1991-05-23

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to lay upon the table the 1991 report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on House Management.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the report on the Founding Conference for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the CSCE, held in Madrid from April 1 to April 3, 1991.


EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT
Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-6, an act respecting
the exporting, importing, manufacturing, buying or selling of or other dealing with certain weapons.


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

Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-7, an act respecting the status of the artist and professional relations between artists and producers in Canada.


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

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-206, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain the purpose of this bill.
It is to ensure that when a vacancy occurs in the representation a by-election shall be held within 80 days after the speaker sends his warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of the writ.
This bill was suggested by the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore so I know it will win widespread approval on the other side of the House. I see the parliamentary secretary sitting here. Perhaps the bill could be given second reading at once and could be referred to a committee so the matter could be studied promptly and dealt with very quickly.
In any event that is the purpose of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
May 23, 1991
Routine Proceedings

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and agreement on the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order of this House, the following bill introduced in the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament be reinstated forthwith in this session as follows:
An Act to provide for the dissolution and transfer of certain Crown corporations and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be deemed to have been introduced, read the first time and ordered to be printed, read a second time, referred to and reported by a Legislative Committee with an amendment (Bill C-73); and that the bill as reinstated be called for debate during this sitting or any forthcoming sitting.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions on the following motion as well:
That, notwithstanding the relevant provisions of Standing Order 81, Supply Proceedings for the current trimester be subject to the following provisions:
1.	the last allotted day be Thursday, June 13.
2.	every estimate or supplementary estimate referred to a committee be reported or be deemed to have been reported by Friday, June 7.
3.	"extension of consideration by a Committee" (as set out in Standing Order 81.(4)(a), (b) and (c) be subject to a notice of motion from the Leader of the Opposition to be given not later than Thesday, June 4, with such motion to be deemed adopted when called on "Motions" on Thursday, June 6; and
4.	there be eight days allotted for the business of Supply for the current period ending Thursday, June 13.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured once again to rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 and present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Kentbridge, Chatham, Thamesville, Rid-getown, and Blenheim. This petition is with regard to the Conservative government's direct attack on the rural way of life, including cuts to Via Rail, abandoning small rail lines, the neglect of fisheries, forests and other natural resources, cuts to the CBC and the erosion of the royal postal services, particularly the closure of small post offices, many of them being the backbone of rural areas.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support Canada's rural way of life, to support the maintenance of rural post offices and postal services, and to reject the Conservative agenda of cutbacks and closures.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of my community and elsewhere regarding the Baltic states. The petitioners call for the use of every means available to prevent further bloodshed. They call for a peaceful restoration of independence to the Baltic States and they wish to send Canadian parliamentary observers to the Baltic States. They urge the government to raise this issue at the Security Council of the United Nations and to press the United Nations to send its observers to the area immediately.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a large number of people in my constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grace in
May 23, 1991

Montreal condemning the government for its cuts to the CBC and calling on Parliament as a matter of priority to ensure that the CBC be further strengthened to serve as a primary instrument of Canadian cultural sovereignty, providing high quality service to all Canadians.


Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table the following petition which stresses the problems caused by the GST, reflected today in a number of reports; it also states that the cost to the consumer is much higher than was predicted by the government. Residents of Duguayville and Hacheyville in my riding ask the government to rethink this disastrous policy that continues to feed the recession in this country.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition to the House on behalf of a number of people from the Windsor, Essex County area. They petition Parliament to call on Canada Post to honour Marie Sklodowska Curie by issuing a commemorative stamp on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of her birth, November 7, 1992.
This petition has been duly certified by the clerk, and I present it pursuant to the relevant standing order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Kingston and the Islands in support of a bill to make it an offence to destroy or desecrate the Canadian flag.
I note that such a bill was introduced as a private member's bill during the last session, and I hope that the hon. member who introduced the bill will come forward with it again.
This petition supports the intent of this bill and urges this House to adopt such a bill.
Routine Proceedings EQUALITY RIGHTS


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of people from Quesnel, Kingston and the Islands, Calgary and from all over Canada.
These petitioners point out to the House that a report has been prepared by the committee on justice and legal affairs on equality rights in Canada. The government has accepted this report and its recommendations saying it would take whatever measures necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination.
These particular petitioners ask that government and Parliament act to bring forward immediately an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present petitions, a large number of which are signed by people in the Ottawa area.
Whereas our Parliament is located in Ottawa and legislates the National Energy Board, the proposed move of the board to Calgary, according to the petitioners, will seriously affect the ability of environmental groups and other interested parties to make representations to the board. The only persons to derive a benefit from this proposed relocation are the big oil and gas companies.
The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reconsider and stop the move of the National Energy Board to Calgary.


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

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions stand?
[.English\


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I have a question on the Order Paper dated May 13. While that may sound like a very recent question, I put the same question on the Order Paper in February during the last session. A 45-day answer was requested and now it is the mid-May.
The government has had since February to prepare an answer to this question. I would have thought that as soon as I put it down on the Order Paper the answer would have been forthcoming. It has had months and months to prepare this answer. I wonder why the government has failed to comply with the rules of the House and answer this question within the 45 days. It is not a difficult question. The answer may be embarrassing to the government, but it is not a difficult question.
With respect, I hope the parliamentary secretary has some explanations as to why there is negligence in failing to answer this question.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raises a very important point, and that is the whole question of how we treat issues, questions or bills that are dropped as a result of a prorogation and then require a reintroduction process.
I hear his arguments. They are very valid, and I am sure that the hon. member will want to discuss with his caucus whether we should apply the same argument to bills that were in similar treatment in the last session.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that Bill C-2, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to begin the debate on Bill C-2, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act. As my colleagues will recall, in the budget speech of February 26 last, the then Minister of Finance, the hon. Michael Wilson, announced that the Government of Canada had made a decision to relocate the National Energy Board, or the NEB, from Ottawa to Calgary, Alberta.
The bill we are discussing in the House today is a necessary piece of work in order to facilitate that move. The bill to amend the National Energy Board Act will make it possible for the Government of Canada to follow through on those commitments and plans.
This bill and this move has to be put into some context. The National Energy Board was formed in 1959 by the then government of the late Right Hon. John Diefen-baker during the time when Canada's oil and gas industry was being organized in an attempt to make it a national economic instrument for the development of Canada, with particular interest for the producing provinces.
In 1961 the so-called first agreement on how Canada's oil and gas resources would be used in Canada was formulated. Colloquially, it became known as the Ottawa Valley line because from Canada's Pacific coast to the Ottawa Valley western Canadian oil and gas would be used for those Canadians living in that part of Canada.
That agreement had followed a very acrimonious debate, the so-called 1957 pipeline debate. The result was that when the government came into office, there was an attempt to bring about some form of order within
May 23, 1991

the industry. Equally important, there was to be an agency to allow both producers and consumers to have access to a regulatory process bringing some order to both sides of the energy equation.
I believe that agreement served Canada very well. It allowed us in western Canada to develop an industry which today is a major economic engine, not only for that region of the country, but all of Canada. If one takes a look at Canada's balance of trade payments, it is that industry which is very instrumental in Canada's economic growth and stability. Even in the most recent gulf crisis, when other countries were looking for sources of supply of oil, Canada remained in a self-sufficient position and was not asked by the International Energy Agency, for example, to develop strategic petroleum reserves, as other countries such as the United States, Germany and Japan have had to do.
Since 1961, there have been in this House a great number of debates relating to ownership of the resource and control of the resource.
Those of us who come from western Canada have always argued that the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930 once and for all confirmed conclusively that resource ownership lay in the hands of the provinces. I mention that as background.
Even in the early days when the National Energy Board was formed, it was argued that as a demonstration, so that the Government of Canada should have a presence throughout the country, it should be located some place other than in the national capital.
That is history. I am pleased that through this long debate this legislation is a further step in fulfilling not only the commitment made in the most recent budget speech, but the vision of the value this industry could have to Canada's future.
This move is being made for a number of very good reasons. I hardly need to remind hon. members that we live in a critical juncture in Canada's history, at a time when the forces of disunity and divergence threaten the unity of a nation that generations of men and women have toiled to build.
It is extremely important at this point in time that national policy be responsive to the aspirations of Canada's regions for a fuller participation in our national life
Government Orders
and greater proximity to the making of decisions which shape the economic future of our country.
Western Canadians in particular have increasingly felt that their problems were not always well understood in Ottawa and that decisions were sometimes taken without a full appreciation for their views and perspectives.
I could quote nothing better than the member for Edmonton-Southeast. In his book Uneasy Patriots he said, and I quote but one paragraph of which there are many I could quote.
On page 96 he said:
Defenders of the NEP -
The National Energy Program.
- agree that one of its objectives was to establish the leadership of Ottawa in the energy sector. The means chosen was a bold attempt to create a new community of energy leaders with a primary loyalty to the federal government. This group was to join industrial-financial elites in Toronto and Montreal who have historically identified closely with Ottawa because of various federal measures such as the Bank Act. The NEP was thus profoundly anti-western because until 1980 our energy industry was one of the very few sectors centred in Western Canada. It was, to many Westerners, as if a national government with no elected representation on either coast had told our east- and west-coast fisheries that they should relocate their industry decision-makers to Ottawa.
That puts it in perspective.
The more than 2000 miles between the nation's capital and the principal cities of western Canada partly explains this sense of alienation. These feelings are aggravated by the fact that decisions concerning the nature of development of western oil and gas resources are perceived to be made far removed from where they impact most heavily, namely in the west.
While many Canadians appreciate the nature of the harsh realities which govern life in western Canada-most importantly, volatile and unpredictable international grain and energy markets-it is important that this understanding be reflected in our national institutions. They must be ones in which westerners can take their place as full and equal participants.
There has been another change and that is regarding cost recovery. Obviously, when we are being asked by the industry, once it makes application to the National Energy Board, to pay for the National Energy Board's costs directly as interveners and not only as taxpayers, it is important to take another note.

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
Over 80 per cent of the National Energy Board's activities relate to oil and gas produced in western Canada. The board's decisions on these matters are of importance to all Canadians. Some petitions have indicated that and we are mindful of that fact. But the board's decisions touch upon the lives of westerners in a more direct and tangible way.
The new location for the NEB will in no way diminish the quality or direction of board decisions. The planned relocation of the board from Ottawa to Calgary, while symbolic, is more important than that. It is a demonstration of the government's desire to ensure that its institutions and decisions are seen to be responsive in areas where regional impacts are profound.
Some have alleged that moving the National Energy Board will somehow throw into question the integrity and impartiality of its decisions. The argument that a national institution such as the NEB can act in a non-partisan fashion in Ottawa and not when located elsewhere is simply, to put the best face on it, preposterous. Moreover, it is an insult. It is an insult to the intelligence of the audience, it is an insult to western Canadians, it is an insult to the board's staff and it is not worthy of those who utter it. If they have other arguments, economic or whatever, I can understand the argument, but I do not understand the impartiality argument because one could say, in reverse, if that is the case, because the board has been located in Ottawa since 1959, all its decisions have been against the interest of the industry or the west as a region.
We are saying very clearly, there might be other economic arguments, but no one can question the board's integrity.
We recognize that the National Energy Board has diverse responsibilities that extend well beyond oil and natural gas. I want to assure Canadians that the board will continue to fulfil its role as that of a truly national institution. In that regard, as the board has been doing in the past, we would like to emphasize that it will continue to conduct hearings relating to pipeline and electricity transmission routes for example in centres right across
Canada. They will be in close proximity to where the project impacts and public interests are the greatest.
Most importantly, I would like to emphasize that the integrity of the board as an arbitrator of diverse industry and consumer interest is not in question. The board will continue its mandate to regulate in the Canadian public interest fairly and effectively, taking into consideration the views of all interested parties; consumers, producers and others.
I think it is also worth mentioning that the NEB employees, as they become increasingly aware of the opportunities associated with both working and living in the Calgary area, will view the relocation favourably.
I appreciate that any change of location will bring about disruption, but the fact of the matter is that when we speak about the Public Service, we speak about it in exactly those two words; it is a service to the public and it is the service concept that has to be stressed.
The National Energy Board has taken steps, in co-operation with the Treasury Board-and I want to thank the President of the Treasury Board-many of which are precedent setting, to ensure that for these individuals, the move and transition to Calgary is as smooth as possible.
I have also had an opportunity to meet the mayor, members of the council, school boards, French speaking associations in the Calgary area and educators, and I can say, without any hesitation, that the welcome these Canadians will receive in Calgary will be second to none. I appreciate the work that has been done in the Calgary region for these people.
Some individuals, regardless of what assistance we offer, will either not be able or will choose not to relocate to Calgary. The NEB will make every possible effort, within the limits of available resources, to help these employees find alternative employment.
The board's regulatory calendar for public hearings for the rest of the year and into earlier 1992 is a heavy one. That is for reasons primarily on the gas side and pipeline proposals, as well as electricity export proposals. We are taking every necessary measure to ensure that there is no loss over the transition period in the continuity and effectiveness with which the board performs its duties.
May 23, 1991

This applies of course to both its traditional duties and those frontier lands functions which it has assumed with the dissolution of the Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration.
To show how these things work, roughly 10 days ago the governments of the Northwest Territories and Yukon signed a memorandum of understanding for further development in the regulatory process in conjunction with the federal government's responsibility of the regulation of oil and gas, particularly north of 60.
I recall in 1979 when we were negotiating with these very people as to the future of their area, specifically on the COPE agreement. Now some 10 years later, the people who were negotiating the agreement are now ministers in those governments and they also see the need not only for regulation, but also very strongly endorse their western Canadian presence.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, the move to Calgary will offer a new chapter in the history of the NEB. That history has been one of achievement in the past. We as Canadians do not face the reality, for example, that our neighbours to the south do where roughly 50 per cent of their oil needs must be imported, while we have a self-sufficiency in oil and gas. Obviously more work has to be done in terms of frontier lands, oilsands projects, other projects such as offshore with Hibernia, LASMO and Cohasset-Panuke because the oil production in the western sedimentary basin is dropping. We knew that. Our projections were correct.
These are changes that will come in the industry. One thing I know is that as the board relocates in Calgary it will continue to offer high standards and excellent service to the Canadian public. I believe Canadians will recognize that Calgary is in fact a major energy city and this national endorsement is another affirmation of that fact.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, as the energy critic of the Official Opposition, I would indicate at the outset that the leader of my party and the party supports the spirit and letter of Bill C-2. The important issue of employer-employee relations, a subject which is not the long suit of those on the other side,
Government Orders
will be dealt with by my colleague from Ottawa West when she becomes the second speaker for my party.
We believe that the matter should be moved quickly to a legislative committee and there the questions of employee rights and employer responsibilities can be dealt with quickly. As you will be aware, Sir, being an Albertan yourself, the NEB has already leased space in Calgary. You and I both wish it were in Edmonton but I think as northern Albertans we recognize that unfortunately Calgary, speaking as a northern Albertan, does have the ERCB and is the more logical place to put the NEB than our own city.
Space has been leased and the move is going ahead. I think the member for Ottawa West will deal in detail with what it means to the careers, children in high school and university and a good many families of those who do not choose to go with the board to Calgary.
It should also be stressed-and I think the minister mentioned this point-that the relocation of the NEB to Calgary will save our western oil and gas industry money and make it easier to deal with a regulatory agency.
As a member from Edmonton, you will be aware, Sir, that since 1986, two years after this government came to office, approximately 50,000 bread winners in the western oil patch have lost their jobs. The industry continues to hurt badly.
At present energy company representatives have to make frequent trips to Ottawa. One of the advantages of moving the NEB to Calgary will be a reduction of the costs of coming to Ottawa and staying in expensive hotels and the like.
I might tell the minister that last night I had dinner with one of his former constituents. I have to say, without revealing any names, that I do not think that particular former constituent is going to be voting for the minister's party any more.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Especially if he is a former constituent.


David Kilgour: In fact they went to school together and the minister knows the former constituent very well.


An hon. member:: It is his brother.


David Kilgour: Currently energy company representatives have to make many trips to Ottawa to present information and opinions on issues being dealt with by

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
the NEB. Trips for the hearings are often lengthy-and I think that is an understatement-and expensive particularly since the government has made applicants pay to have their cases heard by the board to cover the costs of operation.
It is estimated that 90 per cent of the National Energy Board's operating costs, about $25 million yearly, is funded by the deeply wounded oil and gas industry from western Canada.
Another point is that in spite of the NEB's best persuasion on the petroleum companies to get their co-operation in recruiting competent and knowledgeable men and women, the number of candidates as employees for the board has evidently declined. Many of them are from the oil patch and simply do not want to live in our national capital region. That is now a requirement under the NEB Act.
It is very important that NEB board members and employees be impartial and capable of balancing all of the affected interests and regions of the country, consuming as well as producing, electricity, nuclear and all the issues they deal with in the decision-making process.
I congratulate the minister on his reading habits. I am glad he quoted from the book. I guess if he can quote from it, so can 1.1 am going to quote from both of them. I would like, if I may, Sir, to read-


An hon. member:: I have them both.


David Kilgour: Oh, you have them both. Well, why didn't the minister quote from that one too?
I would like to quote from the section of the first book Uneasy Patriots, called Oil Sands, Coal and Natural Gas.


Mr. Arseneault:: Who is the author?


David Kilgour: You have known him a long time, Mr. Speaker. This was written in 1988.1 know you have your copy with you this morning. A paper presented to provincial energy ministers in 1986 estimated that without new sources of supply Canada would require imports to meet one-quarter of its light crude and oil needs by 1990 and more than half by 2000.
It seems to me to follow that western Canada should aim to become the technological world leader for oil sands energy development. It would certainly help Edmonton.
A new mined oil sands project in Fort McMurray which was to start in 1996 unfortunately will not, and an upgrader at Lloydminster to start in 1993, recently
announced amid much controversy as to its economic viability and I understand viability remains a major problem for that facility, could become an important component of a prairie manufacturing base in the overall national interest. I skip down a bit and I mention that the security of the future supply is so critical that the risk appears to be warranted. The U.S. now has a strategic oil reserve of about 515 million barrels which, at $20 U.S. per barrel, represents a $10 billion investment in oil security without including carrying charges on the investment.
I have recently written to the minister on this matter so I will repeat it from the book. "Ottawa must also recognize that the oil sands sector badly needs help in other spheres. For example, new oil in sand extraction technologies appear to hold real promise for efficiency and reduction of water and air pollution when compared to the hot-water processes now used by Syncrude and Suncor at Fort McMurray".
Even the member for Edmonton East seems to agree with it. He can do that in his speech.
"Imaginative new research and development programs funded by Ottawa should assist the more promising of these technologies with a view to enhancing existing western strengths. World leadership with all of its spin-off in terms of exportive services should also be a goal".
This next paragraph I think the member for Edmonton East may not agree with.
"Substantial growth for gas exports from western Canada was predicted in a late 1986 study by the National Energy Board-"
That has certainly been the case since.
"If, however, NEB does not permit exports beyond 1991," as was then a possibility, "a cost-benefit analysis by the Alberta Research Council predicts a virtual calamity for exploration and development in this important western industry and estimates that the present value of a no-export policy after 1991 for Canadian consumers because of resulting lower prices would be $8.8 billion between 1988 and 2003"-get this, Mr. Speaker-"the net present loss to Alberta producers"- your constituents and mine and many others-"alone would be $25.3 billion, making a net loss to the economies and governments of the western provinces of $18.3 billion over the period. Given the indications that large quantities of gas are still to be found within the western
May 23, 1991

provinces, it is surely in the general national interest to continue exports beyond 1991. Ottawa, or the Western Diversification Office, might usefully address this issue, if only by funding further research on the employment and other costs to the west of alternative gas exports supplies".
I promise not to quote any further from that book.
By the way, before I forget, I hope the member for Edmonton East will tell the members of the House whether he and his party support the move to Calgary and that he will correct me in his speech. The member for Edmonton East has indicated that he was "indifferent" about the move, but would not fight it. I hope he will explain that comment to 2.5 million Albertans when he gets up to speak.
A conviction shared by outer Canadians is that we are chronically under-represented in the Public Service, including Crown corporations, of our own national government. Atlantic Canadians protested this soon after Confederation. Toronto, Ottawa, Hull and Montreal together contain almost half of the more than 200,000 federal employees. I speak, Sir, as a former federal employee so I hope you will forgive me for that.
About one-third of the federal government employees live in the national capital region. In the United States the equivalent figure for Washington, D.C., is only 12 per cent. My leader, Jean Chretien, revealed during the early 1980s that only one out of seven senior executives in the federal Public Service lived outside of Ottawa and Hull.
Mr. Chretien also noted that as many as 70 per cent of the senior government policy makers in this city had little or no regional experience and as many as half of them had never worked outside Ottawa during their entire careers.
There appears to be a clear consensus now among federal mandarins that there is no such thing as a parallel career for their colleagues "in the regions". Job classifications, salaries, and a host of other factors make it clear to everyone that the best careers are the ones that begin and end in Ottawa.
In my view, there should be some real effort to recruit people from all areas of the country and there should be an equal chance for everybody, whether they are from St.
Government Orders
John's, Yellowknife, or Nanaimo. I will give the minister an example which I am sure will concern him. I am a former Winnipeger, Mr. Speaker, and I should confess that to you. A friend of mine, with a couple of university degrees, went to the Public Service of Canada in Winnipeg three or four years ago to see what jobs were available. Nothing of interest to her was available. She got on an aeroplane, came to Ottawa and rented an apartment for a month or two, I think it was. She went to the Public Service Commission here and found all kinds of interesting jobs, of which she accepted one and began to work in Ottawa. Is it right that somebody who cannot afford to fly to Ottawa and open an apartment here does not have the same access to these jobs as somebody living in outer Canada? That simply has to stop if we are going to do something about national unity in our country, which we all want to do, except the people in the back row.
In mid-1989, my office did a little study. We found that of 220 senior people from 28 federal departments and agencies-and there are about 40, so we did not do them all- only about 10 per cent of them were bom and educated in western Canada. We have, as you know, about 30 per cent of the population. Obviously, we have about one-third of the number of senior public servants in Canada that we should have based on population.
What was it for Atlantic Canada? It was 4 per cent. Atlantic Canada, as you know, has about 10 per cent of the population. For the north, it was 0 per cent. In short, Atlantic Canada, western Canada and the north, eight provinces and two territories, had about 14 per cent of the senior public servants by birth and by education.
When the ex-Minister of Finance announced his budget recently, there was sustained applause from the government members, I am sure it included the minister, when he announced that the NEB would be moving to Calgaiy. I wonder why, and I do not mean to be unkind to the minister, it was not in the text of the finance minister's speech. I hope that the minister, when he is giving us the reason, will also tell us how much this move is going to cost.
To those opposite, this was great politics. In fact, moving the agency to Calgaiy is a veiy long overdue proposal. I might tell the minister that I had dinner last night with two other people from Calgary and they both

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
told me that they were not going to vote for his party next time. This is just in passing.


An hon. member:: Harvey is quaking in his boots.


An hon. member:: Are they from your riding?


David Kilgour: No, no. They live in Calgary.
As members know, Albertans marched in the street against the GST. The Prime Minister's caucus, I believe, has been at the brink of revolt. In fact, two of us were expelled from the caucus for voting against the GST. The Reform Party-


Mr. Peterson:: Send us more.


David Kilgour: The member for Willowdale may not appreciate that the last poll that I saw for Calgary indicated, and appreciate that Calgary has been the most loyal Tory city in Canada for generations, that 11 per cent of Calgarians were planning to vote for the Tory Party in the next election. In Edmonton, Mr. Speaker, you may not be pleased to know, it was reported by one of your favourite newspapers, The Edmonton Sun, that the number of people planning to vote for the Tory Party in the next election was 9 per cent.


Mr. Van  De Walle@: What about St. Albert?


David Kilgour: I did not see the figures for St. Albert. The decision to move the NEB was done so hastily that there was insufficient time to include the announcement of the printed text of the ex-Minister of Finance's budget speech.
How are Ottawa's myriad agencies, departments and Crown corporations doing in an age of instant communication in providing regional leadership to our private sector? In 1989, only five out of forty of our largest or best-known national Crown corporations had their head offices outside of what I call inner-Canada; Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. Not one of the five was in Atlantic Canada, and the five in western and northern Canada were the Canadian Wheat Board-well, they cannot veiy well put that in Ottawa-Cameco, formerly Eldorado Nuclear, in Saskatchewan, NWT Power Commission in Yellowknife, Petro-Canada in Calgary and the Canada Harbour Place in Vancouver. Five out of 40 of our largest Crown corporations are in western Canada. The other 35 are all located in either Ottawa or Montreal, none of them in Mississauga. Some seem to me to be
especially out of place, given the nature of their activities and locale of their clientele.
For example, why is the Farm Credit Corporation in Ottawa? I think it would be of interest to members from the west to know, which I was reminded of recently, that Mr. Chretien attempted to move the Farm Credit Corporation to Camrose-I see the member for Cam-rose and that area is in his seat-and it was blocked by the government which he supported in 1979-80. Mr. Chretien has also moved jobs to Sudbury. He has moved jobs to Atlantic Canada. He has been in a real sense the author of decentralization in this country.
Why, for example, does the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, the Farm Credit Corporation, Canada Ports and the Canadian Dairy Commission need to be located in Ottawa-Hull?
I share the concerns expressed by many of the 285 NEB and COGLA employees, who are very unhappy about uprooting their families in some cases. They were shocked by the announcement in the media of the move. There was no consultation with employee representatives prior to the announcement, I understand, and I hope the minister will clarify that as well. It was rather typically insensitive and arrogant of the government to notify them over television that they are going to undertake a major change in life style.
I feel they understand that very little thought or planning has gone into the move. I understand the minister's department still does not have a budget for the move, but he will tell us about that. I hope he will tell us the details of it.
Calgary may look distant and forbidding to an anglophone. For the 30 per cent of the NEB work force who speak French, I would point out that we have a 12,000-strong francophone community in Calgary. It has pledged to offer its help, and I am glad the minister spoke of that. I am told the Catholic Board of Education can accommodate all francophone families in the city's two French-language schools.
It is estimated that about half of the employees will elect to make the move, as was the case when TransCa-nada Pipelines moved its head office to Calgary from Toronto last year. Those who decide not to move will receive, as I understand according to federal policy,
May 23, 1991

priority for hiring in the Public Service. The member for Ottawa West will speak further about that, I believe.


Mr. Malone:: I'll bet she will.


David Kilgour: Might that be on the record, Mr. Speaker. The member for Crowfoot said: "I'll bet she will", and I hope the people taking notes of these things got that. It was one of the best lines I have heard from the member for Crowfoot.
Certainly some board members of the NEB and a certain percentage of the 285 employees will choose to remain in Ottawa. New staff would then have to be recruited from the producing sector in Calgary. I would point out to those opposite that there are a good many unemployed engineers and geologists and the like in Calgary, and hopefully some of these men and women will have a chance to work for the board. Some concerns have already been raised about their presumed predisposition to the producer's point of view. You know, if they go skiing up on Connor's Hill in Edmonton, they might ski with somebody who works for an oil company.
The ERCB has been in Calgary since its inception and I don't think anybody has ever accurately accused the ERCB of being a tame agency, a corrupted agency or biased in favour of the producers.
The NEB has proven to be an extraordinarily objective tribunal. It has not shown any propensity to favour a particular interest group. I think it would be very unfair for anybody to impugn the integrity of the agency by suggesting that its impartiality and even-handedness would be threatened on the basis of relocation to Calgary. It is also true that it is a move from the "corridors of power" to the capital of the oil and gas sector, one of the few to be located in western Canada. Should we question the board's impartiality? I do not think we should.
Ontario and western Canada have had their energy differences in the past, and may have again in the future.
Differences may occur-


Mr. Horner:: Do you remember black Tuesday?


David Kilgour: Yes, I do. If you are not careful, I will read from my book on that subject.
Government Orders
Differences may occur, but the location of the NEB hardly seems to justify renewed tensions. When the idea to establish some form of national energy body was first suggested to the minister, C. D. Howe, an Ontarian, snapped: "What in hell would such an agency do that I do not do already?"
The question was rhetorical. The creation of the NEB was not a sudden flash of inspiration, it was a natural progression of regulatory developments stretching back to the early 1900s.
What was new then was the fact that for the first time an independent tribunal had been established to provide advice to the federal government on certain energy matters, based on evidence put before its members at public hearings conducted in the nature of a court.
The board continued to be actively engaged in an advisory capacity because of its broad knowledge of energy matters generally, familiarity with the operation of many sectors of the industry and its involvement as a regulator with respect to many of the energy issues that came to the fore over the succeeding years.
Over a period of 32 years the scope and extent of its activities have expanded significantly, in part because of the broadening of its legislative mandate by Parliament, but even more because of the enormous growth in the scale and complexity of energy issues in which the board was involved, both as an adviser and as a regulator. It certainly stood the test of time.
I think I still have a few moments. The minister may have missed this section of the book, and I am sure the member for Mississauga missed this section of the book. As an Albertan, since much of the energy industry, oil and gas is in western Canada, I would like to say something about my own province which may even be of interest to the minister.
It reads: "The lack of western diversification does not satisfactorily explain the volatility of the Alberta economy. Why were the province's booms and busts since 1980 significantly worse than in Texas or Oklahoma, two American states with similar reliance on oil and agriculture? Why did the province experience a net loss of about 100,000 people between 1980 and 1989? During the decade, home prices collapsed; 14 provincial financial institutions failed or were forced to amalgamate; approximately one-third of the credit unions were placed under direct government supervision. The social

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
and human costs to thousands of Alberta families and individuals were enormous.".
The Calgary economist, Robert Mansell, points out that unemployment in the province did not return to its pre-1981 recession high until May 1987 compared to November 1983 for Ontario; in 1984 for Atlantic Canada; in June 1984 for Quebec.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom in Ottawa that it was the drop in oil and farm prices that caused the most severe Alberta recession since the Great Depression, Mansell notes that the average price for oil and gas producers did not decline until 1986 and farm receipts remained quite stable during the period.
By 1980, Alberta's petroleum industry accounted for almost one-third of the provincial economic output, approximately one-half of all construction starts and about 80 per cent of the province's yearly spending." I say parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that probably about 20 per cent of your constituents and 20 per cent of my constituents, perhaps more in southeast Edmonton than in yours, are directly involved in the oil and gas industry as a way of earning their livelihood.
"The growing dependence on the oil industry made Albertans increasingly vulnerable to anything that threatened new investment in the sector, including the NEP and high interest rates. Another important factor was that by 1980, Ottawa's taxation spending and energy policies as a whole were withdrawing about $15 billion more each year than the national government was injecting into the province through all forms of federal spending.
A major consequence of this was the transfer of numerous jobs and incomes out of the province, which severely weakened the provincial economy." I skip a paragraph and this one is worth noting.
This was written in 1990: "Albertans wonder why Alberta and not our largest and richest province, Ontario, has continued between 1980 and 1988 to be the only province from which Ottawa removes more in federal taxes than it spends. Why should parts of outer Canada be the cash cows of Confederation, providing cheap inputs for the industrial heartland?" If I were writing that now I would note that Ontario was losing about 3,000 jobs a day, I understand, in the manufacturing
sector. The free trade agreement will have to be renegotiated by a new government after the next election.
While the Mulroney government continues to spend more in Ontario than it raises in federal revenues, thereby increasing inflation, his finance minister argues that sky-high interest rates are necessary to dampen inflation.
In August 1990, the Prime Minister told his constituents in Charlevoix-I do not want to speak against the Prime Minister. I will leave that part out.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


David Kilgour: Do not coax me.
Some additional data on federal spending and taxation by province released by Mansell in August 1990 were equally distressing. Between 1961 and 1988 Albertans contributed $145.7 billion. Will the member for Willow-dale tell the opposite side how many zeros there would be in $145 billion?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Almost as many as in the Conservative Party.


David Kilgour: Expressed as 1990 dollars, it is more to Ottawa's revenues than it received in federal spending and transfers.
British Columbians were the only other net contributors to Confederation during the same period. Ontarians, who might have been expected to have contributed generously to have-not provinces, received $24 billion more in spending than it paid in taxes during the same years.
Most of the national government is located in Ontario and the argument is frequently made that this explains this anomaly. How then to explain that between 1970 and 1979 Ontario made a net contribution to residents of the other provinces of about $3.6 billion?
Mansell's latest figures also indicate that since 1980 alone, the province of Quebec has received $95 billion from Ottawa, more than it contributed to the national government.
I will spare talking about the CF-18. I would ask the minister, when he is explaining the budget, to put it on the record and tell us why the one surface mining laboratory in western Canada, that at Devon, Alberta, which had, I believe, 12 PhDs working there doing research on surface coal and who wanted to do research, as I understand it, on things like the oil sands and other important matters, was, in effect, disbanded. Why were 12 professionals who had moved in good faith from
May 23, 1991

Ottawa to Devon, Alberta, in effect told that they could get out of Alberta and go back to some other line of work? I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong. We have had a good many letters and exchanges on this. I would be grateful for his comments on that.
I guess this has been a pretty long talk. I think I have made all the points I was planning to make. I do not want to take any more time in the House. I hope it is clear to those opposite that this party, subject to what the member for Ottawa West will say, supports this move. We support decentralization.
I will end on that note.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Under the new rules the first two speakers have 40 minutes plus no questions or comments. Now we have the third speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton East, who will have 20 minutes plus 10 minutes questions and comments.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to refrain from dispelling the tension that I am certain has gripped the House now as people anticipate on which side of the issue the New Democratic caucus will fall. It is with concern for the well-being and equanimity of my colleagues in this House that I decide at the top to inform them that the New Democratic Party, on the basis of a free vote in its caucus, will support this bill and will support the move of the National Energy Board to Calgary.
Having said that, I feel compelled to point out in a number of regards why the quote was attributed to me and noted by the hon. member for Edmonton-Southeast to the effect that the move of the Energy Board to Calgary was a matter of indifference. I did say that, but before getting into it, I would like to note that what we are dealing with here is a matter of government polity that was apparently conceived so hastily that it was shoehomed into the budget speech long after the date for the actual printing of the budget speech had passed.
This means that those of us following the finance minister's words on the written page found ourselves
Government Orders
hearing the announcement of the move without being able to read it.
This indicates, better than anything else could, the nature of the haste of the decision. Why was the decision made in haste?


An hon. member:: Why?


Ross Harvey: I would suggest that it is because it was made on the occasion of the return to Ottawa of the Prime Minister, who previously had been in Calgary and in the west and who had discovered to his dismay that all of these nasty rumours circulating in the national capital about the collapse of the Conservative Party in western Canada were not rumours at all. They were facts.
It was resolved that something quickly must be done to address this problem. "What to do? What to do? What to do? We could alter our economic policies and bring in new policies that will be of benefit to the west but no, no, no. That would require stepping on too many important major corporate toes. What to do? What to do? What to do?"
The decision was made to move the headquarters of the National Energy Board, its board and its staff, to Calgary, the perceived hotbed of Reform Party activity, in such a way as to salvage at least a couple of seats in that city for the Conservative Party.
As the minister noted in his remarks upon moving second reading of this bill, the move is a symbolic one. "Symbolic" was the term he used, and that is correct. It is more easily understood to be correct when you consider exactly what it is we are moving and why. In this sense it is and remains a matter of indifference to me.
What now is the National Energy Board? Why, as the member for Edmonton Southeast noted, are applications for employment with the board actually declining? The National Energy Board as we find it today is little more than a pale shadow of its former self. It has every bit as many employees but its duties and the range of activities that it is charged with undertaking on behalf of the

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
Canadian people have been radically cut back, in five areas especially.
Those who have been following the energy industry for a while will remember the old concepts of security of supply and, consequently, the surplus test.
Before the passage of the free trade agreement, the National Energy Board had broad powers to regulate energy exports to ensure that they were in the Canadian public interest. Old section 119 of the NEB act gave the board the power with the approval of cabinet to: "revoke or suspend the licence if"-in the case of a licence other than a licence for the exportation of power-"the board is of the opinion that the public convenience and necessity so require."
More specifically, section 118 of the old act gave the board the power to "satisfy itself that the quantity of oil, gas or power to be exported does not exceed the surplus remaining after due allowance has been made for the reasonably foreseeable requirements for use in Canada".
This included the so-called and justly famed surplus test. Mr. Roland Priddle, the Chairman of the NEB, noted in his testimony of August 27, 1988, before the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs when it was studying Bill C-130, an act to implement the free trade agreement, in response to a question at pages 34:39 of the transcript of that hearing: "You are correct. Under the law as it presently stands, the government cannot initiate an export where the board has declined to issue a licence. So if an applicant has failed to convince the board that the gas is surplus and that public interest criteria are met, the government cannot then nevertheless grant a licence unless it took special legislative powers to do so and to override the National Energy Board."
Mr. Priddle in the same instance: "When Bill C-130",-that was the free trade act-"is enacted, unless it is amended, it would not be possible-to put the clock back and restore the application of the surplus test." "So unless the bill to implement the free trade agreement were changed, no, it would not be possible to revert to the present style or the old style of applying the surplus test".
Once again, the chairman of the committee pro tempore, the Hon. John B. Stewart asked: "Under section 83 of the present National Energy Board Act, if the board refused a licence to export, the government could not
overrule the board. Is that correct?" Mr. Priddle responded: "That is correct, Mr. Chairman".
The free trade agreement did away with the surplus test. Annex 905.2 of the agreement contains the following provision:
It is understood that the implementation of this Chapter includes
the administration of any "surplus tests" on the export of any energy
good to the other Party in a manner consistent with the provisions of
Articles 902, 903 and 904.
That was the specific elimination of the so-called surplus test.
After the amendments to the National Energy Board Act were made as result of the Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act in December 1988, the NEB was ordered to give effect to the agreement in new section
119.2	of the act. The cabinet, instead of the NEB, was given the power to restrict exports, and then only if the FTA provisions were not violated. That is in new section
119.3	of the act. The NEB can only suspend its determination for granting an export licence for 120 days. However, even before the 120 days are up, if the minister or the cabinet disagrees, the NEB is to issue the licence in question with all due haste. That is in new section
119.6	of the act.
To make it even more specific, the NEB cannot violate article 904(a), (b) or (c) of the free trade agreement. That is provided in section 119.5 of the new act. It is clear from the free trade agreement that the old surplus test is gone, an entire area of NEB jurisdiction wiped away.
Second, with regard to price determination, the board has suffered another major chop. Under the old National Energy Board Act, the board had the power, and I quote from Section 118(b) of the old act:
-to satisfy itself that thepricetobe charged for power exported-is just and reasonable in relation to the public interest-
And under section 120(2) of the old act the cabinet could set the export price or range of prices for oil and gas. These provisions were not deleted by the free trade amendments to the NEB Act, but the free trade agreement itself supersedes them. Specifically, new section 120(2) of the NEB Act allows cabinet to exempt oil and gas exported to the U.S. from any price regulations. More important, article 904(b) of the free trade agree-
May 23, 1991

ment prohibits the maintenance of export prices higher than domestic prices. Price discrimination is gone.
Do not forget, Mr. Speaker, that article 409 of the free trade agreement ensures that the proportion of exports does not fall below the previous 36-month average-the so-called free trade ratchet that requires us to continue to sell energy to the United States in a proportion of production not less than that which we exported in the previous three years. Again no higher export price can be charged.
The third big cut is the elimination of the so-called least cost alternative test. Under section 6(2)(z)(iii) of the NEB Part VI regulations-this took some research, Mr. Speaker-the National Energy Board required applicants for exports to demonstrate that the export price "would not result in prices in the country to which the power is exported being materially less than the least cost alternative for power and energy at the same location within that country".
This was one of three price tests the board established in 1967 to ensure that exporters should seek full market value for Canada's energy exports, especially in cases where there were non-arm's length transactions; discounts to penetrate new markets or to take a greater market share from other Canadian exporters, or, third, to dispel accusations of unfair trade.
On September 2, 1986, then energy minister Marcel Masse instructed the National Energy Board to review changes that could be made to simplify and reduce the regulation of electricity exports. This report was to include a review of the appropriateness of the existing three price criteria used to assess proposed electricity exports.
What do you suppose happened, Mr. Speaker? The National Energy Board conducted the review as requested stating that "the third price guideline may be a dispensable element of electricity export regulation". It added that if the guideline were deleted "the benefits accorded the bargaining position of a Canadian utility by dint of the existence and federal application of the third price guideline would be forgone". [DOT]
Government Orders
Canada agreed to eliminate the least cost alternative test for the export of energy goods in the free trade agreement in annex 905.2.
The fourth cut was contained in Bill C-23, the elimination of public hearings for most electricity export applications. Cabinet, not the NEB, now makes the final decision. The passage of Bill C-23 last session means that most electricity export applications and applications for international power lines will now not require that a public hearing be held. This used to be an important part of the NEB's job, but no more.
The final decision on whether a public hearing is held is no longer made by the NEB, it is made by cabinet. In other words, the cabinet can overrule a decision by the NEB that a public hearing should be held. This politicizes the process and seriously undermines the authority of the NEB, as we argued at the time, but that is the case. That is the fourth cut.
Fifth, and most recent, is the elimination of the market-based procedure, including the benefit cost analysis to assess natural gas export licence applications.
Price controls were eliminated by this government in the name of deregulation in 1984 and 1986. The volume-based surplus tests, as I noted earlier, were eliminated. This left the NEB relying solely on the so-called market-based procedure to assess the national interest of natural gas exports.
This procedure, briefly stated, is a complaints process where Canadian users are assured supplies of gas on conditions as favourable as export proposals. It includes an assessment of the impact of export proposals on Canadian natural gas exports, and a determination of whether proposed exports are in the national interest.
This market-based procedure, including the benefit-cost methodology used to assess natural gas export licence applications, was one of the few regulatory mechanisms that remained to protect the public interest of Canadians.
The elimination of the NEB's benefit-cost analysis sanctioned, indeed it invited, a situation in which exports of a finite, strategic commodity could result in net harm to Canada.
Even the Government of Alberta, that staunch advocate of free market ideology, recognized and made That is from pages 1, 34 and 35 of the Regulation of adjustments for the shortcomings of the natural gas Electricity Exports, a document published by the NEB in market. It blocked attempts by home owners, hospitals, June 1987.	school boards and other core natural gas users in Ontario

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
to purchase Alberta natural gas at deep discount prices, arguing that these short-term sales were not in the interest of Albertans.
However, what the Alberta government stood up for in its own interest has now been abandoned, with regard to the rest of Canada, in terms of effective regulation by the NEB. This happened, under pressure from the industry and the government, on March 15,1990, a little more than a year ago.
In its decision to abandon the market-based procedure, the NEB stated that it will: "Henceforth, not require applicants for licences pursuant to part 6 of the act to provide evidence on the net social benefits of their projects."
In short, as we pointed out at the time, this means the NEB has no effective way to block exports of finite, strategic resources even if these exports result in net harm to Canada.
As I said at the outset, the NEB is but a pale shadow of what once it was. Proof of this is the recent decision by the NEB to allow completely TCPL's application for rolled-in tolling on the building of the new pipeline to the northeastern United States, a pipeline that will be paid for by Ontario consumers. That decision was made before the board was moved to Calgary. That decision was made when the board was still right here in Ottawa.
What of intervener funding? What of funding to be supplied to those who would appear before the NEB regardless of where it is, especially as the NEB has been given new authorities to conduct environmental assessments under the so-called EARP guidelines? That, too, is still not there. The location of the NEB is, in that sense at least, a matter of indifference to me because the NEB is no longer allowed to do the job it was originally created to do.
However, I do support the move of the NEB to Calgary anyway, for three reasons.
My first reason is that, as the minister himself pointed out, over 80 per cent of the NEB's activities now relate to the oil and gas industry.
Second, in Alberta there is academic, industrial, consumer and environmentalist expertise that will be of tremendous use to the board in its assessments.
Third, it is long past time that this government started paying attention, real attention, to the concerns of the west, and not just at the symbolic level.
I will be dealing with a concrete matter in this regard during the oral question period this afternoon.
There remains only to note the concerns of the employees of the board and of the Public Service at the way in which this entire matter has been handled.
My time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I acknowledge that. However, my colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan will, when the speaking order comes around to him, deal thoroughly with those concerns. Those concerns which we hope will be effectively addressed by the government were all that stood in the way of the New Democratic Party supporting the move of the NEB to Calgary.
We believe, on the basis of a conversation I and others, including the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, have had with members of the Public Service and with Mr. Roland Priddle, the chairman of the board, that adequate provision will be made for those employees. Therefore it is with some considerable pleasure that I tell the House that the New Democratic Party will support this bill.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on Bill C-2, which proposes to transfer the National Energy Board to Calgary. Obviously, I am concerned to see jobs leaving the National Capital region, especially since this seems to be a political decision and a very partisan one at that.
Whether it is better to centralize or decentralize is an issue that I would prefer to debate in the legislative committee. What concerns me most today is the problems this will cause for employees in the National Capital region, for instance loss of jobs, and also the way they were treated. The minister told us that he spoke to the municipal authorities in Calgary and the school boards, and that the people of Calgary would roll out the welcome mat. I am sure they will, and I am sure the same applies to high schools and elementary schools, because

these jobs are coming to Calgary. I am not worried about that, but I am worried about the following: How will families from the National Capital Region be treated? How were these families treated by the Department?
Mr. Speaker, I expect no one likes to hear the news on television or read it in the paper that his employer is going to transfer him-whether he is willing or not-a thousand miles from his present residence. I am worried about the francophone community in Ottawa. I am worried about anglophone and francophone communities in the national capital region that will be uprooted, because both husband and wife work to pay off the mortgage on their house. Will they have any guarantees that their spouse will get a job as well?
If we assume that the wife works for the National Energy Board, is her husband guaranteed a job? The department says it will help people look for jobs, but the minister told us earlier that there was quite a bit of unemployment in Calgaiy. Won't they have a problem here? Who will be given preference, the spouses of employees who will be transferred to Calgary or Calgary residents?
This is an interesting question. Among the families which will have to move there are certainly children who will have to change school systems since they are different from one province to the other.
The difference is even greater for francophones. I understand two French-speaking schools are prepared to accomodate them. But will they be integrated into the catholic or public school system? Will the families have a choice between the two systems? What kind of future is in store for these children? It is certainly a concern.
I very much regret this way of dealing with these families, hurrying them like that and suddenly disrupting their life in the national capital region, the life of professional civil servants. That is what concerns me the most, Mr. Speaker: the families of the civil servants being transfered.
What are their chances of finding a job? What are their chances of development in a new setting, far away from the capital? What guarantees will the government give to help these people not only to look for schools and
Government Orders
jobs but also to find schools and jobs to ensure the future of the entire family?


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the board or the department with regard to the adjustment provisions that are being made for the employees, but I can at least set the hon. member's mind at ease in this regard. In terms of the amenities, educational opportunities and business opportunities that are available and in terms of the spectacular scenery and environmental wonder surrounding it, the city of Calgary is second to but one city in all of Canada.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to make a comment. The member for Edmonton East deserves tremendous congratulations from this House and from the people of Alberta for the persuasive role he has played in drawing attention to the need to have some serious decentralization of policy in this country, as symbolized by this move of the National Energy Board to Calgary.
He was particularly persuasive in our caucus and has persuaded us that we, from all parts of Canada, should be supporting this move. We have our concerns about the way in which the workers here will be treated. We have received some assurances and we would hope that when this bill comes before the committee, there will be an opportunity for those concerns to be given a full airing and to be sure that they are met.
We support fully the idea that it is important that the west have the headquarters of the National Energy Board, that it be centred there. Alberta is the obvious place for it.
The member for Edmonton East has shown great leadership on this and I would like to congratulate him. I ask him if he would like to focus for a minute or two on the workers and how they might be treated in this shift. It is important, both from the point of view of the employees here and, of course, in Calgaiy, and how the workers would be received in that city.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, again I will attempt to be brief. First of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for those generous remarks. I will attempt to give them as wide as possible distribution in my riding.
With regard to the question of the employees, I would note that I have had discussions in this regard with the chairman of the National Energy Board. I know that my colleague, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, who will be speaking directly to this question a little later in this debate has met with representatives of the em-

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
ployees and, indeed, directly with employees. The two of us are satisfied that the adjustment package put together is a generous one. However, there are still elements in which it must be further fine-tuned. We look forward to getting the bill before committee to address that question.
There is no question that the manner in which the employees were notified was shameful. It was tawdry. It is a wrong that I do not suppose any adjustment package, however generous, could ever set right.
On the whole, we do not believe that the treatment being accorded the employees of the board is sufficiently poor to warrant opposition to the bill.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak on this bill. I know the government had hoped of having it go through with virtually no debate to escape any examination, in fact to even escape the bill being referred to a legislative committee where witnesses could be heard and the concerns of employees could be raised, along with any other matters that people might want to bring to the attention of Parliament.
However, we have made sure that that does not happen. We are insisting on it going to a legislative committee because we think there are issues that need to be addressed.
This was an extremely sudden decision of the government, an extremely sudden announcement that did not appear in the budget speech and seemed to roll off the top of the head of the Minister of Finance, as so many other things seem to have done from time to time.
That decision, with so little planning going into it, created great unfairness, threw 300 families into turmoil and in fact threatened to disrupt the operations of the board. It had not been looked at. It had not been examined, as this kind of decision would normally be. Planning had not been done for it and a schedule and so on set out.
We see some problems in the way the employees are being treated and these need to be addressed. That is why this bill must go to committee. That is why we need to hear from people who are affected by this move and to address some of their concerns.
It is evident, given the way in which it was announced and the way in which it is proceeding post-haste, that the timing is dictated more by the political agenda of the government than concern for the operation of the board or the lives of its employees and their families. I would like to give several examples.
The treatment of the employees in this case has been arrogant and insensitive in the extreme. There is nothing like finding out that your whole life is going to change, your whole career is going to be disrupted and your whole family is going to be disrupted on television at night. That is the way the employees of the board found out that their employer was moving and either asking them to go with it or leaving them behind.
A week before the budget announcement, a large number of employees were transferred into the National Energy Board but were given no hint, no indication that accepting that transfer into the board would mean a major move more than half way across the country for their families.
The government is playing with words in attempting to deprive employees of rights they are entitled to under their contract and under government policy by insisting on calling this a relocation and not a decentralization. This deprives the employees of entitlement that they are entitled to: entitlement to notice with time to plan their lives, time to plan their careers and time to work other family responsibilities around a reasonable and rational adjustment to the requirements of their employer. The decentralization policy, that is, moving a work unit-and I doubt that anybody would call this anything else-requires a normal notice period of one year. It is clear that the employees have been given a matter of weeks, not a matter of months to make a serious decision.
In rushing the move, the government is causing undue and unnecessary hardship for employees and eventually for the board. As late as April 4, employees were told not to even list their homes with a realtor, even though they were being asked to decide just four weeks later whether they would be moving to Calgary or not. Employees were told at the same time that information on the relocation package would not be available until the end of April, and at that time their decision had to be made by the middle of May. This, I understand, has now been
May 23, 1991

extended to the end of May but it is still unfair to give employees who have been loyal and hard-working, who have made the board what it is, a matter of a few days and weeks to make a major decision like this about their lives.
The government suggests that families with school-age children should relocate before September 1, but only a token portion of the board's operation will even be in Calgary by then. What will these employees be relocating to? It is not until the end of October that the major component of the board will be up and operational in Calgary, if the government's plans go ahead on schedule.
Employees are faced with deciding this week. But it will be five months before most of the board's operations will move. Now I ask the government, why is it so crucial that employees make decisions within a matter of weeks? Why does it consider that employees need only a matter of days and weeks to make this kind of decision, when the government needs at least three to five months' notice to make its moves?
Employees are asking what is the rush when this move has been under consideration on and off for nearly two decades. Surely it is possible to plan in a way that is humane to workers and humane to their families and to the other obligations they have in their communities, and still accomplish the government's objective.
Mr. Speaker, there is serious concern about discriminatory treatment, about some employees being treated as elite employees who are important to the board and others being treated as unimportant employees to the board. We have some employees being offered red carpet and expensive treatment because the board needs to keep them, and others not being offered similar treatment. Similarly, we have very special and very expensive packages for people who are moving, but no equally special consideration for those who, for one reason or another, cannot move with the board. This is not the discriminatory and unequal kind of treatment that these employees or any other employee of the government deserve.
It started within hours of the announcement, when the government hired Decima to design a package that would entice employees to relocate. The proposal from Decima made it clear that out of the 350 employees of
Government Orders
the board, their job was to put together a package that was acceptable to 35 employees. They did not want the employees to know this, so their survey scheme was going to include twice that many so that nobody would know they were targeting a special 35 people with special and discriminatory treatment.
Do we have an elite in the National Energy Board? Do we have some people who are more valuable employees than others and deserve to be treated more generously?
I don't think that is the kind of Public Service we want.
Let me give you an example. We are told head-hunting services will be provided for the spouses who relocate with an employee. The same opportunity, the same treatment will not be given to employees who stay, they will be subject only to the normal workforce adjustment policy-and there is even some question about that. We question whether this head-hunting service is only available to certain employees' spouses and whether it is a simple employment counselling service that is available to the rest of the spouses who are not one of the select 35.
Those who relocate will be reimbursed if they take an exploratory trip to Calgary to find out whether they would like to live there. But those who decide not to relocate will not get reimbursed for those expenses. Is that fair? Is that equitable? I don't think so.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation for the space agency and for the Canadian Centre for Management Development contained special provisions for employees to ensure that they were not disadvantaged, whether or not they went with the new agency. Why does this bill contain no mention of the employees, no mention of provisions for them?
The government will say that employees are subject to the normal work force adjustment policy which gives them priority for other appointments within the Public Service for a limited period of time. In fact, that policy expired on March 31. It has been extended to June 30, but just until June 30.
The employees want to know, and I want to know, what happens to them after that? What about the employees who have worked their way up to senior positions but do not have the paper qualifications for similar positions elsewhere in the government? Perhaps the minister might want to answer this. Has the NEB asked the whole Department of Energy, Mines and

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
Resources to assist in relocating these people and ensuring that they are employed.
What about people with highly specialized skills who, for one reason or another, cannot go to Calgary, much as they might like to? These are the people that the work force adjustment policy is far too limited to serve well. They are too specialized, they have become specialized in serving the Government of Canada, and therefore are less employable by other employers.
Where is the head-hunting help for these people? Where is the help for these people to find alternative employment? What about employees who are close to retirement? The government has all kinds of money to convince people to go to Calgary. What is it doing for people who are staying here? This is not their decision. They should not be the ones to suffer for it. Are we going to throw somebody out on the street without a job, a year from retirement, and make no special provisions for that person? I would hope not. These are certainly questions that need to be addressed at committee.
The government might say: "Well, that is peoples' choice. If they do not want to come with us, tough luck". I do not think that is a good policy for any employer, public or private. It ignores totally the fact that many people are unable to relocate. Often, the people who are unable to relocate are women. They may have a spouse who is the higher income earner and it does not make any sense for the family-and people do consider their families in these decisions- to uproot because of one spouse's job.
Many, and most of them are women, now have custody arrangements which prohibit them from leaving a certain region without going back to court, and that can take a long time and may not even be possible. Many have the care of elderly parents or other family or community obligations as a result they simply cannot pick up and move in a very short time frame, as is happening in this case.
What about those who decide to relocate and then cannot for one reason or another, and it may be any of the above, it may be illness or anything? These people will be considered to have abandoned their positions. In other words, they will be out of a job overnight.
The move is creating particular problems for francophones, many of whom have spouses who are not bilingual. I know the department has offered language training to those spouses. However, the plain fact is that to move to another community without a milieu that is familiar to you in your own language, your traditional connections to your culture and heritage and language, is more difficult for a francophone family in this case than it is for an anglophone family. I think the government has to pay special attention to that.
The National Energy Board has now indicated that it intends to apply for special employer status. One reason is to allow for higher rates of compensation than it now pays its employees in the government.
For many of its employees the board will have to pay up to $15,000 a year more in a location where it is competing with the private sector in the resource industry. Many employees will have to be paid that much more, or they simply will walk across the street and take a job in industry.
This special employer status has certain implications for the employee. They are not terribly clear as to what those implications are, and they are certainly entitled to know.
Does this, for instance, let the board pay support staff, who earn less, at lower rates if it allows it to pay some employees at higher rates? What assurances do these employees at lower rates have that their salary level will be protected? How does this affect those who go to Calgary and then decide to return two years from now if they are with a separate employer as opposed to their current status with the National Energy Board?
The employees have talked to me about their concern about the impact on operations of the board as well. Consultants say the normal rate of relocation for private sector moves in a case like this is approximately 50 per cent. That obviously must have a serious impact on the board's operations because the government has left very little time to make plans to ensure that there can be a smooth transition.
As a result of the political "symbology", as the minister calls it, of this move, the board itself but not most of its employees will be moving to Calgary on
May 23, 1991

September 1. In fact the board will not be fully operational until the end of October. That seems to me to create quite a little gap.
I want to address very briefly concerns raised by others, as the minister has done this morning. The minister has received letters from, among others: Consumers Gas, Union Gas, the Industrial Gas Users Association, and the Ontario Natural Gas Association. They all opposed this move and raised some very serious concerns about it.
While the minister has attempted to calm these concerns this morning, certainly one of the letters suggested specific amendments to the act that would relieve concerns about the neutrality of the board, its impartiality.
The minister's statements this morning-I take them at their word-are not helpful when spokespersons for the industry in Calgary start saying: "Won't it be nice when our kids are going to the same schools and we are skiing at the same ski hills and the board is more sensitive to the needs of the producers?"
It is not helpful when the Calgary Chamber of Commerce says that the board will be closer to its principal clients. I hope the minister is aware that its principal clients are the public. Its principal duty is to the public interest, not the producers, not the shippers or the exporters.
Consumers Gas has asked for a specific provision in the act with respect to public interest.
The concerns are exacerbated because this move coincides with the board becoming financially self-sufficient, that is funded by the industry. In fact we know the ultimate cost is to the consumer and not to the industry. Suggestions have already been made by the Canadian Petroleum Association and the Independent Petroleum Association that producers should have more control over the operations and the policies of the board.
Concerns about the public interest are legitimate and need to be addressed in legislative committee.
I want to say simply that the board reports to Parliament. It co-ordinates with many departments and agencies, even more so now that it has responsibility, beyond what it thought, for the environment.
The board has maintained an office in Calgary continually. Has the government considered whether, for purposes of parliamentary liaison and efficiency in liai-
Govemment Orders
son with other government departments, it should now maintain a smaller Ottawa office as well?
It is important for the employer and for the operation of the board that this move be carried out providing employees with every opportunity to make a decision to stay with the board. That is why we want to see some of these issues addressed. That is why we want to look at the schedule for this to see if it really makes sense to say employees have this week to decide and then stretch the move out over five months. Can we look at another schedule that is better for the board, better for the employees, and better for the public interest?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of quick comments and then a specific question for the hon. member.
My first comment is that there may be members in this House who will not sense the extent to which this is important to Alberta or, as it might be, important to the province of Saskatchewan. But we are two provinces unique in the development of this country. Constitutionally we stood apart and different from all other provinces.
When Canada was formed in 1867, the presumption of resource ownership belonged to the four original provinces. It belonged to Prince Edward Island a year later, in 1868, when it became a province; likewise to Manitoba and to British Columbia.
However, in 1905, when the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan became part of Canada, the federal government kept from those provinces the ownership of natural resources. For 30 years the province of Alberta never raised enough money in taxes to be able to pay for schools and hospitals. They indebted themselves every year. For 30 years they fought, until 1930 when they won the Natural Resources Transfer Act.
Ingrained in an Alberta or Saskatchewan person is that deep resentment that somehow the federal government had coveted unto itself the resources of only two parts of Canada, where there were provincial ownerships in all other cases. It is more than symbolic. It is extremely important to those two western provinces for all of its right reasons and its symbolic reasons.
I want to ask a question of the hon. member for Ottawa West. I note that she said there are persons who had worked their way up and she had concerns for them. There are persons close to retirement and she had concerns for them. There are many who are lower income spouses, and again she expressed concerns as a

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
good member of Parliament representing constituents of hers who by and large are public servants. I commend her for the compassion she is showing.
The real question is when a move in the public interest ought to be made. That argument could be put for every move to every locale and every situation.
I just want to ask her specifically: Is she or is she not in favour of moving the National Energy Board from Ottawa to Calgary?


Marlene Catterall: The member was not listening very carefully to my speech. I said I had concerns I wanted to address. I think we all recognize in this House, and I certainly do, the importance of government services being available to people across this country.
The member is obviously unaware that 70 per cent of the Public Service is not in the national capital region but is decentralized across this country. Only 20 per cent of the jobs in this community are Public Service jobs. It would be nice if before he got up he knew what he was talking about.
I also want to point out to him that he mentioned Alberta and Saskatchewan. He forgot to mention that Manitoba was formed as a province in 1870 and did not get control of its resources until 1930.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It was 60 years.


David Kilgour: The minister is right.


An hon. member:: Do you favour the move?


Marlene Catterall: We want to see this bill go to committee so we can see those concerns addressed. I would like to be able to support this bill whole-heartedly.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, one of the questions raised by the member for Ottawa West concerned a suggestion which was put forward in a letter to me by companies like Union Gas, that if we shift a regulatory agency such as this from Ottawa to Calgary, in this case, somehow this would represent a process of tying the agency more closely to the producer side of the industry.
I must say I find that a very strange argument. I do not see why an agency's location should affect what it is able to do in terms of justly and carefully considering questions which come before it. That is one of the reasons for some of the concerns of our caucus with respect to the workers being affected by this which we intend to take up in committee.
Nevertheless we felt that it was possible to have precisely the same kind of careful, judicious analysis of questions that come before the National Energy Board in Calgary as in Ottawa. It would seem to me that to suggest otherwise is to say there is something about the air in Calgary that destroys the capacity of people to be judicious and impartial, and that is certainly not the case.
I would therefore ask the member for Ottawa West if she would be prepared to make quite clear that she was not putting forward any suggestion that a shift of the National Energy Board from Ottawa to Calgary would lead to any change in the impartiality and the judiciousness with which that board has operated in the past and will operate in the future.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the member might have listened to what I was saying. I was referring to correspondence from people who have expressed legitimate concerns about this particular aspect and have asked the government to take particular steps to ensure that that does not happen. I think the board has always recognized that it was important to keep an office in Calgary-this is nothing new-to keep contact with the oil industry, and it has done that well over the years.
I would not for a moment suggest that the board would do anything but fulfil its mandate under the act and act in the best interests of the people of Canada.
None the less I think it is very important that with this bill before committee, the committee also address the concerns that have been raised by significant interests in the energy field. I repeat the point I made during my speech that if the board has always felt it important to keep an office in Calgary to be close to the producing industries, perhaps the government should now consider that it might also be important to keep an office in Ottawa since the board does report to Parliament and does work very closely with many other government departments.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I presented a bundle of petitions, some 2,500 names, all expressing concern about this
May 23, 1991

move and signing the petitions in opposition to the move of the National Energy Board to Calgary.
I have another group of petitions with some 300 names. Most are from the Ottawa area, but some names are from different communities in Quebec, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. I suggest that they are doing so in part because they just do not know enough about the way in which the whole thing is being handled to this point in time. New Democrats have always supported decentralization, to the best of my knowledge, if it is done in an orderly manner. We are mainly concerned about the way in which the employees are handled. Certainly in this case there is no question, and others have commented on this, that the employees were handled very badly, including the chairman of the National Energy Board himself who put up a notice in the board office to the effect that he knew nothing at all about the move other than what he had heard when the budget speech was read.
The minister of energy in presenting and speaking first on the bill said that it was in the budget speech. Technically it was because the budget speech is what the minister said in the House. Certainly we all know it was not in the printed material which was made available to the minister for his speech when he was presenting it or in the material that was distributed since, other than Hansard, which is the budget speech.
That is how the chairman of National Energy Board found out about the move according to him, and to this point we have no reason for doubting it. If he did not know then certainly the employees did not know. Perhaps even the Minister of Finance did not know, except that he got a note before he got on his feet asking him to announce this.
Why was it done in the budget speech? To the best of my knowledge it is not a budget item. Why did it have to be done then? If it were going to be kept secret from everyone the excuse could be that it was a budget matter, it was in the budget speech, but we know it was not in the budget speech until moments before the minister stood up to speak. There was no reason for the secrecy, for not letting people know if the decision was actually made earlier than the budget speech which was presented some day late in February.
Why has everyone concerned with this move been treated so shabbily as to tell them with so little notice what was going to happen? From the start the employees
Government Orders
have been handled badly and that is the nature of our concern about this legislation.
If it were in the budget speech one would expect to find some reference to the cost. I would suggest if one read through the budget speech very carefully one would look in vain to find any reference to what it is going to cost. I have heard figures running anywhere from $40 million to $70 million. Who knows? Nevertheless it is happening. It is happening in a real hurry. That the means the cost of finding the accommodation in Calgary will probably be higher than it might have been had the government had the time to look with some care. The cost of abandoning space in Ottawa itself may be high. We do not know. Certainly the government has given every indication of downsizing. It would seem unlikely that the space currently filled in Ottawa is going to be filled with other employees unless they are spread more thinly.
The loss of expertise has been commented on. One does not know how much. How can we know? The employees had originally until the middle of May to make up their minds. They now have until the end of May to decide and only then will we know just how many will be lost and also the loss of expertise. That is a real question. Estimates have suggested that some 50 per cent of the staff will be unable or unwilling to move or a combination of both. People with families may find that they are quite unable to move, especially if there are two income earners in the family. If one has other employment here in Ottawa it is going to be very difficult for the two of them to pull up stakes along with their family and move to Calgary and it is not quite as difficult perhaps for them to stay here.
It is going to present a problem. People who have been working for the National Energy Board for some time probably have accumulated a lot of pension time and were looking forward to working for the National Energy Board until they retire. Now all of a sudden they have to deal with a situation in which their work is going to be moved some several thousand miles away from its present location and with very short notice.
In filling the vacancies, the government has been reassured by the Chamber of Commerce, according to a letter that went to the then minister of energy, I believe, that there would be plenty of expert employees in the oil industry available and willing to fill in the vacancies in the National Energy Board. I expect they would be

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
willing. If they are unemployed right now they would be even more whiling.
Unfortunately, that lends weight to the argument that they are going to be more under the influence of the oil industry in that location than they would be here in Ottawa. I think it is important that the NEB be able to do everything possible to convince people that this is not the way the system is working. I expect the National Energy Board will be very much aware of that and will be watching that carefully.
I have talked to employees' representatives and I have talked one of the employees and will be talking to more. I am pleased that this matter is going to be referred to a legislative committee so that there will be an opportunity to get in to more of the details.
One of the questions that I and others have asked is why does it have to be by the end of the September? Originally, I think it was September 1 and now it is the end of September. I do not know why it has to be that soon. Why could the government not have taken more time? Would it not have served its political purposes at least to have said: "Yes, it is happening. It is going to happen. We are going to be there a year from now or some such date"? That would have given everyone, the board itself and the employees, much more time to make their preparations and decisions. It seems to me that could have been done and it could still be done. I do not know what the magic is about the current date of September 30. If it is going to have an affect by then the deadline given to the employees has to be real because the board has to know who it is going to have working for it when it arrives in the Calgary office and opens shop.
I do not think anyone is really complaining about the special provisions enabling employees to make the move with minimum cost to themselves, at least in terms of dollars and cents. The guarantee that employees leaving Ottawa will get at least market value for their homes is a good one but even then there is so little time to make that decision, even with the deadline being extended last Friday.
The employees are going to have to sign up for two years if they are going to move to Calgary, but any time in the third year or between the end of the second and
the end of the third year they can change their mind and decide they made a mistake in going to Calgary. I do not know if it is clear whether the board would move them back to Ottawa or move them wherever they wanted to go. I have not been able to determine that yet because I just have not had a chance to read all the material.
It is tough to decide in a couple of weeks whether you are going to accept today's current market value for your home or wait and perhaps think that maybe in six months the market is going to improve and you may receive a higher amount. Why do they have to decide at the same time as they are moving? Why not give them that two or three year period to make the decision as to whether they would dispose of their homes here in Ottawa?
For all I know there may be more in the agreement than I am aware of but my understanding now is that they have to make up their minds as to whether they are going to accept the board's offer of getting minimum market value for their home at the same time as they decide whether they are going to Calgaiy.
I see no reason for that deadline not being extended, even if the government decides that it cannot do anything about the September 30 deadline for opening up shop in Calgary.
There will be opportunity now that we are going to committee and certainly we are co-operating fully. All the opposition members, as far as I know, are co-operating in getting this bill to committee because we believe that is where we can best hear from the people who are being affected. The employees are the ones I am particularly concerned about at the moment but there are others who are being affected by this, such as the industry itself. I am sure the oil industry will want to make representations as to what a great idea it is, the oil industry from Calgary anyway. It may be that user industries and other energy groups will want to make representations of their own. I am looking forward to this bill being referred to the special legislative committee, getting answers, we hope, to some of the questions and perhaps getting some movement from the government on the deadlines it has imposed, deadlines that are totally unfair to employees who heard about this from someone who heard it in the budget speech.
May 23, 1991


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: I will be very brief.
I have a question for my hon. friend and it is based on what I have seen in my 12 years here. I know that the federal government is often accused of being centralist in its attitudes and approaches and this bill is an effort to take the National Energy Board to the place where the action is. In other words, since most the people dealing with the National Energy Board are from the western provinces we should make it easy for them.
I have a question and then I have a comment. There seems to be, perhaps organized by the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast, a complaint here from people in the the west that we are moving this National Energy Board to Calgary. As a central Canadian I have great difficulty in understanding why members from the west, such as the hon. member who just spoke, are concerned about us taking this western operation out to Calgary. It seems to me to make good sense. I do not understand why the Liberals and the NDP are fighting this effort by the government to take it to the west.
That is my question. If I may reach back into my past as the housing spokesman for our party back in 1981, and having followed it ever since, I can say that one should never worry about the prices of houses in Ottawa; they do not go up, they do not go down and they do not follow the trends of any other city in the country. This place is recession-proof. I do not understand why the member for Edmonton Southwest is fighting this transfer of the National Energy Board to Alberta. It may be the transformation he made when he went in to a party without any western members. That could be, I do not know.
I would like my hon. friend from British Columbia to explain if he knows whether this is an organized plot to prevent the National Energy Board from going to Calgary.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I tried to make it plain that I was speaking for the employees and asking for fair treatment for the employees.
I am going to read briefly from a letter from the Ontario Federation of Labour:
Government Orders
Giving people a choice of being out of work or of moving hundreds of miles away is really no choice at all. And to find out that this decision has been made by watching television has only added salt to the wounds of the employees.
We expect employers to treat their employees with dignity and respect. These workers were treated with what can only be seen as contempt and disdain.
We do expect the government to be a little better than the average employer when it comes to treating its employees fairly. We do not expect it to keep secrets like this when there is absolutely no reason that we know of, no reason has been advanced, for keeping it a secret until the last moment.
What I am talking about is fairness to the employees. I am not talking about the location in Calgary. I have lived a little while in Ottawa and during the war I lived a while in Calgary. There is not a heck of a lot by which to choose but if I had my choice I would go to Calgary. They do not have time to find that out before they have to make their decisions.


Marlene Catterall: The minister asks why we are concerned.
We are concerned about people. That is why we are concerned. This government has not looked after the people who have made the National Energy Board what it is, which is a really good and responsible agency of the people of Canada. That is why we want to make sure their concerns are addressed.
I just heard another Tory member of Parliament discounting Manitoba entirely, talking about this caucus having no western members in it. Has he not heard about Manitoba? Has he not heard about B.C.? Are the prairies to him just Alberta and Saskatchewan?
I want to ask a question of the previous speaker. He seems remarkably uninformed about the situation of the employees. That is typical of NDP members. They tend to get up and speak at the last minute, try to get themselves a briefing with one person who is supposed to give them the truth from on high, and do not really know what is on the minds of the people they are talking about.
The hon. member seemed to imply that the schedule for this move is all right, even though it requires people to make a decision by next week to disrupt their whole lives, while the government has another full five months

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
actually to implement its decision. Does he think that is fair? Does he think it is fair that people who are relocating with the board are getting special and privileged treatment, and people who cannot, are not?


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, it is not fair that any employee should be treated in that manner. That is the point I was trying to make in my speech, that we are concerned about fairness for the employees. We are concerned about it whether the Liberals or the Tories are in charge of the move. There have been examples of decentralization that the Liberals have implemented where they paid no more attention to the concerns of the employees than the Tories are today. They are both wrong. The employees should be the ones that are treated with real concern when their lives are being uprooted in the way that some of their lives are going to be uprooted in this case. It is wrong whether it is the Liberals or the Tories that do it.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this debate on Bill C-2 simply to make a few comments on the fate of the National Energy Board's present employees who live in the National Capital Region, mostly in Ottawa, which I tiy to represent as best I can.
Mr. Speaker, the arguments for moving the National Energy Board may be valid and I suppose they are for some western MPs. I have heard some convincing arguments but I hear contrary ones from my constituents and I would like to put the remarks I am about to make in this context.
We must not forget the very important human factor involved. I remember that we had an interesting debate in this House in 1989 on Bill C-16, creating the Canadian Space Agency and dealing with other matters. Mr. Speaker, it will be remembered that the main concern then was for the public servants and workers affected by that decision.
Mr. Speaker, the number of positions at the National Energy Board has gone from 50 in 1959 when it was created to nearly 330 today, in 1991-92. The Public Service Commission report, which I have consulted, shows that the National Energy Board had 291 employees in 1990, of whom 273 were in the Ottawa area. This means that 273 families will have to choose in the next six months to relocate to another city in another
province or, if they decide not to move, hope to find other employment. The lives of 273 families will be put in turmoil by this government which I think has been insensitive by not foreseeing in its bill a situation that could be distressing for many of them. The proof, Mr. Speaker, is that I have letters from constituents who express quite eloquently the situation their families find themselves in, with children at school or university. They will have to make a serious decision: Do they move or do they break up the family, in a sense, leaving the children to complete their education here? Do they take the children with them, and God knows the problems that can mean socially and for their education.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the testimony of one of my constituents shows veiy well how hard this decision is. This lady left her native province almost 20 years ago. She settled in the region, here in Ottawa, with her husband, who works for the National Energy Board. They have laid down roots here, Mr. Speaker. Their daughter attends the University of Ottawa; their son is in high school. The woman works. She has found a satisfying job that she loves and would like to keep and of which she is veiy proud. If her husband decides to leave Ottawa, they will have to decide what to do about the children.
If she chooses to follow her husband, Mr. Speaker, which is quite normal, the separation between the children and their parents will be painful. She will have to leave her job that she loves. There is no guarantee that she will find another one in Calgary. Once the school year is over or once they have completed high school or university, because it is not easy to move from one institution to another, the children will also have to decide on a career.
When you are 20 or 30, Mr. Speaker, those decisions can be made and it is sometimes exciting to relocate and have new experiences in another place in this great country of ours. For a family, it can be very trying at times. The responsibilities are great and I think that the choice can be a nightmare.
Mr. Speaker, of the 291 person-years or persons affected by this decision, 131 are in managerial, scientific, professional or technical positions. The NEB or National Energy Board estimates that 50 per cent of the employees will remain in Ottawa. That is an estimate. This means that the Board's expertise will be cut in half. Fifty per cent, or some 65 to 70 additional people, will
May 23, 1991

have to be hired to replace those who decide not to move.
Mr. Speaker, what will happen to those people who decide not to follow their employer to Calgary? They will be put on a priority list for one year. What will happen to them after a year? I do not know. Mr. Speaker, 80 of those 291 employees are French-speaking. Although Calgary is a friendly city, as I admit, and Alberta as a whole has a large, lively French-speaking community, our perception of Alberta is a province that is stingy in providing services to the linguistic minority. Therefore these French-speaking public servants, who make up 27.5 per cent of those who will have to relocate or leave their job, are legitimately concerned about their children's education and whether they will obtain in Alberta the same services that they had here in Ottawa, Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, the question is, can the government offer any hope to these public servants, these families who heard the news, as we all know, through the media. The news was announced the day before a budget. I wonder why these employees were treated differently from those who worked for the Space Agency?
To get back to that experience, I would like to remind hon. members that although the second reading stage of a bill is basically intended as an opportunity to consider the principle of the bill, and we acknowledged that principle, as I said earlier, because there are a number of pros- There are many reasons why we supported this initiative, but there is also reason to be worried about the human factor, about what will happen to the Canadian men and women who are now working at the National Energy Board.

I want to remind members of clauses in Bill C-16, an act to establish the Canadian Space Agency and to provide for other matters in relation to space.
Section 28(1) of that bill states:
Where a position in the Public Service of Canada is transferred to the Agency within ninety days after the day on which this Act comes into force, the incumbent of the position continues in the position in the Agency, unless the incumbent otherwise elects prior to the transfer, and any person so continuing is deemed to have been appointed to the Agency in accordance with subsection 16(1).
Government Orders
Then it goes on to subsection 2.
The preoccupation at that time was identified by Brian Leddy, the National Research Council's Vice President of Personnel. He said they were preoccupied with the anxiety about the problems of uprooting families, getting French language training and finding suitable schools for children.
Mr. Leddy said in an interview, and I quote from The Ottawa Citizen, March 19, 1990:
All the government's regular workforce adjustment programs,
including early retirement, severance packages and retraining would
be available to eligible individuals.
That experience is not, in my view, at least from what I understand and from what I have heard, going to be repeated with the transfer of the board to Calgary. I would think that in committee the government would want to answer some questions.
I give credit to previous speakers for raising this issue.
I agree with my colleague from Ottawa West on her comments. I know the member will be in committee, bringing forward some of the concerns people in the Ottawa area have expressed to us but not specifically about the move. As I have said, there are reasons to support it and there are also reasons against it. However, we are talking about the principle of second reading here.
If I know my rules, the principle of the bill is at stake here. That is the most important part, as far as I am concerned, of any bill's process, the principle being that the decision has been made by the government to move an agency to Calgary from its Ottawa head office location by law. All the bill does, essentially, is make it possible for the board and its employees to be outside the national capital, in Calgary. What happens after that? I guess the government will not have to come to Parliament any more if it wants to move the board to any other place in Canada.
Section 1 says very clearly that after the move to Calgary the Governor in Council may approve any decisions to relocate the board. I think that would also be of some concern to some people and we might want to get some explanation from the minister in committee.
But to come back to my point.

May 23, 1991
Government Orders

It is pretty obvious to a member who represents his constituents, and the hon. member for Ottawa West said as much as 70 per cent of our public servants are outside Ottawa and scarcely 20 per cent work in Ottawa. There may be 27 or 30 per cent in the National Capital Region as a whole, including the Quebec side, the Outaouais region.
In my own riding I have about 10 per cent, but for obvious reasons, I have a lot of these people living in Ottawa-Vanier who wrote letters expressing very strongly their reluctance, their worries and the problems they had.
As far as the principle is concerned, we acknowledge that the decision has been made and it is going to happen, but we now have to decide how it will be done, and that, I think, is what the legislative committee will have to consider. How will the government ensure that no employee's rights are violated, and that employees do not suffer economically, socially or in their family life?
Mr. Speaker, that is why the Liberal caucus, through its critic and the hon. member for Ottawa West and the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, did not express the kind of reservations the Solicitor General wanted to use to turn this into a partisan issue. We did not make this a partisan issue. We said that the decision was made, and we respect that decision. It was the government's decision. It wasn't our decision but the government's. As I said earlier, there are many reasons for thinking this could have been done differently, with more consultation, with a little more tact, with more attention to the personal and human factors. It was not done and we deplore that, but there are times when in this kind of situation, special measures must be taken after the fact.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, before expediting this bill through the House, I think it is only fair that the bill should go to committee, so that the minister has a chance to explain and we can have the assurance that this government, which in the case of the transfer of the Space Agency to Montreal was receptive to certain comments by Opposition members, that this government will also be receptive in this particular case and that it will deal sensitively with the employees who will be asked to move.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-8, an act to provide for the dissolution of the transfer of certain Crown corporations and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendment) from the legislative committee.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for more than one reason.
I want to address the third reading of what was known as Bill C-73. This is an act that deals with the dissolution and reorganization of several Crown corporations.
One of the aspects of this that gives me some pleasure-and I hope it gives my colleagues some pleasure-is that we have an opportunity to resurrect or revive a bill that died at the end of the last session of the House.
In being able to do that, I think all of us in the House can manifest a degree of co-operation that for most purposes will enhance and further the interests of the taxpayer who pays for the cost of running this place. Also, it would advance the speed with which we deal with the bill and thereby permit government to get on with the work that is specifically proposed.
This particular bill has had the benefit of significant scrutiny at the legislative committee stage. That is one of
May 23, 1991

the reasons why we in opposition at this point in time are able to conclude that Parliament and the public have sufficiently examined what lies behind the bill and its purposes. This enables it to be dealt with reasonably expediently here in this new session.
I want to congratulate the chair of that legislative committee and the members on it for the way in which the bill was handled at committee. However, I want to raise an item of caution. It relates to the way the government has proposed legislative committees to deal with bills such as Bill C-73 in the future.
We all know that in the new rules that were passed here a few weeks ago, legislative committees are only permitted to call witnesses on technical matters. I objected to that restriction at the time the rule was passed, as did many others on this side of the House.
I would like to point out that if committees in the future follow that rule strictly, that is deal with technical matters only, then the very full review of Bill C-73 at legislative committee will not be able to take place in this House in the future. That is a negative in terms of procedure.
I want to caution Parliament about that and about a too rigid application of that restriction on legislative committees in the new rules. Committees must have sufficient latitude and not just deal with crossing the t's and dotting the i's on a bill, or whether the words put on paper will effectively accomplish the legal purpose of the bill.
We also have to give some attention to what the effect of the bill will be, based on the procedures that the bill proposes.
In this particular case dealing with the dissolution of these Crown corporations, all the members on the committee-not just the opposition, but the government members-did spend some time thinking about what would take place after the provisions of the bill were in place, giving authority to government officials to do certain things with Crown corporations.
There are six parts to this bill. There were two in particular that involved the disposition or sale of Crown assets of significant value. One involved B.C. Place in Vancouver where the federal government owns the land and the facility and the other involved Harbourfront Corporation in the city of Toronto. In both cases, the
Government Orders
government owns millions and millions of dollars worth of real estate.
In this particular bill the provision simply said that the minister, in most cases the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Transport as the case may be, would dispose of the government holding, as he or she thought appropriate. That is an awfully vague provision without much in the way of oversight by this Parliament.
That bill simply asked parliamentarians to say: "Yes, Minister of Public Works, you may take this asset worth $200 million, $300 million or $400 million and sell it as you think best". The taxpayers of Canada have an interest in how the government sells a $300 million or $400 million asset in bits and pieces. In committee we had to inquire into what the proposal was.
Regarding B.C. Place, and I want this to be on the record-it is on the committee record as well-the government has stated that it will dispose of it in a way that, at a minimum, gives the local governments in Vancouver the right to acquire it. I believe the intention is to actually move the asset over to provincial or municipal ownership.
We did not get the same assurances regarding Harbourfront in Toronto. I should also mention that in relation to other portions of Bill C-73 there were other assurances given by the government appearing before the committee as to what it would do when the assets were disposed of, when the corporations were dissolved.
In dealing with the Harbourfront Corporation, which is the one major corporation involving much more money than any of the others-a few hundred millions of dollars, mostly real estate assets-we in opposition had three concerns. We were reflecting concerns put forward, not just by our constituents, but by the government of the city of Toronto and the government of metropolitan Toronto. I do not believe that the provincial government itself has raised any caution flags, but I am sure we tried our best to accommodate their role in the disposition of this very significant harbour front asset.
All three areas were dealt with at committee. Believe me, they were more than just technical matters, much more than that. As a result of the committee inquiries and the communication that was had during and subsequent to the committee inquiries, a number of the misunderstandings or questions that existed then have been resolved. The real tough questions involved in Harbourfront have not been resolved. Those hard ques-

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
tions involve money. Unfortunately we do not always have a solution to money problems.
However, I would like to run through those areas for the benefit of the record. The first involved what appeared at the time to be a very significant premium being given to three large Canadian developers who were very active in the Toronto waterfront. At the time the Harbourfront transition committee, which was composed of Harbourfront officials and directors, had publicly recorded their projection that the premium, the giveaway that the developers would receive, would amount to approximately $36.6 million.
There is no one in this place who could sit here and not be disturbed at the prospect of the taxpayer doing a land swap or a flip with developers which gives them $36.6 million more than they give back to the taxpayer. That issue was raised and discussed. Subsequently, because of public concerns about this the city of Toronto commissioned a consultant study. That study was just recently published and made public.
It appears that the premium which was initially expressed to be approximately $36 million is estimated by this particular group of consultant to be in the vicinity of $5 million or $6 million. I do not want to say that now it is only $5 million or $6 million and that it is not a big deal so let us forget it; $6 million bucks is still $6 million bucks. In a fair, objective guess by a consultant, which is all they can do, that premium now, on the public record, is calculated to be closer to the $6 million level.
As one prominent individual who was quite involved in this process of resolving the Harbourfront challenges has pointed out, an expropriation process which the public, the federal government, the province, the city or metro could embark on, would cost as much as $5 million. By the time they have finished with new evaluations of the properties, retaining solicitors for all parties involved in the process, dealing with any expropriation hearings that might result in the event that there was a failure to agree and significant costs by the developers in preparing the lands for development there now based on existing
zonings or zonings they thought they might have, it could possibly cost $5 million.
At one point the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario were so concerned about this area that they actually, by ministerial order, froze development and rezoning activity on all of these lands. If you are a developer and owned these lands, as soon as the freeze went on someone has a hand in your pocket because you were stuck with an asset that was not producing income and it was frozen. I think we should recognize that as an economic reality.
Now that the premium is guessed to be $6 million, I leave that on the public record. If the government's view is that the premium is worth it, valid, viable and acceptable to the taxpayers, then that government will bear the responsibility for that deal when it takes place. There is nothing that we in opposition are going to be able to do to derail it once this bill goes through. The public will then make the decision.
The first issue, the swamp of the pipeline lands, we consider to have been adequately canvassed and developed on the public record, including the record of this House.
The second involved the endowment fund. This is easily canvassed. It is the money issue. The Harbourfront Corporation has carried on for years extremely valuable cultural, artistic, athletic and public participation programs on the Toronto waterfront. These were programs and activities in a city urban culture that simply would never be there if Harbourfront did not exist. That was the legacy of politicians and government officials from almost 20 years ago.
The concern of Torontonians was that this entity would be able to continue after the federal government completed its job of reshuffling ownership and basically getting out of the business of providing cultural entertainment on the Toronto Harbourfront. I take it that is the government's objective. I might object to that. I am of the view that the federal government is involved in providing cultural programming and support in a number of Canada's cities, Toronto included. I am of the view that it should continue.
May 23, 1991

In any event, the deficit issue, the endowment fund issue for Harbourfront, the federal government has stated that it will be in a position to pay into an endowment fund for Harbourfront $80 million from the sale of Harbourfront real estate assets. That is after the land swaps and all of the other rezonings and activities which must take place.
If they give $80 million, it is the view of most who look at the scene that the income from that endowment fund would be insufficient to maintain Harbourfront even at its current reduced level of activity. I accept that there are those who call many federal institutions fat cows-no disrespect to cows-and that perhaps we should all be trying to make federal institutions get along with a bit less money. I am going to use the calculations that were provided in the report produced only two or three days ago and made public at City of Toronto Council. They are as follows.
If the $80 million fund is used in perpetuity to provide income only to Harbourfront, that $80 million will finance a funding shortfall, a revenue shortfall, at Harbourfront of only $1.5 to $3.5 million per year. I will not make any value judgment on whether or not that is a lot of income. I simply put that on the record.
If the $80 million is simply viewed as a fund from which Harbourfront will draw income and capital to finance deficits over the foreseeable future, Harbourfront's funding from that endowment fund will only last according to the consultants until 2003.
The third possibility had to do with an if. If the federal government-or all levels of government-were able to commit to fund Harbourfront at a level that was consistent both with its past level of expenditure and revenue and its projected level of expenditure and revenue, and based on the shrinkage factor that I have just alluded to, the endowment fund according to the consultant would have to be at least $193 million, roughly double what the government is proposing to provide now.
I will leave those facts and figures there. It is our view here on this side of the House that our role now is to point out these things. The harder decisions will be in the hands of the Minister of Public Works as he or she disposes of assets and takes the money and puts it into an endowment fund.
Harbourfront is going to live and thrive or it is not, or maybe we will stumble along somewhere in the middle. My view is that Harbourfront should live and thrive and continue to do the work it has always done on the Toronto Harbourfront.
Before moving out of the debate here, I wanted to raise another caution flag. It is important when pursuing the public discussion and the communication that have permitted us to deal with this publicly that we deal with the concept of commercial confidentiality. Even today, as I stand here now, I am unable to obtain information that would permit me to make an even better judgment about this.
Regarding the commercial confidentiality imposed or requested by the developers or by the public individuals who have been working on this issue, I understand where it comes from. It is a request by individuals that evaluations of their corporate assets, their strategic goals and their development proposals not be made public. The problem I have with that is that we are dealing with public assets here. We are already dealing with what the taxpayers own. I start off looking at this whole area and saying we cannot permit confidentiality to preclude the taxpayer from knowing everything that is going on with these assets.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you wish to take note of the clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Malone):: It now being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, on February 11 of this year, the Minister of Finance tried to pull a fast one on Canadians. On that day, he issued what appeared to be a harmless press release concerning some technical matters dealing with family and private trusts. What it

May 23, 1991
really amounted to was perhaps the biggest tax windfall for the wealthy in history.
In 1972, a law was passed which stipulated that after 21 years any increase in the value of assets in trusts would be subject to a capital gains tax. That meant that in 1993 the government would have come into billions of dollars in tax revenue. Instead, what was proposed was a loophole that allows the tax to be put off for decades.
Isn't that something? While the national debt is being saddled on the backs of the working and middle class, the wealthy get the tax breaks.
Why were these changes not announced in the budget that was delivered only days later? Why was no estimate of lost revenue provided to the Canadian people? Indeed, this would have proved too embarrassing for the government.
After all, it was the Minister of Finance who said: "I am asking Canadians to share the burden of fiscal restraint-the challenge to all Canadians is to do what each of us can do to strengthen our country."
It seems that this government wants to challenge some Canadians more than others. Of course, the fight against the deficit will go on.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ambassador to the UN announced yesterday, at the first session of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, that the Canadian Parliament will ratify by the end of the year the bill of rights approved at the Summit for Children held in New York City two years ago.
In September 1989, prime minister Mulroney was co-chairman of the international conference. By January 1991, Canada had already set up a children's bureau coming under health and welfare Canada. Benoit Bouchard is the minister in charge of coordinating all government programs to ensure they are in keeping with the provisions of the bill of rights. Canada also invested $136 million this past February to support the fight against family violence.
Mr. Speaker, these are concrete steps taken by this government to help families tom by family violence.


AIRPORTS
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in his frenzy to cut costs, the Minister of Transport is permitting security firms to undercut one another as they scramble to secure contracts with airports. They do this without any regard for existing wage rates or respect for existing collective agreements.
At Terminal 1, the security firm Aeroguard is demanding a wage cut of $2 an hour from its employees as well as elimination of a group insurance plan. The company is threatening the 100 passenger screening agents with lay-offs if they refuse these cuts designed to get the contract for Aeroguard.
How long is this government and the Ministers of Transport and Labour going to allow these conditions to persist? When are workers rights going to be protected? When is this government going to realize that the safety of the travelling public depends on skilled workers? When is this government going to live up to the words of a previous transport minister who stated that he would not permit such contracts to be let on the backs of workers?


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, a recently completed United Nations survey confirmed what many of us in this country have known for a long time, that Canada is a great place to live.
Through examination, a number of categories including health standards, education, social conditions, taxation system and disposable income, the UN determined Canada ranks second only to Japan in terms of over-all standard of living.
It seems incredible to me that there are those in this country who are willing to risk all that we have attained as a country over the past 125 years to pursue their own narrow political aims.
It is time we, as Canadians, started to work together to ensure we remain the envy of the rest of the world.
May 23, 1991


ALLAN CUP CHAMPIONS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to bring to the attention of the House the victory of the Prince Edward Island Armour Fence Hockey Team in the Canadian Allan Cup Triple "A" Hockey Championships.
The Islanders dramatic 5 to 4 win over the Thunder Bay Twins 57 seconds into overtime brought the best of seven finals to a close in a four game sweep at the Charlottetown Civic Centre. This win has earned Prince Edward Island its first ever Allan Cup victory.
It is very admirable when provinces with such a small population as that of Prince Edward Island produces such a victorious team. Indeed, this is an occasion when the other provinces can take note and look with admiration towards the maritimes.
On behalf of all Islanders, I wish to congratulate the Armour Fence Islanders on their impressive championship win and express our most heartfelt pride in the example they have set through their tenacity, enthusiasm and outstanding sportsman-like conduct.
Congratulations team. You've earned the recognition and pride of all Canadians.


CANADA FITNESS WEEK
Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Sneaker Day, marking once again the kick-off of Canada's Fitweek.
Throughout the week and until June 2, a number of events are planned to promote healthy active living.
To highlight in a special way the first day of this week featuring physical activity, all Canadians including members of this House are invited to wear their sneakers tomorrow.
Canada's Fitweek is the largest celebration of physical activity in the world, Mr. Speaker, as no less than eight million people across the country will participate in over
14,000	events already scheduled.
Canada's Fitweek now has an enviable world-wide reputation that all Canadians have every reason to be proud of.
In closing, I would like to point out that the success of this celebration is due, to a large extent, to the 300,000 volunteers who have organized the various activities in most cities in the country. I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank them for their dedication.


YUGOSLAVIA
Ms. Albina Guamieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, last year the people of Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia experienced democracy for the first time in half a century.
More recently, Croatians and Slovenians, by way of referendum, have expressed their willingness to withdraw from the chaos that is Yugoslavia today.
The republics and provinces of Yugoslavia have failed to agree on a leader, and the collective presidency is mired in discord. The evolving democracy is now in danger of being ambushed by military rule and occupation.
I call upon the government to respect the democratic wishes of the people who live in Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia and to be prepared to recognize whatever form of government they choose.


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, after Switzerland and the United States, Canada is the oldest federal system in the world.
Great nations are not built on a foundation of common language or common territorial boundaries, but rather by people who have done great things together in the past and who intend to do great things together in the future.
In the past, working together, Canadians have explored and settled half a continent, created a nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Arctic Oceans; built a transcontinental transportation and communications system and developed the seventh strongest economy, the second highest standard of living and a social safety network which is the envy of the world.

May 23, 1991
If we are to stay united in the future, Canadians need a new national agenda to work for, an agenda which includes a clean environment, a just resolution of aboriginal concerns and the elimination of illiteracy, hunger, homelessness and violence.
But whatever our new national agenda may be, it should certainly be more than just a desire to repeal the Official Languages Act.


UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, the UN has just released its 1991 Human Development Report. This report shows that the gap between rich and poor countries continues to grow.
What is the Mulroney government doing about this deteriorating global situation? It is reneging on Canada's long held commitment to international development.
In the past three years alone, the government has cut billions of dollars from our international development funding commitments.
CIDA, along with hundreds of development NGOs and hundreds of thousands of Canadian volunteers, through their very hard work over the years, have given Canada a solid reputation as a world leader in the field of development assistance. Now this government wants to dismantle CIDA and undermine the work of our development NGOs.
The government should be working with development NGOs to increase the amount of Canadian aid going to those people who need it most and who need it urgently.


QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of my Point of Order yesterday, several comments were made in the House that private members on the government side should be restricted from asking questions.
In fact, we represent more Canadians than any other group in the House and in many cases Question Period is the only tool we have to get the attention to issues affecting our constituents. Often we will disagree with the position of the government or a minister, or a
minister may not understand the urgency of a problem in a region like Atlantic Canada. Question Period is the most effective place to get our point across.
On the other hand, government members should not use Question Period for planted questions, and oppositions should stop using it for speech-making and grandstanding.
If we all are a little more responsible, we can have a lot more questions and a whole lot more answers. Instead of trying to gain points for our own benefit, maybe we should try to do more for the people who sent us here.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of this House a serious problem both within my constituency, the federal constituency of St. Boniface, and throughout Canada; the teaching of English or French as a second language to new Canadians.
This is particularly important in view of the increased number of immigrants because of this government's decision.
In early March, 1991 I received a petition from over 225 constituents, mostly volunteers who were working with these people to help them learn the language and to integrate into society. They requested support for language instruction.

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand petitions signed by more than 225 constituents asking me to:
-support their request that courses in English as a second
language be given in St. Boniface for adult refugees who do not
speak English, upon their arrival.

My constituents want these new Canadians to learn English now so they can integrate fully into Canadian society, find jobs and become active participants as soon as possible.
I wrote to the appropriate minister on March 11 and again on April 12. Why have my constituents not received an answer?
May 23, 1991



Are they not important enough? Surely the question requires an immediate answer.


FITWEEK
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, May 24 is Sneaker Day, the day when all Canadians, including members of the House, are invited and encouraged to wear their sneakers in support of healthy, active living.
Sneaker Day is the kick-off event for Canada's Fit-week, running from tomorrow until June 2. This country can take great pride in knowing that Canada's Fitweek is now recognized internationally as the largest celebration of physical activity in the world.
This year, more than eight million Canadians are expected to participate in over 14,000 events taking place across Canada. Canada's Fitweek is co-ordinated by the Government of Canada through fitness and amateur sport, the provincial and territorial governments and 16 national organizations. At the community level, hundreds of thousands of volunteers contribute their time and energy to this annual celebration. The growth of Fitweek can only be described as phenomenal.
Canada's Fitweek is an excellent example of government and the corporate sector working together to promote the message of active living to Canadians and to maintain the momentum of the fitness movement.
During the next 10 days, I invite all members to join Canadians from coast to coast in promoting and participating in the many events planned in their own constituencies as part of Canada's Fit Week.


VIDEO GAMES
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, is the Solicitor General aware that video games, which puts the player in the role of concentration camp manager and which dehumanizes Jews and Turks, have been available in Germany and Austria for over a year. According to some news reports, it is possible that
these racist video games, which amount to hate propaganda, originate in Canada.
Does the minister intend to investigate the possibility that these games originate here and take action to limit their distribution.

The German police has said that the demand for, and availability of, these racist games has increased over the past year. Does the minister intend to take action to ensure that these games are not distributed in Canada?


CYSTIC FIBROSIS
Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation is completing its thirtieth year of service. Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease affecting the lungs and digestive system of children and young adults.
Following the very recent discovery of the gene that causes cystic fibrosis, the Foundation is asking for everyone's help more than ever. Their theme this year, their thirtieth anniversary, is: "Thirty years of caring-Proof of the power of dreams".
I wish to thank the Foundation, the thousands of volunteers working with it and those who contributed the $6 million collected this year for research, services and public education. Congratulations and best wishes for success to the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, a survey on personal safety in Ottawa was published today. While the results may be a surprise to some, for women it was a frightening reality. One-third of women feel unsafe in their own neighbourhoods. Almost 90 per cent of women feel they must limit their own activities. They believe they are at greater risk simply because they are female. I am not surprised by these statistics for they do reflect the views of the lives of women across Canada.
Women are also at risk in their own homes. The assaults and murders of women by their partners shows this reality. Because that danger is also outside the home, women have developed methods of coping with

Oral Questions
this danger and fear. We walk home only in well-lit areas. We park our cars near the few lights in parking lots. We stay out of parks at night. We try to ignore the rude comments of strangers.
We need more than a blue ribbon panel on violence against women. We need programs and action. We need action from this government now to end violence against women.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I was horrified to learn recently that a wonderful and committed participant from Guatemala to the United Nations Conference in Geneva, Mr. Miguel Sucuqui, has had to go into hiding because of his work there.
On May 6, 1991, a government backed paramilitary group came to his home to arrest him. When they could not find him, they threatened the lives of his wife and family.
This is not the only incident of violence by Guatemalan authorities against participants at the Geneva meeting. Mr. Camilo Ajqui Jimon was assassinated on April 14. At least one other has suffered an attempted kidnapping.
There are others who are now living in mortal fear because of their work at the United Nations and for human rights generally.
Today, I am writing to the Guatemalan government to express my concern regarding these particular incidents. I call upon the government to do the same immediately.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The verdict on the GST is in. In the first three months, Canadian retailers have suffered the worst sales record since the history of record keeping. We find again today that sales are down. In Kingston alone in a survey by a national
accounting firm, Ernst and Young, one in two Kingston families do their shopping south of the border.
Canadians are voting with their feet and they are voting by shopping south of the border. In that survey, Ernst and Young predicted that 500 jobs would be lost in Kingston alone as a result of that particular problem.
Given the failure of the GST to assist the Canadian economy, what is he going to do in the short term to provide relief to the thousands of retailers and wholesalers who are going bankrupt?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, statistics prove that the cross-border shopping phenomenon began well before the GST came into effect. In fact, if one compares the statistics from January, cross-border shopping in 1990, 1989 or prior to that, the increases were considerably higher than the increases in January of 1991 after the GST took effect.
However, we do admit as a government that there is a very serious problem with cross-border shopping which spans the responsibility of all three levels of government, the private sector, labour, consumers, as well as the Retail Council of Canada and retail organizations. It is why we have taken the leadership in beginning a nationwide consultative process in dealing with the problem and trying to get it resolved in co-operation with the provinces, with the private sector and with labour. We are well on our way towards that objective and that goal.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance, because his GST policy is forcing Canadians to go to the United States to shop.
While retail sales in Canada are going down, American stores are booming. We know that clothing workers in Montreal, for example, are out of work because Canadians buy their clothes across the border. I therefore ask the Minister of Finance: When will he be ready to review his disastrous economic policies to give Canadians a chance to work here in our country?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member was not listening to my answer when I pointed out what the statistics show very clearly. I will give her a specific. In January 1990 the increases of cross-border shopping was over 22 per cent.
May 23, 1991

The January increase of cross-border shopping in 1991 was only 15 per cent. That was the month after the GST came in.
I admit and repeat that there is a problem. There is a greater variety and selection of products in the United States. The volumes are greater, therefore the prices are lower. Labour costs are lower than in Canada. Transportation costs are lower in the United States than in Canada.
The bottom line is that Canadians, Canadian industry and governments have not allowed the Canadian economy to be as competitive as that of our counterparts in the United States. The Speech from the Throne addressed that problem and this government will be dealing with it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Some salesperson for Canada, Mr. Speaker. This minister could not even convince his own brother to stay in the country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the exchange and I do not have to remind hon. members that one personal comment invites another. I know the hon. member would not want to do that again. The hon. member will put her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight, it is the business that did not stay in Canada, not any reflection on the individual.
My question is for the Minister of Finance, if he is prepared to do the job on a full-time basis. Given the devastating statistics of the first three months of the GST, the worst record of a retail sales drop in the history of record keeping for Canada, and given that the study released today by Ernst and Young shows that in Kingston alone, one city in Canada, 500 jobs are being lost to cross-border shopping, will the finance minister today introduce a new economic plan to help give some hope to Canadian businesses and Canadian workers who want to put jobs back in Canada not south of the border?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, in so far as Canadian businesses are concerned, and more specifically that which is run by one of my
Oral Questions
brothers, that business has prospered and stayed in Canada. It is because of the policies of the government that that business was able to expand into the United States and stay in Canada, headquartered in Oakville, Ontario, and we are very proud of that.
Second, I have already pointed out that the bottom line problem with cross-border shopping is a lack of competitiveness by Canadians as opposed to our American counterparts.
One of the elements that this government has taken in moving toward providing greater competitive opportunities for Canadian businesses was tax reform, scrapping the federal sales tax which was an albatross around the necks of Canadian producers, manufacturers and exporters, replacing it with a value-added tax like the GST which makes Canadian businesses more competitive as opposed to less. We are continuing on that track.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who said during Question Period yesterday:
It is going to take some time before all the benefits of the GST flow
through ultimately to the consumer.
The Minister of Finance should know that the only benefit that his government ever promised to consumers from the GST was the elimination of the manufacturers' sales tax and that this should have occurred as early as January and February of this year. Given what the minister said in the House yesterday, is he now saying that the MST has not been removed from the price of products? Or is he admitting that the government was wrong in its projections that prices would fall?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that in many cases the movement to the GST and the scrapping of the federal sales tax does in fact reduce the cost of doing business. In most cases it reduces the cost of capital. The hon. member knows that. It takes some time for those benefits to flow through to benefit the consumer.
We are looking at a transitional period. We are looking at a start-up and it is very difficult to discern, with any degree of accuracy in a span of three months or less, the over-all impact.

May 23, 1991
Oral Questions
What is important is that again today interest rates in this country have come down by eight basis points. Statistics Canada today says: "The worst of the recession is probably over and there is some clear evidence that the worst of the recession may be passed", indicating that more people are working in April. There are more housing starts and automobile sales are rebounding. That should be good news for the hon. member. It is for us.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, indeed, while this government is in office we will take good news wherever we can find it.

Although a United Nations report ranks Canada as the second best place to live in the world, the report also indicates that Canada has one of the widest gaps between rich and poor in the industrialized world.
Since the government has aggravated this problem by introducing the GST, cutting tax rates for the rich and triggering a made-in-Canada recession, what is the government going to do to narrow the gap between rich and poor?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the hon. member raised the very important study conducted by the United Nations, where Canada ranked second among 160 nations as the best place in the world to live.
As Carol Goar reports in The Toronto Star. "Too often we forget how lucky we are. Canada ranked second of the 160 nations studied. By global standards we live in paradise".
Will the hon. member not join the chorus and praise what Canada stands for, rather than looking for all the negatives?


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade. The decision to fast track the trilateral trade agreement will be made this afternoon.
Carl Beigie, the former head of the C.D. Howe Institute said yesterday: "Canada just seems to be following the U.S. lead into continental discussions."
What I object to as a Canadian is that our trade policy is being dictated to us by Washington. The debate today will outline very specific trade and economic objectives of the United States. I cite the resolution by Gephardt and Rostenkowski. Will Canada and Canadians in the House of Commons have the same opportunity to debate their concerns?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons will have an opportunity to debate it. As I indicated yesterday, I expected this would be a subject of some consideration by the external affairs committee.
If the hon. member would like to put the views of the New Democratic Party forward, there are many opportunities with an Opposition Day motion.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, we will afford ourselves of that opportunity, but we realize that the government will not listen.
A supplemental to the same minister. Should the fast track negotiations result in the reopening of the present free trade agreement, with the U.S. desire to extract even more concessions from Canada, like the cultural industry, the auto pact and subsidy definition, will the minister, for once, stand up for Canadians and walk away from the table.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think it goes without saying that if we had not done as good a job negotiating the free trade agreement, we would not be hearing these statements from the Americans in the lead up to the North American free trade agreement.
We have indicated and were prepared, as many members of this House know, to walk away from the free trade agreement in 1987 if we did not get the conditions in that agreement that we felt were appropriate for Canada.
We got those conditions. It is a good deal for Canada and I am convinced that the North American free trade agreement will also be a good deal for Canada.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, what scares me is I believe that he believes what he is saying.
May 23, 1991

I will go to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, the minister committed his government to subject the trilateral trade agreement to an environmental assessment.
Given this fact, will the minister table these guidelines before negotiations begin? Should these guidelines not be met in the agreement, will he recommend to cabinet and to this House that negotiations be suspended?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I can repeat for the benefit of the member and the House in what manner environmental concerns will be dealt with in the context of these negotiations.
First, trade related matters will be dealt with in the context of the agreement. Environmental concerns will be dealt with in the context of the agreement. Non-trade related matters should be dealt with in a parallel negotiation.
Third, as the member refers to, consistent with government policy, the agreement should be the subject of an environmental evaluation by the cabinet committee system.
We are in the process of working out the methodologies through these evaluations through different departments. I want to bring to the member's attention that this is new. To our knowledge, this is not done in many places in the world, if at all in the world. For that reason, we are working on the methodologies and I assure the hon. member that we will deal with them as rapidly as possible.
Finally, I think we can add to that, as my colleague from industry, science and technology has said, the committee system is there as a recourse for members of this House if they want to deal with the environmental concerns also.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
We learned this morning that the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. de Montigny Marchand, has been suddenly called back from a trip where he has
Oral Questions
been accompanying the Prime Minister in Asia. He will arrive back in Ottawa this weekend for meetings.
Considering that Mr. Marchand was one of the two signatories on the government's report on the Al-Ma-shat case, my question to the minister is this.
Was Mr. Marchand called back in relation to the government's mishandling of the Al-Mashat case? Is the government planning any further disclosures of information on this case in the very near future?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question of the hon. member concerning-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: I may be expected to answer for external affairs, but I am not there yet.
I can say to the hon. member that any information concerning this case will be looked at by the standing committee, as has been proposed.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Minister of Employment and Immigration does not know.
When is this going to stop?

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister.
Does the minister now maintain that every single word of the report that he and the Secretary of State for External Affairs published on the Al-Mashat case is true? Is he prepared to maintain that this report is complete, accurate and reflects the whole truth? Furthermore, does he intend to release all the documents relating to this case as promised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and will he do so for the committee meets?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and all other members of this House will have a chance in the standing committee to respond to all the issues that were raised. We have already said that we prepared a report, and that report has been released.
If there are additional matters on which further details are requested, it will be the committee's job to take care of that and I trust it will.

May 23, 1991
Oral Questions


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, a member of the government caucus published a column which shed some light on the case of Mr. Al-Mashat. The member for Hamilton-Wentworth writes that it is very likely that the hotline burned from the White House to the Prime Minister's office. He suggests that the bureaucrats were overruled by either the CIA, George Bush, or even the Prime Minister.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why his own caucus members, who best know his ministers, do not believe their story on how Al-Mashat rode the Tory express into Canada?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated last week, we are anxious that this matter be taken to committee and all of the facts be elucidated as soon as possible. That remains our position and that will happen just as soon as the committee can be brought together.
I believe Beauschene's will show that questions about comments of an ordinary member are out of order for Question Period.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have to wonder if Al-Mashat was all that the Americans gave us in the free trade deal.
I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister. Mohamed Al-Mashat tells us he was not a defector, nor has he ever betrayed Saddam Hussein.
If Canadians were to accept this government's explanation of how a high-profile, enemy spokesman accidentally retired in Canada during a war, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to explain simply why this government's war cabinet was not at the helm of Canada's intelligence network at a time of international crisis. Who was in command?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is probably based upon fiction and does not rate an answer.


ARMS TRADE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister for International Trade.
Canadians were waiting for a gun control bill and instead we got a gun export bill today. This government never ceases to amaze me.
I want to ask the minister if he agrees with this statement that was made by the former Secretary of State for External Affairs in January. The statement is: "If there is one priority, one lesson which the world must learn from this war, it is that an unrestricted arms trade in this region, the Middle East, is no longer acceptable and constitutes a threat to the security of all members of the United Nations." Does the minister agree with that statement and, if he does, why is he making it easier for Canadian arms manufacturers to sell arms to the Middle East?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do agree with that statement. I draw my colleague's attention to the use of the word that he quoted there, "unrestricted". What this legislation will do is it will provide very tight restrictions on the export of armaments from Canada. There will be tight constraints and strict criteria under this legislation as to what type of countries we would export any sorts of armaments. We would require a bilateral arrangement with the country involved so that we would know what those armaments are going to be used for.
For that reason, what this legislation does is tighten up a previous regime which was much looser.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not fooling anybody. This is about an $800 million contract for light-armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. He should not try and tell the House otherwise. It is about some tough choices; either you are in favour of arms control or you are not. It is a real tough choice.
I want to ask the minister-

My supplementary is directed to the same minister. The purpose of this bill is to increase arms exports from Canada. The government wants to expedite this bill. My
May 23, 1991

question is this: Will the government take the time to consult parliamentarians and Canadians before the bill is passed?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to put tighter controls on the exports of armaments from this country. That is the precise objective as set out in the legislation.
I want to draw the attention of my friend to the specific types of armaments that he is trying to work into the consideration of this question. Weapons of mass destruction were the weapons that were the subject of the comments of the Prime Minister and the previous Secretary of State for External Affairs. That type of weapon involves rockets, bombs, grenades, ammunition, chemical weapons, weapons that are considered to be weapons of mass destruction. That will not be the subject of this legislation. That type of export will be restricted.
The purpose of this bill is to put very tight restrictions on the type of armaments that will be restricted. The hon. member has referred to a couple of those in his question.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of employment. In the throne speech, this government told Canadians that the most fundamental building block of our society was the family. However, under Bill C-21, leave for adoptive parents has been reduced from 15 weeks to 10 weeks, while at the same time, leave for biological parents has been increased to 25 weeks. Clearly, this is discrimination against adoptive parents.
Given this government's noble commitment to the family, I would like to ask the minister why he would not treat adoptive parents in the same way as biological parents are treated.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised when Bill C-21 was discussed in this House. It has been discussed in committee. The situation is, simply, that the
Oral Questions
reasons for treating the biological parents in a different manner are clear to the hon. member. This bill, C-21 is not about trying to discriminate against any people. This bill, which you held up for a year, is trying to help people.
Do not try today to tell us that Bill C-21 was about discrimination when in fact it barred discrimination against women in this country. That is what Bill C-21 did.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, that is a disappointing answer that contradicts totally the spirit of the Speech from the Throne on the family. Is this government saying that an adoptive mother is less of a mother because she is an adoptive mother, or that a child is less of a child because he is an adopted child?
In the interests of fairness, equity and justice, is this minister prepared to tell the House that he will amend this law and eliminate this glaring and obvious discrimination against adoptive parents?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not consider this provision as being discriminatory and I do not intend to amend Bill C-21.


TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, truckers left Parliament Hill empty-handed, and today Canadians discovered that while there was no help for the trucking industry, the National Transportation Agency of Canada, headed by one Honourable E. Nielsen, has been renting luxury apartments a block away from the Montreal Forum because it was "more convenient" than hotel rooms.
I want to ask the government why there is no help for truckers and lots of dough for Erik Nielsen's transportation agency to rent fancy digs across the street from the Forum.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, the truckers left the Hill yesterday knowing that this government was working with a task force to come up with answers to their problems. What they brought forward to us were problems that were identified last year when we originally started to meet with all

May 23, 1991
Oral Questions
the stakeholders in the area. They know we will have answers to that shortly.
As far as the NTA in Montreal is concerned, as soon as I read the article which was brought to my attention, I immediately called the officials and asked them to contact the agency to ensure that they review this practise immediately as to the value of having this type of accommodation in Montreal.


Don Boudria: Well, I am glad to know that there is a housing policy for someone in this country.

I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister. There is no money for the poor. There is none for the truckers. There is none for the unemployed and there is none for the homeless in the latest Speech from the Throne. How can the government let Mr. Nielsen and his friends rent apartments in Montreal across from the Forum, while hundreds of thousands of Canadians don't even have a roof over their heads?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, as I brought to the attention of the member in my answer previous to this, we have asked the agency to review this policy. When they did it in 1989 and rented the apartment, they did a study at that time and felt that that was the most economical way of doing it. I am not sure it still is and I have asked them to prove it.


TOBACCO INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health. The Canadian tobacco industry, headed by William Neville, the former chief of staff to the Prime Minister, has launched a $2 million mail-back campaign that includes preprinted messages to the Prime Minister in cigarette packages. This is a direct violation of section 9 of the Tobacco Control Act.
The act states that "no distributor shall sell a tobacco product if the package in which it is contained displays any writing other than the name, the brand name, the trade mark and health warning messages".
Will the minister take whatever legal action that is necessary, including obtaining a court injunction, to stop the tobacco industry from launching this campaign and contravening section 9 of the Tobacco Control Act?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to know what I told the press yesterday about the campaign launched by the Tobacco Growers Association. I utterly deplore the attitude of the companies, considering that any measure taken by the Department of Health and Welfare is taken to protect the health of Canadians, and I repeat, our sole objective is to pursue those policies. However, the hon. member tells us something is illegal. I have asked the department's legal advisers to give me a sound legal opinion, and if the law has been violated, the hon. member may rest assured that I will immediately take appropriate action.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. The tobacco industry lobbyists appear to have delayed regulations aimed at requiring bold lettering for health warnings on tobacco products.
Will the minister assure this House that these regulations are immediately implemented so that the bold lettering for health warnings is required on June 1, which was the original scheduled date before their lobbyists got involved?


Benoît Bouchard: My friend should know that the court is not a lobbyist. He should know, too, that the regulations are challenged by the association and they are before the court. As long as the Federal Court in Quebec has not made a decision, he will understand that I cannot apply the regulation.
I will agree with him on something. I find it strange that those companies that consider it impossible to put an insert in the packages because it is too expensive can do that for their own purpose. In that perspective I agree with him and I will do my best to see that the regulation is applied when the court makes its decision.
May 23, 1991


CONTAINER TRAFFIC
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport concerning the Port of Halifax and the potential loss of container shipping from Halifax.
I want to point out that the potential loss of container traffic from Halifax will also result in a dramatic loss in rail traffic from the Atlantic region, which again will jeopardize the viability of the entire rail system in Atlantic Canada.
I want to know from the minister if the federal government is playing an active key role in resolving this issue. Also, can the department empower the National Transportation Agency to intervene and insist that CN meet its obligations?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his continued interest in the Port of Halifax. Indeed, he showed his interest when he brought members of the port to meet with me last week here in Ottawa.
Certainly the Port of Halifax, as ports on the west coast of this country as well, and all the transportation industry is having to come to grips with the global competitiveness that we have today.
I can assure the member that CN, the port authorities, both the federal and the provincial governments, are following this with a great deal of interest. There is work going on. I will certainly take into consideration the point that he made today and see what can be done on it.


CANADA POST
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post. Retail postal outlets, RPOs, supposedly offer equal or better service to the public. However, when an RPO cannot be found, many rural communities like Avon-more, Ontario, will not receive equal or better service.
Oral Questions
The people of Avonmore are fighting to keep their post office. There has been a post office in Avonmore since the birth of Canada. The people in Avonmore who are in Ottawa today want an answer.
Will the minister instruct Canada Post to back off, to reverse its decision and allow Avonmore to keep its post office?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, when Canada Post was made a Crown corporation by actions of the previous Liberal government, it was for the purpose of restricting and eliminating possible political interference with the management of the post office. We have been adhering to that principle which we thought was quite properly elucidated by the Liberal government of the day.
In terms of the policy of having counter operations located in retail outlets rather than being run by the post office, since 1988 the post office has had independent surveyors survey the people affected where changes have been made. They found that the people affected approve of the changes to the extent of 90 per cent. In advance, people are afraid of change. After change there is 90 per cent approval.
I wonder if the hon. member thinks it is appropriate to change a policy which is approved of by 90 per cent of the people affected.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. Avonmore joins more than 200 communities across Canada which have recently received their postal death sentences. One of these communities is Mabou in my riding where the Canada Post building with the flag and the cenotaph in front has been the one tangible symbol of the federal presence in this community.
Since the minister's government approved the corporate plan which is leading to the closure of all these post offices, will he at least instruct Canada Post to place a moratorium on these closures and to begin the process of reversing this wrong-headed policy?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the hon. member's predecessor was

May 23, 1991
Oral Questions
successful in getting post offices built everywhere in that riding. That of course is the reason why, when we assumed office, the post office was running a $400 million deficit and our children were paying for that.
Since then the post office, by practising good management practices, by introducing changes which have improved service, which the people affected have approved of, has in fact gone into a profit situation. Instead of borrowing money which our children have to repay to look after the post office today, it is actually paying back dividends.
The hon. member should join all Canadians in applauding Canada Post for the spectacular job it has done.


HOUSING
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last year some 36,000 refugees came to Canada; 20,000 came to the province of Ontario alone.
Because of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Government of Ontario has now decided to admit refugees to public housing in the province of Ontario, public housing that is 50 per cent funded by the federal government.
How does the minister propose to house refugees in this country, bearing in mind the fact that some 17,000 Canadian citizens and landed immigrants are now on waiting lists for public housing in Toronto alone, bearing in mind that the federal housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has no funding for this, and bearing in mind as well that the minister is responsible for refugees? Does he intend to preempt constitutional negotiations and transfer all these things to the provincial governments?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer my colleague, the distinguished former minister of housing. Although he was very young at the time, I remind him that back in 1979, under the leadership of my distinguished colleague who was then Prime Minister, CMHC was very helpful in assisting the Vietnamese boat people and taking quite extraordinary steps at that time.
We commend Ontario or any province that wishes to declare these people eligible for assisted housing programs and will be glad to meet with them and explore any possibilities that exist.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Grains and Oilseeds who knows about the concerns for the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. Some time ago this government removed oats from the jurisdiction of the wheat board. Now U.S. wheat is allowed into Canada. This is going to create tension between the wheat board and some Canadian farmers who live along the U.S. border who want to sell wheat directly into the U.S. market.
Will the minister reaffirm his commitment to the wheat board today and will he initiate a review of additional grains that could be sold by the wheat board?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the producers who live along the border will always want to have direct access to the U.S. market. That is nothing new with the free trade agreement. The answer to that question is that we reaffirm our commitment. It is a Canadian decision as to how we are going to market our grain in this countiy and if producers choose to use the Canadian Wheat Board, that is their decision.
As far as other grains under the Canadian Wheat Board, we have just commissioned a major study on the canola industry. The report has been out about three weeks. There has been some discussion on that. People have approached me in the last six months asking for rye to be put under the Canadian Wheat Board. In all cases we have suggested that it is a producer decision and if producers so decide then the government will be perfectly willing to respond.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker,
I was looking for a commitment from this minister for a comprehensive review. The minister well knows that the prairie pools have proposed a process by which the wheat board may add, not take away, further grains to its jurisdiction. Given the view of prairie farmers, why will the minister not agree to that review today, right now?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it is the view of producers on the prairies. If the member wants to talk to farmers in his own province, he will find that producers are very much of two minds when it comes to marketing canola. They are very much of two minds when it comes to marketing oats. The next time he drives through
May 23, 1991

Portage la Prairie, he will see the new facility going up there which has three-quarters of its production going to the U.S. The people building that plant will tell him one of the reasons they are building in Portage la Prairie, in his own province, is to have access with our high-quality product to the American market. One of the reasons they are there is they do not have to go through the Canadian Wheat Board to buy their oats.
The member should be very careful when he uses generalizations to talk about how farmers want to market their product in western Canada.


FINANCE
Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, there is one region in Canada that has been singled out for special treatment by the chartered banks. From 1982 to 1990 total loans by the banks to businesses in the west dropped by 38 per cent, more than $12 billion. At the same time, bank business loans for the rest of Canada rose by more than 68 per cent.
My question is for the Minister of Finance, a western member. Will the government use its regulatory authority under section 315 of the Bank Act to compel the chartered banks to treat western businesses fairly, and not like a bunch of Third World pariahs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows it is very difficult to make such comparisons. He is essentially singling out the banks as lending institutions and overlooking the fact that after 1982 there was a downturn in the oil sector. I know that his party has not been supportive of the diversification efforts in the province of Alberta, particularly in the pulp and paper industry. I want to tell the hon. member that mortgages and other loans under the other financial institutions have in fact increased by 78 per cent since 1982. It is very difficult to single out and make the comparison just using chartered banks.
If the hon. member is suggesting that we should, as a federal government, institute a quota allocation or
Oral Questions
regulations with respect to financial institutions in this country, I can tell the hon. member that we are not prepared to do that. We are prepared to remove barriers and regulations so that the financial institutions can indeed be more competitive across the country.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the removal of barriers and the removal of regulations has resulted in the removal of $11 billion in business loans from Alberta, the removal of $1 billion in business loans from B.C., the removal of $252 million in business loans from Saskatchewan, and the removal of $48 million in business loans from Manitoba. Every western province has seen its business loan portfolio with the chartered banks reduced.
Will the minister talk to his government's buddies among the chartered banks and do something? I do not care what the minister does, work it out with them as best as he can, but he must do something to get the chartered banks to treat western businesses fairly.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is because the business groups in Alberta find it more appropriate to deal with other financial institutions. Loans and mortgages with those institutions have gone up by 78 per cent.
I am not sure whether he is suggesting that I should start a campaign out in Alberta to encourage more businesses to borrow money from the banks. That is not the role of the Minister of Finance. It may be his role, but it certainly is not mine.


BUREAU OF COMPETITION
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Recently, considerations expressed by the Bureau of Competition Policy have made it practically impossible to integrate Canada Packers and John Labatt. This integration would have been a significant and desirable example of vertical integration in the agri-food industry. I think the criteria of the Bureau of Competition Policy contradict the intent of the Free Trade

May 23, 1991
Point of Order
Agreement, and I want to ask the minister whether it would not be appropriate to suggest that the Bureau should adjust its criteria to the global village context?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the Bureau of Competition Policy and the Competition Act are responsible for ensuring that prices on our national markets are as competitive as possible, for the greater benefit of the consumer. I may add that in the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister made very clear that our businesses must be more competitive, both nationally and internationally. I believe that this is a challenge all of us must meet in this country, and in the months to come, we will have to ensure that being competitive means prosperity, and that prosperity will also mean lower prices for consumers. It is a challenge we must all meet together, and I am sure that we will be able to do so within our present structure and with the help of the Competition Act, Mr. Speaker.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of the hon. Amana Mbabazi, member of the Ugandan Parliament, the National Resistance Council.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the government House leader. It is the traditional question on Business of the House.
Could he inform the House of the business for tomorrow, Monday, Thesday and the remaining part of next week?


An hon. member:: And the end of June.


Harvie Andre: End of
June. The member just got back and he is anxious to leave already. Today we will continue third reading
debate on Bill C-8, the bill respecting Crown corporation dissolution. I would like to designate tomorrow an allotted day for Supply.
Monday will be the final day of debate on the throne speech. As for Thesday, at this point in time I am not certain as to the business. However, there is a possibility-and hon. critics in the opposition parties might consider this-of calling Bill C-6, an act respecting exporting, importing, manufacturing, buying or selling of or dealing with certain weapons.
As for Wednesday and beyond, I would like to discuss with opposition House leaders an appropriate calendar so we can deal with the business of the House in an efficient and effective manner to enable not only the member for Saint-Denis, but all of us, to enjoy summer.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader.
The government has been promising a bill on gun control in Canada. He has designated next Thesday as a day to discuss the bill for the exportation of guns. When are we going to get a day and a bill to deal with gun control in Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised that question.
As he knows, in the previous session a bill was brought forward and its subject matter went to a committee of this House. It was dealt with extensively and recommendations were brought forward.
The Minister of Justice, who unfortunately is not here this week, has incorporated those recommendations into the redrafting of the bill. I am informed that the redrafting is nearly complete.
I would hope that, as a result of that pre-study, we will be able to deal with this matter expeditiously. Just as soon as it is available, I would hope to bring it in. I hope that this House can deal with it very rapidly, indeed.


POINT OF ORDER
Michael Holcombe Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to

correct what might possibly have been an error in the course of Question Period.
In response to a question on defining what we consider to be weapons of mass destruction, I believe I included some of the wrong weapons in that category.
They would include neutron bombs, nuclear bombs, other nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons and things of that order. They would not include, as I believe I said, weapons that would involve ammunition and hand grenades.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order, or is he just rising?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was not quite sure what the minister's point of order was. I did not know whether he was withdrawing his other statement or adding to it.
I always thought that when someone was killed, it did not matter whether they were killed by a bullet or a nuclear-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister was doing what many members sometimes have to do, that is, make sure that the record correctly shows what was intended. That is what the minister rose to do.
If the hon. member wishes to raise the matter further, he will have to do it during Question Period or at another time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-8, an act to provide for dissolution or transfer of certain Crown corporations and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River has 19 minutes remaining in his speech.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, before the break in the House just prior to
Government Orders
Question Period and the lunch break, I was very close to wrapping up my remarks relating to the bill that would dispose of and sell Harbourfront land assets in the city of Toronto.
Of course, that is not the only asset involved in this bill but it is the major one. By rough calculations, the amount of money we are talking about regarding this particular Crown asset is estimated in one volume at approximately $400 million.
Lest anyone think this is a simple disposition, there are reports and reports, studies, appraisals, evaluations and commentary feet thick. That is because the interests involved are multi-jurisdictional and the assets involve many millions of dollars.
As I was completing my remarks, I was dealing with the issue of a confidentiality issue which had been imposed on aspects of the public discussions dealing with the disposition of these assets.
It is my view that the success or failure of such a disposition, when aspects of the process are not specifically detailed by legislation and when there is confidentiality involved, rests on the good faith, the honesty and the expertise of the individuals involved.
In this case they are individuals who are not government employees. They are not necessarily part of the federal infrastructure that we oversee here in this House.
I do not have to reiterate the many instances we have seen in the past of public maladministration. The taxpayer has suffered some very serious losses because of the lack of precision on the part of the government, corruption, dishonesty or a simple lack of expertise.
With respect to this bill, I want to state on behalf of my colleagues here and on behalf of the taxpayer that confidentiality should bear the scrutiny and oversight of Parliament. I believe that scrutiny and oversight will keep the system honest, effective, and will achieve the goals that we have put forward in this particular legislation.
Having said that, I will leave other issues to my colleagues in the House so that they may discuss these in debate in further detail.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor, I believe it is the wish of the two colleagues who will speak following me to split a 20-minute period. If

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
that is acceptable to you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, we could proceed on that basis.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Davenport, followed by the hon. member for Scarborough West on two 10-minute speeches.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, on the point just made by my colleague from Scarborough- Rouge River, it is important to put on record the fact that what is happening here on Toronto's waterfront is a wholesale withdrawal of responsibility on the part of the federal government. This involves not only Toronto but other cities of Canada where there is a federal presence in the form of publicly owned lands.
What we see here today is the continuation of a Tory agenda whereby there is retreat from government. There is a belief that the public interest is better served by not providing certain services and by abandoning, in the case of Harbourfront, a very important investment made on behalf of the Canadian people 20 years ago in favour of some kind of sale of land, the outcome of which is still uncertain.
I refer to the plan whereby an endowment would be set up by way of the sale of Crown owned assets at Harbourfront. We do not know what the revenue will be from the sale. I can tell you that this fact alone casts a very large shadow on the credibility of the measure being proposed in this bill by the government.
We are told that what is required is an endowment of roughly $193 million that would permit the continuation of public programs, a variety of activities that take place at Harbourfront in Toronto. This city is represented by many colleagues of mine on this side of the House. The $193 million amount is not at all secure in the estimates being carried out by the city and metro. We understand the amount of the endowment that can be calculated at this stage and relied upon is roughly $80 million. In other words, what is required is 2.5 times the amount that seems to be predictable as the size of the endowment itself. Instead of $193 million, we are told we can count on an endowment resulting from the sale of these lands of some $80 million, which will result in a yearly deficit after revenue of some $8 million to $9 million.
It does not take a great accountant to realize what is happening here. Considerable cuts will have to be made
to public programs which so far Torontonians have enjoyed year after year on their waterfront, at Harbourfront. The Tory government has decided they should be considerably reduced.
What is happening here in essence is that the federal government is threatening to walk away from Harbourfront. It is proposing with this bill an initiative that will leave the Harbourfront administration or its successor in a situation whereby it will not be able to support the present activities. The public will therefore suffer the consequences.
I cannot understand for the life of me why the minister in charge of this bill did not take the trouble today to put before us in the opposition and the public, through the media, the exact situation that has evolved over time. In other words, we are debating in a cloud of uncertainty. We do not know what are the exact figures. We can only make certain conclusions based on assumptions made by the city of Toronto property department and in a study that was prepared for metro some time ago.
I ask whether this is the way to run a government. Is this the way to manage the public interest? Is this the way to plan future recreational activities of a population of some 3.5 million people in the metro area? People of all ages and backgrounds of the entire metro region flock to Harbourfront on weekends in particular and during the week in order to enjoy the variety of programs.
This is politically an irresponsible way to proceed. I submit that this government is proceeding in a manner that will be remembered by the voters at the next election. Unless our assumptions are completely wrong-and this is why I am objecting strenuously to the fact that the minister did not take the trouble to put forward and define the situation-this will result, in the very near future, in a reduction of existing program activities and recreation at Harbourfront.
We have on this side of the House systematically said that these lands ought not to be sold, that these lands were bought for the public, and that they should remain in public ownership. They represent the only real estate or property that allows the citizens of metro Toronto direct access to their greatest and best ecological asset, namely their lake. As a result of this bill, this is no longer going to be the case for certain lands at Harbourfront.
May 23, 1991

Government Orders



[Stage Direction]
We have here two losses. The first is the loss on the investment made. As I said, it was the result of a decision made in 1972 by a forward looking government. The second is the loss of a variety of culturally rich and much appreciated recreational programs on the waterfront which have attracted tens of thousands of people.
I have submitted these thoughts, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration in the hope that finally someone on behalf of the government will rise today and give a clear explanation of what exactly is going to be the situation in the city of Toronto and metro Toronto regarding the disposition of these lands, particularly in relation to the future of the programs at Harbourfront.
DOT]
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
1 am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I wanted to do it before he got started. Mr. Speaker there have been discussions among the members and I believe that you will find there is unanimous consent to revert to presenting of committee reports.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on House Management and, with consent, I move concurrence in this report immediately.
[Editors Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-8, an act to provide for dissolution or transfer of certain Crown corporations and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a few moments to speak on Bill C-8. I want particularly to address my remarks to four short sections, namely sections 40 through 44, because they deal with Harbourfront, which is in the municipality of metropolitan Toronto.
I represent the riding of Scarborough West and there are many in Scarborough West, as there are many throughout the municipality of metropolitan Toronto, who take great pleasure particularly on a Sunday afternoon to go down to Harbourfront and enjoy the many activities available. These are family times. People can take their families there and have a wonderful time.
In addition, tourists go there by the thousands and this has been nothing but a benefit to the community of metropolitan Toronto.
How might that be affected by this bill? I think it could very well be and the answer is simple: the bill is almost naked insofar as its provisions to the Harbourfront Corporation are concerned.
In section 40 the bill authorizes the Minister of Public Works to procure the dissolution of Harbourfront Corporation, period. No guidance; simply go ahead and dissolve Harbourfront Corporation. One looks a little bit further to see what kind of guidance there should be and what sorts of criteria there should be; should there be a bottom-line sale price, whatever. The next section talks about the minister directing the corporation "to sell or otherwise dispose of any or all of its assets".
No direction whatsoever. No indication at all of what the corporation should be doing or how the corporation should be dissolving its assets.

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
We look further. We continue to look for guidance. We look to subsection 3 of section 41. The Minister of Public Works is authorized to do what with the money from the sale? I quote:
-to pay all or any part of the proceeds of any disposition of its assets-to such person and on such terms and conditions as are approved by the Governor in Council.
Who is the Governor in Council? It certainly is not the people of Canada, it is not the people of metropolitan Toronto. It is, in effect, the cabinet. The cabinet can make whatever decision it wants. There is no guidance in the legislation as to what that decision should be, could be or might be. No guidance whatsoever. There is guidance for the directors of Harbourfront Corporation because they are told that once receiving a direction from the minister, they are authorized to sell or dispose of the assets in accordance with the direction without any personal liability to the directors whatsoever.
Why might that be a problem? For one thing, let us talk about the people of the city of Toronto, the people of the municipality of metropolitan Toronto. We know that this issue has been considered by the municipality in its metropolitan council. We also know that metropolitan council believes that the lands which are currently in public ownership should not be sold for development.
One might wonder why. What is wrong with that? They address that issue and they indicate in their conclusion on page 5, which they have drawn to the attention of this government: "That the waterfront, in general, and Harbourfront specifically, is a regional resource, attracting not only residents of all six area municipalities, but residents from throughout the greater Toronto area, as well as a significant tourist population. It is therefore critical that the metropolitan interests in enhancing access to and along the waterfront be addressed".
Is there anything at all in Bill C-8 that addresses those issues? The answer is no. I have read sections 40 and 42. The other three sections are in effect legislative housekeeping. That is all. There is no guidance whatsoever.
We do know that the government has what I will call good intentions about an endowment fund, about the opportunity to protect this area for the citizens of metro Toronto and the surrounding region. What in heaven's name does that mean? What are good intentions? We have heard the phrase "the road to hell is paved with
good intentions". Good intentions without legislation are meaningless. The phrase used to be "good intentions and 25 cents will buy you a cup of coffee". I guess today you could say "good intentions and 75 cents will buy you a cup of coffee". Good intentions are still worth nothing.
It must be in the legislation and it is not in the legislation. If it is not in the legislation, there is no guarantee that the people of metropolitan Toronto will have that area protected for them.
What is the future to be? We have absolutely no idea what the future is going to be. Citizens of metropolitan Toronto are left to wonder, as everyone in this House is left to wonder, as to precisely what is going to occur when this government in effect privatizes Harbourfront and gets out of the business. This is after years and years of investing the taxpayers' money to build up Harbourfront. The taxpayers have put money into it. Now it is going to be dissolved. Are we going to get any money? We do not know. It depends on the real estate prices. Are the developers going to benefit? We do not know, but it looks like it.
We certainly do not know what the people of metropolitan Toronto are going to get out of it which will be beneficial. At this point I see nothing and guarantees of nothing.
I have to oppose Bill C-8 because of the lack of provisions dealing with Harbourfront.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get on the record some concerns that I have about the process that is before us in the form of Bill C-8. It is difficult for the public to follow all of this.
This afternoon we are debating a federal bill which has to do with the disposition of lands in metropolitan Toronto. That sounds like a fairly straightforward piece of business. The truth is that it is not. Those of us who have followed this for some time know that Harbourfront has been the subject of a number of inquiries by four or five different levels of government.
This has gone on in a strange way. Most of us in this Chamber would advocate that the public's business ought to be transacted in public; that is, that the public has a right to see how the transaction is put together, who benefits and what the consequences of that are. This process has gone on for some time.

I recall when Harbourfront was first proposed the first things that went up were the billboards announcing Harbourfront. This went through I think about three or four federal elections. I could never find Harbourfront, only the billboards were there. Then eventually there was a place that one could identify as Harbourfront. As it grew it became a very vibrant part of the metropolitan Toronto and I dare say many people would argue that it is an international attraction at this time, that there are people from all over the world who are attracted to the Harbourfront in Toronto and to all of the activities that go on around that space.
It does seem strange then that this successful operation is now being marketed rather on the sly. There are different levels of government, including the province of Ontario, the city of Toronto, metropolitan Toronto and the federal government negotiating the disposition of these lands and the subsequent settlements about who will continue to run the programming on those lands.
I for one would argue that this is fine if that is what governments want to do, but at the very least the public has a right to know. All of us who sat on municipal councils, for example, would know that we would be in deep trouble at this stage if we tried to take an asset of any municipality in Canada, sell it off behind closed doors and do some kind of a deal that might continue the operation. Anybody who is on a council can try that tonight. Go home and tell your people you want to sell off the rink and do not worry about the operation of the arena in future years, we will work out some deal on the side. The rest of the council would have your scalp, and it ought to. That is not the way that the public's business ought to be dealt with.
The concerns I have centre around the way that the process has evolved. It is not that I have anything against David Crombie or Darcy McKeough, two very fine people who have worked very hard to try to put together something. There are a number of civil servants who have tried to deal with the problem of Harbourfront and how to go through a transitional period.
My concerns are pretty straightforward. At this point I do not know what will happen with those lands. I do know that the city, Metro, and the province of Ontario have all encountered great difficulty with developing plans for Harbourfront. They have had great difficulty
Government Orders
dealing with the development around there now. If you wanted to see the Harbourfront parklands in Toronto you really have to get a boat and and see it from the lake. You cannot see it from the city of Toronto. You can get there. You can walk along there but you certainly would never know that it is there from most of downtown Toronto.
It is liked by the people, it is actually a success and has become kind of a focal point for a great many cultural festivals and for artists who work there. A great many ordinary people go there on a Sunday afternoon and wander around. It is clearly something that the people like and want. It is generally acknowledged as being a good thing. Now, behind closed doors, a deal is being put together to get rid of these assets.
I think you need to know a little history of Harbourfront to understand that this is a place where parkland appears suddenly in the water; one of the few modem miracles. It is true that developers who dedicate parkland as part of a development project have found a new technique for creating parkland. They dump fill into the lake and that is proposed parkland agreed upon by three or four different levels of government. That is a strange phenomenon.
Now we are supposed to take this bill and say that we acknowledge that the development of the Harbourfront project in metro Toronto did not go exactly as people thought it would. The concept originally was to set all of the development back from the waterfront so that the public would continue to have access to the water and the parkland that were there. Subsequently there might be some high-rise development around it but it surely would not be set in place to block the view from the city of Toronto. That is what happened. We regret that.
I hope this will not be taken as a model. I am aware, as I am sure all members are, that all across the north shore of Lake Ontario there are harbours that used to be industrial harbours and are now controlled by federal agencies called harbour commissions. There is ongoing warfare in each and every one of those communities because the shipping industry is not what it used to be. Others are moving in and saying they would like to build some nice high-rise apartments on the harbour and sell them off as harbourfront property, just like in Ibronto. It is precisely this scheme that is being looked at all across the north shore of Lake Ontario from Hamilton in my area right out to the town of Newcastle. That includes

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
projects already in the books, with plans proposed for places like Oshawa, Whitby, and Ajax.
The development industry is aware that this government is setting a pattern with this bill. I am concerned about that pattern. I would be much happier if we could follow the transactions which are taking place behind closed doors. I have a concern that the first phase of this project might look not too bad. It would not be hard for me to imagine that the Government of Canada would put together a deal with several private sector developers who provided a lot of money up front for the property.
The expectation is clear that the programming, the cultural activities, the access to the waterfront, and the use of the waterfront park will continue. It will not be interrupted. What is not clear is how that is going to be funded. Will the Government of Canada simply say as it has on a couple of other occasions: "Well, that's nice. We concluded our business. Somebody else pick it up and run with it from here"? I am sure that the city of Toronto is not quite prepared to accept this kind of international facility as being solely its responsibility, nor is metro, nor is the province of Ontario. I think the ongoing business dealings and the working out of details become more and more important as this bill nears the final stages. I think that part is important.
I want to sound, not a clarion call, but I want to sound a warning of danger here, as I see this as a model for harbourfront property all across Canada now in the possession of the federal government, if this process works at this one site in metropolitan Toronto. This is a government that has at least set its course fairly clearly. It loves to privatize things. The federal Government of Canada owns a lot of waterfront property all across this nation, at one time used veiy actively for harbour purposes, for ship-building purposes, but now not quite so active.
My concerns are very clear. If this turns out to be the way we do things in the future, if waterfront property owned by the federal government across Canada is dealt with in this way-that is to say a bill of this nature which says simply: "we want to privatize things, sell off some land", and then backroom deals on how the land is
developed and how programming continues and what happens afterwards, and the rest is just left up in the air, if those deals are all private deals, struck with various civil servants or ministers of the Crown on what might happen, then I believe that the public has been gypped in this process.
The public initially paid a pretty hefty price for these lands. I think the public, as the property owners, have a right to know what the consequences of this bill and the subsequent transactions that are not a part of the bill will be, and what will happen in the future. They do not know that.
Any individual property owner who entered into this kind of negotiation would want to know all of the side bars. They would want to get their lawyers out and examine the fine print about what happens after the sale is concluded. People know that is important. The expectations of the public in Toronto, in metropolitan Toronto, in the province of Ontario, and indeed the taxpayers of Canada, who by and large funded this project initially, are to get something reasonable out of the sale.
Now there is no way for them to judge, because those negotiations are not a matter of public record yet, and probably will not be even after all the deals are concluded.
Those are my concerns. The initial problem of dealing with Harbourfront is hardly resolved by simply selling off the property. I do not think anybody would really advocate that.
However, there is a concern I have with the nature of going about that. Is it reasonable to say that all of the negotiations will be done virtually privately? That is quite wrong, it is a wrong way for a government to proceed. It is virtually immoral for any government to come forward with a bill of this nature which says, in very stark terms: "We want to privatize this particular harbourfront project", without full details accompanying it to explain to all of us just precisely how this thing is supposed to continue to operate. Is it the government's intent to turn it over to the private sector, lock, stock and barrel? That is, the physical assets of Harbourfront are sold now and somebody in the private sector is then supposed to arrange all of the cultural and artistic activities that will follow in years to come?

May 23, 1991

I understand that a developer would be very attracted to the notion of getting his or her hot little hands on this kind of prime waterfront property in downtown Toronto and operate some kind of programming on the side for a couple of years. I fail to see why they would have an interest in operating that for the next 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. The hard fact is that those developers, whatever their intentions might be today, are highly unlikely to be around and active in that project in 10 years. They will be long gone.
The nature of the development industry is to buy into a project like this, get something on the ground, get it sold, and get out of there. They do not see it as their responsibility-and I don't either-to run long-term cultural activities for metropolitan Toronto. I do not know of any developers around who have said: "It is our job as the private sector to run cultural activities for the next hundred years". I have never heard them say it and I doubt they would. I am sure many of them would say: "Well, if part of the condition of sale is that we do something for five years, we will be happy to do that because we can see where the end of that is".
I have many concerns about the specifics of this bill. I want to reiterate in closing my concerns about the pattern that is being set by this bill.
If this is the model that is to be used around Canada for disposing of waterfront property, this is the wrong model. I hope that it is not the model and that before this bill is concluded and dealt with by this House the minister would reply and give us the details of all the arrangements, all the little side bar agreements, concerning the continuing activities of Harbourfront.
I must admit that I know of a number of negotiations that are ongoing and of a number of people who have an interest. I do not know of any published accounts of the specifics of how it all will be handled, and I believe that to be crucial.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we have some of the most magnificent land in North America, if not the world, in the harbourfront of Toronto. This is land which, through a public trust, has been developed into something which benefits not only the people of metropolitan Toronto, but Canadians as a whole. It has been converted to an asset the public can enjoy. It has
Government Orders
enriched immeasurably our cultural life in Toronto through operations such as the artists' galleries, the theatres, the dance theatre, and events like the International Author's Festival, which has Harbourfront as its home and has put Canada on the map around the world as being a cultural centre, a country which nourishes its authors.
When we take the step of privatizing this land we must be assured that the public trust is looked after, that for the years to come the harbourfront will be a place for people, a place for enjoyment, a place for culture, not just a place for development. We have lots of places for development in this country. Does it have to be the choicest land in Toronto? Can we assure that, in perpetuity, the land will be devoted to these purposes? This is my question to the hon. member.
What assurance, with this bill before us, do we have that the activities commenced in such laudable fashion by Harbourfront will continue, that the people of Toronto and the people of Canada will continue to benefit in perpetuity the way they have in the past?


Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the nature of my concern. There is absolutely no guarantee from anyone on record that I could find ensuring that those kinds of activities will continue for anything but a very short period of time. That is my concern. We have developed something which is, to be honest about it, one of the few internationally recognized places that Canada has for arts and cultural activities, it is marketed that way and it functions that way. It is a real success. The whole deal is being done behind closed doors and may be long gone before anybody has a chance to examine it. I do not agree that Harbourfront should be privatized in the first instance. That is the first problem I have.
Even if I agreed that it was the proper route to go, then at least the Government of Canada has an obligation to conduct its public business publicly. That is not happening. By the time all of this is concluded, it may be literally impossible for anyone to do anything about it. That is wrong.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for his comments today. I certainly appreciate his sincerity and his concern about negotiations that are going on behind closed doors.

May 23, 1991
Government Orders
One of the key participants in the negotiations is the provincial NDP government. I know my friend has influence at Queen's Park these days. His comments are a criticism of Bob Rae and the NDP government as he is accusing his cousins at Queen's Park of being surreptitious in dealing with public affairs and public matters behind closed doors.
It is so unlike the NDP to be doing what they are doing at Queen's Park. Is my friend at all pleased with the way the provincial NDP government is handling this particular issue? Will the hon. member use his influence and the influence of the federal New Democratic Party to convince Bob Rae and the NDP, who have ultimate control over land development in the province of Ontario, that there should be no other development at the waterfront, that the waterfront should remain a place for people and that the privatization should not continue. At the very least, can the hon. member influence Bob Rae to send out a very clear message that his government will not allow any further development at the waterfront.


Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is accusing me of criticizing Bob Rae, he is only about five years too late. I suppose that is consistent with him. If he is accusing me of saying that the Government of Ontario should not be the prime mover in all this, he is right. Unfortunately it is not. It is not setting the pattern for how this is handled. This is essentially being done by the federal government.
If he is accusing members of the province of Ontario of being supreme controllers of how this kind of land is developed in Ontario, he is wrong because they are not. I bet at this moment they wish they were.
I wish that the powers of the provincial government superseded the powers of the federal government. If that were the case then we could certainly put a stop to this. If we could get agreement here this afternoon to make that the case, if everybody in the House was quite happy to say "listen, the feds have botched this one up too; let us turn this over to the province of Ontario", I think we might actually get it all straightened out.
I would certainly use all the pitiful amount of influence I have with anybody to see that this process gets opened up just a bit more.
Just to conclude, one of the problems with this Harbourfront project and its history over the last little while is that no one level of government has clear
responsibility over anything. I had a conversation with David Crombie, for example, on this matter. One of the things that he discovered is that there are some 50-odd agencies of different levels of government which have some measure of control over what happens in the Toronto harbour. That has been a major problem for eveiybody, because any time anyone wants to take some initiative, good or bad, the best that one can hope for is a stalemate, and that is wrong.
If the member wants to turn this over to the province of Ontario, I would be happy to do it. I am not sure the government would be prepared to do so, but, to tell you the truth, it would be a real good move on its part.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my friend makes a point about the different levels of government and different agencies having jurisdiction. We know now that the federal government owns land at Habourfront. We know as well that the province of Ontario has jurisdiction over planning, which is delegated to municipalities, in this case the city of Toronto.
The federal government has control because it does not have to sell the land. The provincial government can simply say: "Pursuant to the authority that we have vis-a-vis development and land use at this particular site, we are not going to allow any more development". Bob Rae does have the opportunity here. I accept my friend's point that he has been in some disagreement with the premier for some time. His criticism is well taken.
With regard to the federal government, it would be my view that this bill should not proceed, that we ought not to privatize Harbourfront. This entity provides the cultural activities which include an art gallery, the dance theatre, a children's summer camp, outdoor festivals, book readings and park and waterfront activities. We should not be privatizing Harbourfront. As well, the federal government should not be selling land to private interest, especially when that land happens to be parkland and when that land happens to be at the waterfront in metropolitan Toronto.
We know that the politicians and the bureaucrats have really goofed when it comes to metropolitan Toronto. I do not know when you last visited Toronto, Mr. Speaker, but you know that a number of very ugly buildings have been built over the last number of years at the water's edge in metropolitan Toronto. I do not know how the provincial government, the municipal government or the federal government allowed that to happen. The fact

that it has happened leads us to question very seriously what is going on with this particular bill.
My friend raised the concern about private dealings behind closed doors. There is a lot of private dealing going on and this government should put a stop to it.
This bill does not clearly indicate what is to happen. It simply gives authority under section 40 to the minister:
40.	(1) The Minister of Public Works is hereby authorized to procure, on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada, the dissolution of Harbourfront Corporation.
(2) The Minister of Public Works may do all things and perform all acts necessary for or incidental to closing out the affairs of Harbourfront Corporation.
And section 41:
41.	(1) Before Harbourfront Corporation is dissolved pursuant to section 40, the Minister of Public Works may direct the Corporation to sell or otherwise dispose of any or all of its assets, including shares of any other corporation-
One of the main assets that Harbourfront has is land. What is proposed-I cannot understand it for the life of me-is that public land owned by the Government of Canada is to be sold to private interests to put up expensive, luxury condominiums so developers can make a lot of money and so that rich people can have a coined with a balcony looking out over the beautiful water of Lake Ontario.


Mr. Langlois:: What is wrong with that?


John V. Nunziata: The Conservative member opposite says there is nothing wrong with the federal government selling public parkland in order to benefit the rich and wealthy.
There are a lot of poor people and not so poor people in metropolitan Toronto who cannot escape to Roscoe Lake on the hot summer weekends in order to boat at their cottages.
A lot of residents of metropolitan Toronto have the waterfront for their recreation during the summer months.
This government is proposing to sell that very valuable asset. Why? Not to reduce the deficit. We know that the government has gone to extremes in order to reduce the
Government Orders
national deficit, but it says it wants to sell part of the land in order to create a trust fund so that Harbourfront can be financed in perpetuity.
In other words, sell public parkland to developers. Let them make hundreds of millions of dollars building luxury condominiums or luxury hotels on the waterfront. The revenue from the sale of this land will go into a little trust fund and the interest, whether 10,11 or 12 per cent a year, will be used to carry on these very worth-while activities, including children's summer camp, summer festivals and book reading.
The responsibility to provide those programs is the responsibility of government, whether it is the federal government, the provincial government or the two municipal governments; the city of Toronto and metropolitan Toronto.
It is penny wise and pound foolish for the government to be selling assets in order to create trust funds in order to carry on certain activities.
If one were to advance this type of philosophy or logic on the part of the Government of Canada, then why does it not sell the House of Commons? Why does it not sell the lawn in front of the Peace Tower to private interests? One would have all kinds of private business interested in securing the rights to the lawn in front of the House of Commons.
We can still have the right to debate in the Chamber, but the money could be used in order to pay for MP's salaries or expenses. It is nonsense and it ought not to be done. We should not be selling public land or parkland in order to finance programs. I would hope that this government will realize the terrible mistake it is making. It may think that it has a short-term solution to the problems at Harbourfront. It does not want to continue funding the activities at Harbourfront.
Future generations, our children and our grandchildren, will look back to the decision of this particular Conservative government and say: "What absolute and utter nonsense, what stupidity for the government 20 or 30 years ago to sell public land on the waterfront in metropolitan Toronto to private interests". It just does not make any sense at all. That land should be developed
May 23, 1991

Government Orders
as parkland. It should remain in public hands. The waterfront is for the people of metropolitan Toronto, the people of Ontario and the people of Canada and it should be developed as such.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, we rise today to talk about friends of the Conservative government at the trough. This has been done constantly since 1984. We remember what the Prime Minister said during the campaign of 1984: "No other appointments will be done until every breathing and living Tory has been appointed".
Who the Tories do not appoint through different agencies they tend to take care of themselves. We have clearly seen Huang Danczkay at the airport in Toronto. The name Huang Danczkay comes up again when we talk about the waterfront.
This government wants to do away with a beautiful small property that is left in downtown Toronto. It wants to sell it like it has sold other things to its rich friends, people who come to the trough. What are we going to see? We are going to see condominiums 20 and 30 storeys high blocking the view of the average person in Toronto going to the lake, even though it is polluted.
I notice that my friends from the NDP are not here to listen to this. During the provincial campaign all sorts of promises were made about how this was going to be taken care of. It has not happened.
I want to go back in history and talk about Route Canada. I notice that the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism and Citizenship is here and he is taking a great interest and taking notes. I also will try to tell him that what this government has done is an injustice to the Canadian public. It is an injustice to all of us and to our children.
CN Express was sold for roughly $29 million in 1985-86. It was turned into Route Canada. The person who bought CN Express could not even get a credit card and yet we gave him part of Canada. He went running to the bank. He said: "Mr. friendly banker, I've got this white elephant that the government is giving me. How much money will you give me?" The bank looks at the deal and says: "Oh, it's a good deal. We're going to give you $50 million". He used that money. He bought Jaguars and he financed telephones and fax machines in its cars in the middle eighties. That was unheard of.
There was a deal struck between Route Canada buyers and the Canadian government which said that the employees of Route Canada should be kept on for three years. Eighteen months later that agreement was no longer valid. When the government was asked to open all the books and show what it has done, it found all kinds of excuses. One minister said: "I was not in power then. It was this minister". Like usual, we shuffle the deck, we have musical chairs of cabinet ministers and there is no responsibility as we clearly saw a couple of days ago in the Al-Mashat case.
Then came Air Canada. The Minister for International Trade said: "It's going to be a great deal to privatize this. It is going to be a great deal". The Canadian public was saying no. Did the government across the way listen? It was deaf. There was nothing there for it. It had ear plugs on and it was not even paying attention. The results: just a couple of months after this was taking place, 2,900 jobs were lost; VIA cutbacks and the list goes on and on and on. Now Harbourfront. Where will it end?
Some people say the Liberal Party is not for privatization. If it is a fair value market, if we are going to put what this land is worth on the table and if we are going to get a fair market value, then everybody in this House will support privatization. The government across the way is doing a gross injustice to the Canadian public. Time after time the Canadian public is raped, by either careless mistakes or intentional doings of this government.
I would not doubt for a single minute that we are going to have a fire sale in the next couple of months and this government is going to put right outside this House: "Fire sale. Our national parks are up for sale".
Do you know what is going to happen? When we go to visit our national parks there will be somebody at the toll booth and he is going to say: "It is $30 or $40 for you to get in. Canadian public, we are going to take you to the cleaners".
"People of Canada, we want to please our friends. We want to please the people who put us here. We want to please big businesses". It was those big businesses that during the elections bought the ads and in 1988 sank millions of dollars to turn the voting public. They sank millions of dollars to tell the Canadian people that free trade was going to be good for them. We have clearly
May 23, 1991

seen that the free trade legislation, since its implementation has cost Ontario, my home province, 200,000 jobs. Where will it stop?
I want to return to the Harbourfront issue because it is very important for me, my children and the children of the three million Canadians who call the greater metropolitan Toronto area their home. Some of the members across the way might be from other parts, but when they have the opportunity to visit Toronto, one landmark they always come to see is Ontario Place, the Canadian National Exhibition, and then they see this beautiful park.


Mr. Weiner:: In your riding?


Jim Karygiannis: That is not my riding. The minister across the way says "in my riding". I welcome him any time to come to my riding, because the lesson that the Canadian people gave to the Conservative member of my riding before is the same lesson that this government will receive in 1992 or 1993. If it has the guts it will call an election today. I notice there are some ministers in this House today. Maybe they can take that message back to the Prime Minister. Maybe when he comes back from Hong Kong they can say: "Why don't you call an election?"
Mr. Speaker, I notice you are telling me to stay on the subject. It is a gross indecency when we say to the Canadian public that we are going to sell this small property, this stamp of a land, for $36 million, when we fully well know that it is worth ten times as much.
Petro-Canada, which the minister wants to put on the block, has a value figure of roughly $.8 billion. In my riding alone there are something like 15 Petro-Canada stations. They are located at the most prominent corners. Every comer is worth at least $2 million to $3 million; $45 million in one riding alone. What if you multiply that by 295 ridings across this country? How much is Petro-Canada worth? What is the real market value of everything that this governments wants to put on the block?
Just recently and today we have seen the minister rise up and say that the Canada Post Corporation is making
Government Orders
money. It is only making money on paper. Why? I have a gut feeling that it is going to be next on the chopping block.
As we continue discussions, it turns my stomach upside down, on a daily basis, to listen to the average Canadians, to listen to the unemployed Canadians, to listen to Canadians who say enough with this country and move down south because of the carelessness of this government.
The Toronto harbourfront is verging on disaster. We cannot swim in the lakes any more. Don River is a disaster. Instead of using some of that money to clean these places up, we are going to sell them and give them to our rich friends.
When landing on Toronto island, coming across from Oshawa there are the Scarborough Bluffs. Thank God they are not owned by this government because it would probably put them on the block. Then there is downtown. The only thing to see is a wall of high-rises. There is a little stamp of land there called Harbourfront. We are going to see high-rises there very soon because this government will probably have its way. This government will probably turn around and rape the people of Canada in a gross indecency, but the people of Canada in 1992 will take care of this government.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-employment; the hon. member for Ottawa West-Public Service; the hon. member for Saint-Leo-nard-economy.

May 23, 1991
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on May 14-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry. I would just like to remind the hon. member that we are under new rules of four minutes plus two minutes from the government.


William Warren Allmand: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I read the rules from cover to cover.
On May 14, I put a question to the Prime Minister regarding the unemployment situation in Montreal. I referred to a recent report indicating that 25 per cent of Montrealers were on unemployment insurance or welfare.
According to the recent statistics, Montreal has the highest urban unemployment rate in Canada and the highest urban poverty rate in Canada. Despite these shocking statistics, the government, in the Speech from the Throne, promised a number of new jobs by the year 2000.
If the government is really interested in the unemployment problem, why is it setting targets for the year 2000 when the needs are in 1991?
The question I put on May 14 was why do we not have a target, an agenda or a program for creating jobs this year, in 1991, to deal with the situation in Montreal and other places in Canada where there are high unemployment rates.
Well, the Prime Minister did not answer my question, and the minister who did answer my questions gave me no answer whatsoever. He referred to a few marginal programs that the government set up in Montreal and said they were working well. How can anyone believe that sort of bumph? He says they are working well, yet there is nearly a 25 per cent combined unemployment and welfare rate in Montreal. Montreal has the highest
unemployment figures in Canada and the minister says they are working well.
Just three days later, three days after I asked that initial question, Pascal's, a business that has been a successful business in Montreal for 87 years, went bankrupt. Twenty-one stores closed and 1,600 employees lost their jobs.
This government is a government of rhetoric, of overstatement and of exaggeration. It makes such outlandish statements that nobody believes anything it says any more.
When the economy was improving in 1984, the government took full credit for all the jobs that were being created. If the government had the recipe for job creation in 1985 and 1986, if it had the formula to create jobs then, why is it not producing that recipe today?
Why is it not laying down targets and programs for job creation in 1991 when the unemployment rate is over 10 per cent in Canada and when there are more than 1 million Canadians without work? In Montreal, we have a disaster zone.
If the government was really responsible and if it really had the answers and formulas for job creation, it would carry them out. The government would put them forward.
I will repeat my question. It is a simple one. Instead of a timetable for jobs for the year 2000-and I am not opposed to a timetable for jobs for the year 2000-why does it not give us a timetable for jobs for the year 1991?
I do not want an answer to some question that I have not asked at all. I will warn the public observing this debate that I will probably get some parliamentary secretary giving me an answer that was prepared by some civil servant somewhere that will have nothing to do with my question, confirming my point that this is a government of nonsense.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace said, he is indeed being answered by a parliamentary secretary, but I will try to give him as logical an answer as possible that will deal with his concerns.
May 23, 1991

Mr. Speaker, our government has set up and implemented many medium- and long-term strategies to stimulate Montreal's economy and thus the economy of Quebec. Further to the CRESSOM report, Employment and Immigration Canada will contribute $32.5 million over the next five years to help community groups and municipal bodies find long-term solutions for the problems of restructuring Montreal's disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
In the field of training, Mr. Speaker, Employment and Immigration Canada spent $2 million in November 1990 to set up a petrochemical training centre in eastern Montreal. We are answering the call of the petrochemical industry, which needs skilled workers.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that Montreal will receive its fair share of a new labour force development strategy that increases by $800 million the funds to train the unemployed, welfare recipients, older workers and young people. Furthermore, the jobs strategy programs help nearly 8,000 individuals. In 1990-91, $32 million was spent on training programs in Montreal.
I would also like to remind the hon. member that from September 1984 to April 1991, net employment increased by 96,000 in the Montreal area. Under the previous government, from 1980 to 1984, Montreal lost
4,000	jobs.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak further on the question I posed in the House yesterday concerning the unequal treatment of women in the Public Service of Canada.
I want to repeat the basic fact that nearly half the people working for the Public Service of Canada are women. In the management category of the Public Service of Canada, they number less than 16 per cent.
Clearly, consistent discrimination is at work to recognize people for promotion based not on what they can do but what the shape of their body is. The same barriers apply to people of visible minorities, aboriginal Canadians and people with disabilities.
I am not going to focus on them. I have spoken on them often in the House, and I will again. Today, I want to focus particularly on the status of women.
Adjournment Debate
The Public Service Commission's annual report is merely the latest proof that simply setting targets to eliminate barriers to hiring advancement and promotion has failed to bring about real change.
The task force bn barriers to women in the Public Service, which reported just a year ago last month, made it absolutely clear that the reason women do not advance in the Public Service of Canada is a cultural bias against women. It is not something that employers consciously do. It is just that, particularly at the senior levels, for all their working lives they have been surrounded by managers who happened to be male. Their whole image of successful managers is seen in male terms.
The government has talked about the few women it has appointed-and I am pleased to see the improvements-through Order in Council appointments, but these are small and insignificant measures. It is what happens to women in their everyday working lives for the Government of Canada that determines whether or not they are going to be able to support their families to the same measure, whether they are going to be able to progress and succeed, using the brains and talent they have in the best interests of their country.
Others have said it better than I, but a woman pays as much for a loaf of bread as a man does. A women pays as much for her children's shoes as a man does. She does not deserve to earn only 55 cents for every dollar a man does. It is not that women in the Public Service are less educated. They happen to be better educated than males in the Public Service.
The government talks about women in the management category. Some progress has been made. It went from a little over 14 per cent last year to a little over 15 per cent this year. Out of a management category of over
4,000	people, less than 1,000 are women. That is not right and that is not just. Examining who gets promoted, who gets hired, who gets appointed, who gets the opportunity for lateral transfers to broaden their experience, clearly explains why. Less than 25 per cent of promotions were women. Less than 25 per cent of appointments from outside into the management category were women. Barely over 20 per cent of appointments within the management category were women. Less than 20 per cent of lateral transfers, which are an opportunity to broaden experience, were women.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

May 23, 1991
Adjournment Debate


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address briefly the question raised by the hon. member concerning the so-called barrier to women in the Public Service. She certainly realizes that great efforts and progress have been made in the last few years in that respect, especially by our government.
We too realize that much progress is yet to be made. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said in the House that this government will continue to make every effort possible in order to change and improve the situation.
I commend the hon. member for raising this matter again today. I would like to give my assurance that every effort will be made by the government to continue to improve that situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Therefore this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 24,1991