmental problems. Anyone who represents an area like Abitibi-Temiscamingue in this House will understand how seriously our environment has deteriorated.
The trouble with the NDP is, that they are good at impressive theories and fancy speeches, but when it comes down to dollars and cents, they tend to fade. However, the hon. member must be aware that in 1987, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimated the contribution of all three levels of government municipal provincial and federal towards improving municipal infrastructures at about $15 billion.
Half of this amount was to be used to improve water and sewer systems. Those were the figures in 1987. In 1990, we could easily be talking about investments totalling $10 billion.
Of course, budgets have never been a strong point for the NDP. Just ask for the money and wait for it to come in!
The Liberals just told us that they had made a commitment to invest $5 billion. That is typical of the Liberal party. That is why today, Mr. Speaker, we have all these deficits, thanks to their habit of putting money on the table without having the means to pay the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have one minute left. I would urge hon. members to take a look at the Canada Water Act Annual Report for 1988-89, which shows how the government has worked together with the provinces in recent years to improve water management and water quality in this country.
We have spent millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, and all the money we put into our regional development programs is money that is made available to Canadian communities. So we have nothing to learn from the opposition parties.


Don Boudria: Oh yes, you do, you have a lot to learn!


Gabriel Desjardins: about how to treat municipalities. We have done a lot more for municipalities than the Liberal party did in 20 years and more than the NDP will ever do.

October 4, 1990
Adjournment Debate


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

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.


BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that David Dingwall, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Cape Breton-East Richmond, has been appointed member of the Board of Internal Economy in replacement of the Hon. Herb Gray, member for the electoral district of Windsor-West, for the purposes and under the provisions of Chapter 42 of the Statutes of Canada, 1985, First Supplement, entitled: An Act to amend the House of Commons Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, although Bill C-72, the new Official Languages Act, was passed by this Parliament almost unanimously on September 12, 1988, more than two years ago, and it was fully supported I might say at that time by the Liberal Party, that bill still remains inoperative because the government which presented the bill has failed to produce the regulations.
I want to point out that the content of that bill, a great improvement in our official languages legislation, had been discussed at great length for several years by the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages of
which I was a member and which committee, representing all parties in this House and the Senate, made recommendations for the reform and improvement of the Official Languages Act.
Finally the government took up those recommendations, put them into Bill C-72-and I congratulate them for it-presented the bill, and it passed. But, as I say, despite its passage and great words which were stated in favour of the bill at that time, it remains inoperative because the government has failed to produce the regulations. As a result of not producing the regulations the bill for the most part remains inoperative.
I must point out that when the bill was before the House the minister responsible for the bill, in answer to questions, said that the regulations would be produced shortly afterward. Then, in answer to questions in the House, that promise was repeated in August 1989 when the minister said that the regulations would be produced before the end of 1989. Then again last April 4, when the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled his annual report and condemned the government for not producing the regulations, and even threatened to resign, the minister said that the regulations would be presented soon after June 23 of this year. Here we are in October and we still do not have those regulations.
I would like to refer to what the Prime Minister said when we were debating Bill C-72. He suggested two and a half years ago when the Official Languages Act was being debated that the House would have to sit every day of the week, if necessary, to pass the legislation that was owed to the Canadian population. The people of Canada deserve now to see that legislation implemented; the usual politics of rhetoric by the Prime Minister. He was at that time saying that we would have to sit day and night to pass the legislation, which we did. I think the only ones who voted against it were a few members of his own party, and here we are more than two years later without the regulations to implement the bill.
Again we have had, just this past June 14, the joint standing committee pass the resolution unanimously with Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, senators all agreeing and saying that the government should introduce those regulations as soon as possible. That was in June. Still no action, Mr. Speaker.
While the government has failed to act in this matter, tensions have continued to grow between the language
October 4, 1990

groups in this country. We had the failure of the Meech Accord which produced tension. The passage of Bill 178 in Quebec; the growth of APEC, the Association for the Protection of English in Canada, which is really a very prejudiced and bigoted group against the francophones of this country; the passage of resolutions by the Ontario municipalities for unilingualism; the rise of the Reform Party here in this Parliament and the Bloc Quebecois; all gravitating against justice and understanding for both language groups in Canada and showing a great need for this improved legislation, legislation which is government legislation.
I have only a few minutes left, but once again on September 12 of this year, just a month or so ago, the Commissioner of Official Languages once again called for the passage of these regulations. He repeated his condemnation of the government that he made in April and recommended very strongly that they be implemented. Today I ask the government again what is holding up these regulations? Where are they? How much conflict and turmoil do we need in this country before it takes action? The farce has gone on long enough.
The government introduced a bill which was a good bill. It had the support of our party and the other opposition parties. When are we going to see the regulations? I want to have a date today. I want to know exactly when we will get these regulations to implement a good piece of legislation passed by this House.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond once again to the concerns of the hon. member regarding the tabling of draft regulations under the Official Languages Act.
As we have said before in the House, the government's commitment to the principles set out in the Official Languages Act remains steadfast. Beyond the principles and our commitment to them, we must not forget that there is an official languages program in place in federal institutions. This program ensures a whole range of bilingual services to the Canadian public. There are already some 1,600 service points located across Canada providing services in English and French.
Adjournment Debate
Let me turn to the specific question of regulations. The previous President of the Treasury Board was deeply committed to this task. His officials consulted widely with representatives of linguistic minority associations to obtain their input. This was in keeping with the process set out in the Official Languages Act passed by the House in 1988.
I know the previous President of the Treasury Board, who is now the Minister of the Environment, personally met with the Alliance Quebec and the Federation of Francophones Outside Quebec to discuss this matter. He wanted to make sure that both groups would have the opportunity to contribute fully to the success of this initiative. As hon. members know, he wanted to ensure that the end product would be fair and reasonable for all Canadians. This has always been our goal.
I know that the new President of the Treasury Board is equally committed to this objective. I know that we are examining carefully on a priority basis the groundwork already done in preparing the draft proposals.
I can, moreover, assure the House that the new President of the Treasury Board is well aware of the importance of these draft regulations to give full effect to service to the public provisions of the Official Languages Act. He is giving this matter his full attention.
As President of the Treasury Board he has assumed a leadership role, and I am sure that he will proceed with this matter in an appropriate way as expeditiously as possible.
The end product will no doubt provide Canadians with a fair and reasonable access to federal services in English and French. It will be worth the wait.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, discrimination is against the law in Canada. It is against the law in Canada to discriminate in many different ways: by way of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, pardoned conviction, or disability.
On May 30 I asked a question in the House about discrimination at the CRTC, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. The government's answer, which I will get to shortly, was totally unsatisfactory. The basic elements of the case are that

October 4, 1990
Adjournment Debate
the Canadian Human Rights Commission had found the CRTC guilty of discrimination. The CRTC refused to arrive at a settlement in the case, for example it refused to admit wrongdoing. The CRTC refused to accept conciliation or at least refused to come to agreement at conciliation, thus forcing the employee to go to a tribunal, the next stage.
At the tribunal the CRTC, acting in typical management style, gave notice that no matter which way the tribunal proceeded it would appeal to the courts.
In this particular case there was an out of court settlement agreed to by the employee after more hassling than most people could bear and which I do not have the time to describe.
However, the bottom line is that-wonder of wonders-there is no record of discrimination at the CRTC. Is that not wonderful? That is only half the story. The other half is even worse. The employee who originally filed was harassed for having taken the action, which in itself is against the law, but other employees were harassed even more severely for giving evidence on behalf of the complainant.
Section 59 of the Human Rights Act provides for fines up to $50,000 for threatening, intimidating or discriminating against an individual who has filed a complaint, or for hampering the investigation process.
An RCMP investigation under section 59 of the Human Rights Act determined that by harassing those who supported the original employee who complained there were grounds for laying criminal charges against the management of the CRTC.
There is a catch. Section 60(4) provides that the prosecution cannot be instituted except by the consent of the Attorney General of Canada. That consent was withheld in this human rights case at the CRTC. Except for the discretionary powers of the Attorney General, charges could have been laid against management at the CRTC.
The government argued in response-I am getting to the response of the government at the time I asked the
question on April 30-and I suspect will argue momentarily again that the CRTC is an arm's length organization and the government cannot get involved.
The employees of the CRTC are government employees. I would not want the CRTC to get involved in the day-to-day operations and the day-to-day decisions of whether or not they are going to provide a licence or withhold a licence. By God, I would expect the CRTC first of all-and in this case secondly-or at least the government to be protecting its own employees.
The government had doggone well better get involved in this case, arm's length or not. It certainly is not arm's length. These are government employees. Or else, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Human Rights Act means nothing at all.
If the discretionary powers of the Attorney General can thwart the investigations and decisions of the RCMP and the Human Rights Commission, those discretionary powers have to be removed. There is no justice if a bureaucratic management of the CRTC or a government department can hassle any individual into quitting, into ill health, or an out of court settlement which is not as satisfactory but which gets management off one's back.
I wrote to the Minister of Justice on June 1 asking why the discretionary powers of the Attorney General were allowed to be exercised in that case. So far I have only an acknowledgement of a letter received; no explanation.
More recently speaking, which rather demonstrates the government's commitment to human rights in Canada and for Canadian citizens, I would suggest, at the dinner in celebration of the Canadian tribute to human rights, Lawrence Court d'Oreille, Vice-Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said: "I am afraid for my human rights in Canada because those who are supposed to be protecting my human rights cannot protect their own."
This government, through its actions in the CRTC case-and who knows how many others-has signalled departments, agencies, Crowns and companies within its jurisdiction that they can discriminate against Canadians and the government will not allow prosecution.
October 4, 1990

Adjournment Debate
Quite simply put, this is an outrage and we cannot allow it to be continued. I call for a public inquiry into the discretionary attitude of the government.
I also call, Mr. Speaker, more principally for a public inquiry into the discriminatory management of the CRTC, hoping thereby that the actions of that kind of management in those kinds of situations may be prevented in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I should wish to congratulate you on your recent nomination as Assistant Deputy Chairman of the committees of the Whole.

Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn relates to three cases dealing with employee-employer relations within an independent regulatory agency, the CRTC, and which are or have been under investigation-I am trying to be helping to the hon. member-by another independent tribunal, the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
To the extent that these cases, two of which are yet unresolved, are of a personal nature, and to the extent that this government respects the independence of its arms length agencies, it would be inappropriate to enter into the details surrounding them, and I will refrain from doing so.
Instead, I will address my comments to the more general issue raised by the member for Saskatoon- Dundurn when he first raised this question on May 30, 1990.
In his question, and his supplementary comments, the member suggested that the CRTC was "forcing its employees to extreme lengths in order to seek basic justice".
It further suggested that it was "unacceptable for an agency of the government to 'force its employees' to go to a tribunal to settle human rights complaints".

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that his comments denote a seious lack of comprehension of the role and mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Furthermore, they give the impression that government agencies such as the CRTC do not have the right to respond to complaints from their employees, whether the complaints are founded or not.
The Canadian society is increasingly diversified, which makes for more complex relations between individuals and institutions, including employer-employee relations. Because of the Charter of Rights and the Human Rights Act, the Canadian people are more aware of their rights and more prone to complain when they believe their rights have been infringed upon.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, no government agency or private company can escape complaint. Besides, a complaint can sometimes be the only way to uncover an injustice and seek redress. I would add that the injustices uncovered are not always due to lack of goodwill.
It is precisely with a view to providing a forum for settling human right complaints that the Canadian Human Rights Commission was established by Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, to suggest that it is unacceptable for the CRTC to respond to complaints lodged by employees before the Human Rights Commission is to deny the important role that the Human Rights Commission was designed to perform. It is no disgrace for any employer to respond to a complaint from an employee where the employer has reason to believe that the complaint is unfounded. Indeed, to not respond in such circumstances is to invite abuse. Moreover, it is no disgrace for an employer to challenge the findings of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. No decision by a tribunal or a court of justice, except for the Supreme Court of Canada, is beyond appeal or challenge.
It is important to remember that allegations arising from human rights complaints must be proven and both parties must be able to present fairly their respective sides of the story.

October 4, 1990
Adjournment Debate
Furthermore, because such complaints often involve the subtleties of interpersonal relations, it can be difficult to determine with accuracy where fault lies or what corrective measures should be taken.
In the end, a disgrace would only occur if an employer refused to co-operate in resolving the problem.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to have an opportunity to put before the House the question which I put to the Minister of Employment and Immigration last spring, in March, concerning the lay-off of over 2,000 employees at the Elliot Lake uranium mines. In fact, 450 have already been laid off at Denison Mines in late July and in late August some 1,800 additional employees were laid off at Rio Algom.
The magnitude of these lay-offs is absolutely mind-boggling for this community. It represents at least 50 per cent of the direct mine-related employment in that community. Unless drastic and determined efforts are made by the two senior levels of government, we face a loss of half of the community. This is an urban community of some 16,000 people.
I asked the minister at that time what actions were going to be taken by the federal government. In fact, some actions have taken place. Industrial adjustment committees and community adjustment committees have been established. The industrial adjustment committee was under the leadership of Harold Kenny for the Denison Mines, under the direction of Roger Taylor for the two Rio Algom mines, and the community adjustment committee was under the direction of Craig Mac-quarrie. In fact, those committees have operated in what I would say is in an exemplary way. They have functioned very well.
The one thing that they require is funding for the community adjustment and industrial adjustment. They need dollars for training. They need dollars for job search. They need dollars for job mobility grants. That has been our main problem all through the summer and fall months, whether we would have enough of these funds.
There is a Community Futures program in the area. In fact, they submitted a budget to the staff of the minister
last April, calling for over a two-year period some $16 million. In fact, it is all happening over the course of one year rather than two years. That is the kind of funding which is required for those industrial and community adjustment committees.
So far we have received some $3 million or $4 million. Unfortunately, that whole budget of $16 million has to be telescoped into one year rather than into two, or slightly more than one year, and the committees have done an excellent job. The problem that we have is the uncertainty. The official budget for the community and industrial adjustment has not ever been approved yet, so we are going along sort of month to month, getting a commitment of $900,000 in July, $1 million in August. That level of adjustment funding I believe will be needed for another six to twelve months, depending on how successful the individuals are in securing employment.
The government of course argues: "We cannot provide the funding for the community and industrial adjustment because Bill C-21 has not been passed". Of course that argument is simply not accepted. Everybody knows that the government has been collecting money under Bill C-21 since last January. In fact, the fees for unemployment insurance have gone up by some 15 per cent collecting, I would guess, over $1 billion this year already, so my miners in Elliot Lake do not buy that argument. If they can collect the money under Bill C-21, then they can spend it under Bill C-21 or they can spend it under supplementary estimates and repay the money from the funding that is being taken from employees day after day.
Mr. Hockin has been designated by the Deputy Prime Minister to be a special liaison officer to work with the communities. He has visited the community, outlined a number of initiatives which the government has agreed to put forward, including providing an additional $1 million of funding in late August. Our concern is that we have this commitment for training and adjustment funds every month until the miners have had an opportunity to seek new employment and are able to get on with then-lives, or retrained for another job.
We need co-operation from the federal government for the initiatives which are being taken by the province which are quite extensive. They include a study on a retirement living program which has been very succes-
October 4, 1990

sful. There are a number of proposals relating to the CANMET lab where it would become a field station associated with Laurentian University. The province has provided funding for a drug and alcohol addiction centre which would follow along from the Camilla Centre operated by the Sisters of St. Joseph.
We have a number of initiatives, but we need a commitment from the federal government that its portion will be funded as well.
This week I have put before the minister a number of proposals for the decentralization of government offices from Toronto and other regions of the country into northern Ontario and Elliot Lake. After all, it is the sixth largest urban centre in northern Ontario. We cannot afford a community with all assets and advantages of this community to die. We must diversify the economy. We must develop what we have. I am pleading and asking the government to do this. I believe the community is working very hard to do that as well. I am asking for the support, encouragement, and assistance of the federal government to carry its fair share in this regard.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the initiatives the government has undertaken to help laid- off workers in Elliot Lake.
Our industrial adjustment service consultants have worked closely with Denison Mines, Rio Algom Ltd., and the United Steelworkers Union in the province of Ontario to provide assistance to laid-off workers in Elliot Lake.
For example, two separate industrial adjustment committees were set up to help workers and management deal with the Denison Mines layoff and the Rio Algom closures respectively. Through the industrial adjustment service committee, Employment and Immigration Canada provided $106,000 to help Denison Mines workers and $102,600 to help the Rio Algom workers.
The member should know that of the 420 employees laid off at Denison Mines, 344 have now positive plans for employment or training, and 26 are taking early retirement.
Adjournment Debate
The Department of Employment and Immigration is also providing $114,000, matched by the province of Ontario, to establish a community adjustment centre to help other local workers whose employment could be threatened and disrupted by the lay-offs.
A co-ordinating committee for Elliot Lake was formed to set priorities and determine how training funds available to the area should be spent.
Employment and Immigration approved an $818,000 grant to finance additional activities under the Skills Shortages and Job Development programs of the Canadian Jobs Strategy for relocation, training, and community economic development and adjustment assistance.
In August, 1990, $1 million in additional federal funding was announced in relocation and exploratory assistance to meet needs of the Elliot Lake community.
The hon. gentleman should know that other assistance from the government would have been provided to communities like Elliot Lake, if it had the labour force development strategy implemented and if Bill C-21 were passed.
The member for Algoma knows that many laid-off workers requested relocation assistance or additional funds to start their own businesses because they felt that this was the way to go from now on. The government could have helped these workers if Bill C-21 and the Labour Force Development Strategy were in place. With the Labour Force Development Strategy and Bill C-21, the government intends to raise by $45 million the funding for relocation assistance and self-employment initiatives.
Many people in Elliot Lake also felt that they could take over their own destiny and work out a restructuring plan for Elliot Lake. Elliot Lake is already eligible for help under the Community Futures Program for creation of small businesses and self-employment, for training and other community initiatives. But the government cannot ignore the fact that additional assistance under the Labour Force Development Strategy could have been made available to the people in Elliot Lake if Bill C-21 had been passed by the Senate.
Finally, earlier in this response, the success of the industrial adjustment committee in helping laid-off workers at Denison and Rio Algom was discussed. The government believed that workers would have benefited from a doubling of the industrial adjustment service funds. They did not benefit from this doubling of funds simply because Bill C-21 is still in the Senate and, as a

October 4, 1990
Adjournment Debate
result, the Labour Force Development Strategy is not implemented.
If the hon. member truly wants to assist the people of Elliot Lake, he will reverse his position on Bill C-21, stop voting against his constituents, urge his unelected Liberal associates in the Senate to stop playing politics with peoples' lives, and have them do something useful for a change.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 5,1990