1991-11-20

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, is it not tragic when a mother swaps furniture for food and steals to clothe her children? Only a few months ago this happened in my city of Winnipeg to a woman trying to survive on welfare.
In January 1991 the Winnipeg Harvest Food Bank received 306 calls for family food assistance. Last August the food bank got 1,335 calls. According to yesterday's report from the National Council on Welfare, our welfare recipients from almost all provinces are sinking further into poverty, unable to keep up with the rate of inflation.
In the west, except British Columbia, single parents have been hardest hit. The city of Winnipeg has already spent $58 million on welfare this year but needs another $12 million before the end of December. The Christmas Cheer Board will deliver 19,000 food hampers to needy families, a record number.
David Northcott, Director of Winnipeg Harvest, said that if he were standing here in the House of Commons he would say one thing to the government: "Feed us today".
The responsibility falls to the federal government. I urge the Prime Minister to remove the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan and help the poorest of the poor. Give them a good Christmas.


CROATIA
Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as the House is well aware the Croatian people in Yugoslavia are being destroyed bit by bit and day by day.
The country itself has been reduced to rubble and historic monuments are being wiped out.
The fear of the loss of more Croatian lives is growing greater every day. I would urge all members of the House and the government to take any and all necessary steps to stop the bloodshed and recognize a free Croatia as soon as possible.
I see no other way of achieving a free Croatia without taking this step of recognition.


CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, November is CPR awareness month.
The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada wants Canadians to know that the more people who learn CPR, the more potential there is for saving lives.
Every year some 45,000 Canadians die from heart attack. Last year more than 560,000 Canadians received training in basic life support, a 30 per cent increase over 1989.
While this increased interest in CPR is heartening, the number of newly trained people represents only 2 per cent of the Canadian population. That is weak ammunition to fight Canada's number one killer, heart disease and stroke.
The chances of surviving a heart attack improves the sooner medical pension is received. More than 80 per cent of heart attack victims who enter hospital without delay return home. Let us do what we can to ensure that more Canadians who suffer a heart attack do indeed return home.
Take CPR training.

November 20, 1991


S. O. 31 CYPRUS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce -Grey):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Security Council's unanimous resolution 716 expresses unequivocally the collective will of the international community to bring an end to the deadlock and to achieve progress on the reunification of Cyprus.
The resolution reaffirmed that the solution must be based on one state of Cyprus comprising two politically equal communities. The Cyprus government stated that it is ready to abide by the terms of the resolution and called upon Turkey to do the same.
I believe the time has come for both sides to show some prudence and unanimity and make decisive efforts to find a solution to everyone's benefit.
The time of artificial and forceful division of people such as has happened in Cyprus belongs to the past. Such divisions only serve to deprive people of their basic human rights and freedoms and is totally out of step and intolerable in our changing world.
It is hoped that when the newly elected Government of Turkey takes over under the new Prime Minister Suleiman Demirel, it will be the beginning of a new era of co-operation and trust for a unified Cyprus.


POVERTY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the poverty crisis in Montreal requires immediate attention as it does elsewhere in this country.
In Montreal one in four people lives in poverty, more and more children go to school hungry, more teenagers have the street as their home, and many of our elderly line up to get food as well as free clothes to face the winter.
These conditions may sound like scenes in a great, cold eastern European town but it is Montreal, just down the highway from Parliament Hill.
There are 374 centres now that distribute free food in Montreal, and it is reliably estimated that $10 million is needed just to feed the 20,000 children who go to school hungry.
While the government opposite pays lip service to these dramatic needs, its actions have hurt, not helped. There have been 33 tax increases and the hand of the
GST in their pockets each day. The upcoming changes in the UIC benefits will just exacerbate this already grim situation.
If the government across the way wants to strive for a more competitive Canada, then set the environment, help fill the stomachs of our children, help our poor leave the streets and get retrained. Canadians want to work. UI and social-


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


ATLANTIC CANADA SUSTAINABLE FUTURE EXPOSITION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House an exciting and timely environmental project proposal for the summer of 1993 in Truro, Nova Scotia.
The Atlantic Canada Sustainable Future Exposition or "Going Green in 1993" will be a major exhibition about Atlantic Canada's sustainable future.
The exhibition will include a sustainable future and resource centre and will bring together the cultural community, the academic community, the private sector and government to educate and experiment in the interests of a better environmental future for all.
Truro is a very appropriate location for this exposition considering the investment that this community has already made to preserve and enhance the local environment. Mayor Douglas Carter and council have a longstanding commitment to all aspects of environmental protection. The project will require funding from all levels of government, with the contribution of the town already committed.
I urge all the ministers and all the departments involved to give positive consideration and support to the proposals and process the applications as quickly as possible.


POVERTY
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, poverty has become a major issue of importance
November 20, 1991

across the country today. My province of Ontario and the riding of Northumberland are not immune to the blight.
Poverty as it exists today has increased dramatically under the policies and administration of the present government. Poverty has resulted from lost jobs, loss of international markets, business and personal bankruptcies, businesses moving south, lack of adequate adjustment policies to a freer trade environment, lack of research and development, lack of appropriate training and, last but not least, the high value of the Canadian dollar.
Government policies have left Canadian businesses, men, women and children bereft. This government claims to be responsible when we go through good times and it must not claim impotence when we are going through difficult times.
This government must immediately bring in policies to redress the wrong policies in existence today and relieve poverty.


FORESTRY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the current constitutional proposals seem to emphasize clearly that Canada's environment will continue to be everybody's business. For example, the proposed Canada clause suggests that sustainable development is a national issue, yet such areas as forestry and mining are identified as provincial jurisdictions.
In reality, however, as we all know the over-all environmental implications cannot be neatly isolated. There will always be a critical need for federal-provincial structures to ensure Canada's environmental integrity-
In my view the most compelling model for sustainable development in Canada is to be found in our forests. If we cannot implement and practise the concept there then we shall be unlikely to achieve it anywhere.
The Government of Canada has accepted in principle the recommendation for a Canada forests accord to be developed through the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. I urge all parties concerned to commit to building that accord.


CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, an umbrella organization for 129 organizations across Canada, is on Parliament Hill to promote its "One World" campaign.

In a world which spent over $900 billion last year on arms, in which 40,000 children die each day from hunger and disease, in which the global environment is being devastated and in which there is a massive net outflow of capital from south to north, action is desperately needed. Le Canada doit faire beaucoup plus.
The UN has called on Canada to direct far more resources to serving basic human needs like clean water, primary education, primary health care and family planning.
Canada should link aid to respect for human rights by redirecting and increasing aid to community based groups in offending countries and by applying criteria in a universal, consistent and transparent manner.
Finally we should stand to reap the peace dividend by significantly cutting military spending and redirecting the funds freed to serving basic human and environmental needs in Canada and globally.


NATIONAL OSTEOPOROSIS AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to remind members of the House and all Canadians that November has been proclaimed National Osteoporosis Awareness Month by the Osteoporosis Society of Canada.
This society, founded in 1982, is a charitable organization dedicated to the elimination of osteoporosis, the brittle bone disease affecting 25 per cent of Canadian women over the age of 50 and approximately half that percentage of Canadian men over the age of 50.

November 20, 1991
This society provides information both to the public and to the medical profession and supports relevant research into the causes, prevention and effective treatment of osteoporosis. The valuable services provided by local volunteers improve the quality of life for Canadians who must cope with the disease.
The federal government is a partner in the success. The Department of National Health and Welfare provides financial assistance both to the core operation and in support of research.
It is my pleasure to salute this fine organization and to express support publicly for National Osteoporosis Awareness Month.
^ ^


QUEBEC SOVEREIGNTY REFERENDUM
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at a meeting in Montreal, 2,500 people called for a referendum on sovereignty. Compare that with the empty halls the Castonguay-Dobbie Commission faced in Manitoba. Obviously Canada is hampered in its efforts to redefine and restructure itself by the presence of Quebec.
Canadians want a country in their own image, but Quebec is the stumbling block. Quebecers want a country in their image, but Canada is in the way. We have two visions of the kind of country we want, but they are not the same country.
The future lies in co-operation between two sovereign countries, as between members of the European Economic Community.
Quebec does not want to be a province that is different from the other provinces. Quebec wants to be a country like other countries. Canada should understand that and tell its politicians to stop the Castonguay-Dobbie constitutional circus, a worthy successor to the Spicer Circus and the forerunner of five constitutional conferences. That will be just so much window dressing.


COMPETITION
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, according to a recent study by the Toronto-Dominion Bank,
lay-offs, plant closures and cross-border shopping are all symptomatic of the diminishing ability of Canadian manufacturers to be competitive. The bank went on to say that one of the factors that helped weaken Canada's competitive position was the fluctuating level of the dollar in this country. Although the drop in value of the Canadian dollar in the early eighties helped manufacturers to remain competitive at the time, it did not help them in the long run, because manufacturers failed to realize that wage levels in Canada had increased, compared with those in the United States.
Considering proportionately higher wage increases, the rising value of the Canadian dollar and low growth productivity, it should come as no surprise that Canada's competitive position has weakened since 1985.


GREAT WHALE PROJECT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the Prime Minister for the position he has taken regarding the Great Whale Project. When asked for his views on a proposed motion in the European parliament, the Prime Minister declared that the Europeans should mind their own business.
In one fell swoop the independence of the environmental review process of Great Whale has been shattered. How can the Cree and the Inuit trust a federal presence when the Prime Minister has told the world that global concerns are irrelevant? Much like Premier Bourassa, the Prime Minister has chosen to paint any one who questions the project as the enemy. The Prime Minister's myopia borders on the dangerous. This approach runs counter to the growing international understanding of the interdependent nature of environmental issues.
He cannot have it both ways. If we are to preach to the world about human rights and the environment, we must be prepared to take the heat when we are embarking on the wrong course.
Once again the Prime Minister has put a Gucci in his mouth while cavorting abroad.
November 20, 1991


POVERTY
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions

['Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, I asked for unanimous consent of the House and after the usual consultations I was confident that we would receive it.', "As you know, Mr. Speaker, the object is to pay homage to one of Canada's greatest and most illustrious citizens, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of his birth.\nAs I was speaking with a history student, Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea, about Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I noted that-", 'A great historian, a great American historian, Will Durand who was a Canadian by birth, had once said that history for the most part was guessing and that the rest was prejudice.\nI do not believe there is any history of Canada that could diminish the legacy that was left by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his contribution to Canada.', 'We celebrate today the 150th anniversary of the birth of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Born in Saint-Lin, north of', "November 20,1991\nRoutine Proceedings\nMontreal, he studied his humanities at the College de l'Assomption, then studied law at McGill University in Montreal.\nFirst elected in 1871 to the Legislative Assembly of Quebec, he was elected to the House of Commons in 1874. In 1887, Laurier became the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and, in the 1891 elections, he fought against Sir John A. Macdonald. But it was in 1896 that he became the first French-Canadian to be elected Prime Minister of Canada.", "As Prime Minister, Laurier pushed for greater autonomy from Britain at a time when British imperialism was particularly popular in English Canada. The Manitoba school question and the Boer War were very contentious issues between English and French Canada, but Lauri-er's government eased the tension through statesmanship and firm leadership.\nPerhaps his greatest achievements lay in the western parts of this great country. His government opened the door to thousands of immigrants who settled as farmers in the prairies. Thousands of others helped build two transcontinental railroads and it is under Laurier that ethnic neighbourhoods began to flourish in such cities as Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.\nThen in 1905 under his premiership two Canadian provinces were created: Saskatchewan and Alberta. It was a great day in Canada's history.", "His talents, especially as an orator, are legendary. He captivated the imagination of people from all walks of life. He inspired confidence to Canadians by showing them that their country had its place in the community of liberated and independent countries and that they should be proud of it. He opened Canada's doors to all the peoples of the world who found here peace, freedom and unprecedented prosperity."]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, as we meet here today there are almost 5 million Canadians living in poverty, 2 million people receiving social assistance, 1.8 million Canadians who will be fed by food banks and almost 1.5 million Canadians who are unemployed.
In the city of Winnipeg today there are more than
50,000	people who are receiving social assistance, more than one in twelve. If we look at a report by the National Council of Welfare we note that a single parent, most often a mother, is receiving 3 per cent less income today than she did five years ago and living-this same single parent with one child-with almost $9,000 fewer dollars than the level of poverty.
This is totally unacceptable. When will the government change its policies?



Mr. Garth Turner (Halton -Peel):: Mr. Speaker, Bryan Adams is a Canadian singer currently touring in Europe where he is encountering huge and appreciative audiences. As people in other countries are inspired by him, it is time to reflect on the man here at home.
Bryan Adams was the only Canadian on Amnesty International's world tour. When millions were starving in Ethiopia it was Bryan Adams and his manager Bruce Allen who responded with the Tears Are Not Enough project. In addition to being a regular performer at the Princes' Trust in England, Bryan Adams regularly assists Canadian embassies around the world in promoting Canada.
I ask this House and Canadians everywhere to join with me in paying tribute to Canada's greatest ambassador, Bryan Adams, and to thank him for making us proud to be Canadians.


THE ECONOMY
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The government blames everyone else for its economic failures. First it was the provinces' fault. Then it was public servants. Then it was the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Then it was labour. Then it was independent economists.
I would like to ask the minister about a statement made by the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association who said: "For manufacturers the recession is still on. It is deep, wide and long".
Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe again that the President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association is in the hip pocket of the Leader of the Opposition, or will he finally realize that it is this government's policies that are destroying Canada's manufacturers?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the importance of manufacturing throughout the world has declined vis-avis the total gross domestic output. I believe that from the early 1970s it has declined from about 22 per cent of the economic activity to about 17 per cent and that has occurred in most industrialized countries.
The hon. member will recognize that we are going through a recession. The economy has slowed veiy much in the United States, the United Kingdom and other trading partners. Clearly the turnaround has begun. It is moderate and modest. Conflicting data are emerging. For example, in the months of September and October housing starts were up to 202,000 on an annualized basis. Automobile sales in the month of September were up by 13 per cent. Those are all positive indicators.
On the other hand, the merchandise trade balance was in deficit yesterday, so I have to say to the hon. member that while there is strength re-emerging, there is this conflicting data and the situation is volatile. I ask her not to compare and judge the performance of the economy on the basis of one month's data.

November 20,1991
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it was reported yesterday that the hon. member for York East, the former Conservative minister of housing, called for a lower exchange rate for the Canadian dollar and said that the gap between the U.S. and Canadian interest rate is still too high.
Does the Prime Minister think the hon. member for York East is in the hip pocket of the Leader of the Opposition or will he finally accept the fact, a fact that he is hearing from his own colleagues, that the high dollar is killing Canada's manufacturing industries and they need help and they need help now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member is proposing a fixed exchange rate policy. If that is the policy of Liberal members perhaps she might want to outline it and tell us what fixed exchange rate she would establish and how she would keep it there.
The policy of the government is a floating exchange rate. The exchange rate is established in the marketplace. The key to sustained economic recovery is to bring down interest rates. The way to bring down interest rates is to bring down inflation and inflationary pressures.
I remind the hon. member that interest rates have come down by 625 basis points since the high of May 1990. The hon. member will understand that the interest rate spreads have narrowed from 5.65 per cent to about 2.3 per cent or 2.4 per cent.
The goals and objectives that were established in the budget of February 1991, the key to economy recovery, the fundamentals are in place and we are meeting those targets. I can assure the hon. member that is the recipe for sustained growth and price stability.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the government's decision to allow this made-in-Canada recession to continue is a disaster for thousands of unemployed Canadians. I will put my question to the minister again. Why does he not listen to suggestions made by the opposition and even by his own colleagues who said yesterday that interest rates in Canada were still too high compared with those in the United States? Would the minister be prepared today to finally abandon
his high interest rate policy and give Canadian companies a chance to survive?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, Canada does not have a high interest rate policy. Next to the United States and Japan, we have the lowest interest rates in the world.
The hon. member is blaming all the economic ills on the value of the dollar. I point out to the hon. member that in 1976 when the Canadian dollar was worth $1.01 U.S., the British Columbia forest industry had a return on sales of 4.6 per cent and a return on assets of 5.1 per cent.
Back in 1985, when the dollar was worth 73 cents, they had a zero rate of return on sales and a zero rate of return on assets. So it does not necessarily follow that having a lower dollar will provide the cure for all the economic ills.
I will repeat this to the hon. member. The value of the dollar, the exchange rate on the dollar is established in the marketplace. The Bank of Canada intervenes to moderate the flow so that there are no inclines or declines that disrupt the marketplace. That is the role of the Bank of Canada and that is the policy that the Government of Canada is following.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, when this government sustained a high interest rate, high dollar economic policy, it no doubt realized that higher unemployment would result.
Unwilling to pay the cost of this higher unemployment, this government cut UIC benefits forcing the jobless onto welfare. Unwilling to pay the higher welfare costs, this government then capped the Canada Assistance Plan.
I ask the Minister of Finance to acknowledge that his government anticipated that it would cause higher unemployment and poverty and quite simply planned ahead to make someone else pay the bill.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that the Government of Canada does not have a high interest rate policy. The prime bank rate of the Bank of Montreal is 8.25 per cent. That is the lowest it has been in about 14 years.
November 20, 1991

Oral Questions HUMAN RIGHTS
I repeat again that Canada, next to Japan and the United States has the lowest interest rates in the world. The projections with respect to growth, with respect to unemployment, with respect to inflation were all outlined in the budget that was brought down by my colleague in February 1991. We are on target. The universe is unfolding as was predicted.
I assure the hon. member that in getting the fundamentals right, low interest rates and low inflation are the keys to economic sustained growth and price stability.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, misery loves company. Perhaps the Canadians standing in the unemployment lines would benefit from the company of this minister.

My supplementary is directed to the same minister. The minister likes to refer to the tight money situation. In its report released yesterday, the National Council of Welfare said that at least 1.9 million Canadians were on welfare and that their chances of finding a job were becoming increasingly remote.
My question to the minister is this: How does he expect to increase the government's revenues when so many Canadians are unemployed for so long that they have to go on welfare?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the best way to preserve the security of those below the poverty line and those who are on fixed incomes and our senior citizens, is to deal with the root causes of inflation. We have to bring inflation down because inflationary pressures erode the incomes of our senior citizens, our low income people and our people on fixed incomes. That is the goal and objective of the government. It is what will put real income into the pockets of all Canadians. Through the reduction of inflationary pressures and the lowering of interest rates, we will create an investment climate that will generate the kind of job and economic activity that will provide sustainable recovery.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Prime Minister is once again out of the country speaking to the international community about the need to tie aid and assistance to the human rights records of countries, something my party has been advocating for many years.
Despite that, this government continues to provide aid or assistance to a number of governments that have been denounced internationally for horrific human rights violations; countries like Senegal, Cameroon or Kenya, governments involved in the torture, arrest and detaining of their citizens.
Is the minister prepared to act at home by announcing the immediate end of Canadian aid to governments with these horrific human rights abuses?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I said in committee yesterday, this is a matter that is very much on our minds and under review.
I have said I am reviewing aid to Kenya. I have said that I am reviewing aid to Indonesia. This is not something that we can accomplish overnight. Indeed, I asked the committee if it would be prepared to assist us in developing some guidelines we could use to link foreign aid with human rights.
It is something that we are actively considering in the department. We have taken some action. But I will not agree to cut off aid to these countries until I have had time to review the aid programs that we have and ensure that we can still fuel some humanitarian needs in these countries. It is government to government aid that would be the issue under this review.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary question, for the minister, Mr. Speaker.
The minister is of course aware of recent events in Kenya where a dozen pro-democracy demonstrators were brutally detained and arrested by that government. At that time, just last weekend, the Government of the United States, the Government of Sweden, the Govern-

November 20,1991
Oral Questions
ment of Germany, and the Government of Britain all condemned those actions. Canada was silent.
It is unacceptable to talk about human rights on the international stage while refusing to take action at home. I ask the minister: Is Canada prepared to speak out and to freeze the $35 million of aid to Kenya? The human rights abuses are there, but is this government prepared to take action?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I just said that I was reviewing our aid to Kenya. I have condemned the actions in Kenya so I am just not quite sure what it is the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party has missed.
Not only that, but I raised the matter with the foreign minister at the Commonwealth heads of government conference and the Prime Minister raised it with the head of the Government of Kenya at that point. We have been concerned about this for some time.
We are reviewing our aid program to Kenya. However, I do not want to create problems for the poorest people in Kenya by cutting off or freezing our aid until I ensure myself that that really is in the interests of the people of Kenya. We are looking for some help from Parliament on what kind of guidelines we should have, and I would hope the hon. member would help too.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I find it incredible that the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Conference, at the Francophonie Summit, is talking about human rights as linked to aid and does not have any idea of how he is going to implement that. It seems incredible to me.

Clearly this government's priority is corporate, not human development. For most developing countries, clean water, education and health care are a priority. The NGOs can provide these services. CIDA is more concerned with corporate than human development. Why did the government reduce funding for NGOs such as CUSO, Canada World Youth and Canadian Crossroads International? Who is going to provide these essential services?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we deliver a great deal of our aid through NGOs. I would be very happy to look into the particular organizations that the member has mentioned. We deal through a great many multilateral organizations and, indeed, through individual NGOs within particular countries. That part of our budget is being increased and that method of delivery is being increased. Certainly in countries where we believe that there are difficulties with human rights abuses by the government, we are and will be doing more through NGOs.
I should say as well that this is not a new policy. There has been conditionality on our aid for some time. What the Prime Minister is talking about at the Francophonie and the Commonwealth is the fact that right now we are actively looking at our aid profile and we are going to raise the standards considerably by which we link aid to human rights.
The Prime Minister has been very forthcoming and this process is going on now. I do not see where the hon. member has a problem.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, the government's decision to increase unemployment insurance premiums has been condemned by business and labour and was opposed by the government's unemployment insurance commissioners. Individuals and businesses in this country are still struggling with the effects of the recession. They cannot afford to deal with yet another added burden.
Will the Minister of Finance reconsider the decision to raise the premiums and give Canadians and the business community the type of break that they need and deserve during these hard economic times?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the sympathy with which the hon. member poses the question, but I ask him also to consider the fact that in dealing with this issue we have to consider three very important criteria: first, we must preserve the integrity of
November 20, 1991

the UI account; second, we must take into consideration the over-all fiscal objectives of the government, and third, we have to take into account the impact on the employees and the employers.
I remind the hon. member that the Government of Canada will be putting an additional $2.1 billion into the UI fund this year and $1.3 billion in 1992. We have tried to establish a rate that will provide a balance, where the government is still taking on part of the burden and paying the advance, while at the same time imposing a bit of an additional burden on the employee and the employer. If we fail to do that, the interest rate on the fund would soon put us in a position where we were paying more in interest than we would be paying out in benefits, and that would be counterproductive.
I ask the hon. member to seriously consider the dilemma we face.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, we have 1.5 million Canadians unemployed. We have a business community in Canada that is hurting. We have a government that says it consults and it listens to Canadians. Both business and labour have said that it is the wrong time for these hikes in UI premiums. They have said they cannot afford the raise in premiums.
Are we here to encourage economic growth in this country, or are we here to impede economic growth in this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we are here to promote economic growth but you do not promote economic growth by postponing your obligations from today and imposing a burden on future generations. You cannot postpone certain realities and I ask the hon. member to consider that.
The alternative to what he is asking us to do is either increase taxes in another area or increase the deficit. Now which would he rather have?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. Since the introduction of the unemployment insurance program in 1941, it has been the practice for the UI fund to run a deficit when unemployment was high and a surplus when unemployment was low. The fund was balanced over several years and not in every single year.
Oral Questions
Why is the government abandoning a practice of 48 years, a practice that worked well, by increasing UI premiums by over 30 per cent in this year when unemployment is over 10 per cent and bankruptcies are up 50 per cent? Why this massive tax at this time?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we are not abandoning that principle. As a matter of fact, as I indicated earlier, in 1991 the Government of Canada will advance $2.1 billion into the account. It will show accumulated deficit. In 1992 it will add a further $1.3 billion and it will still have an accumulated deficit. So the assumption on which the hon. member bases his question is wrong.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in 1988, the year the government introduced its Bill C-21 on unemployment insurance, there was a $2.8 billion surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, money that was there for the unemployed. But the government took that surplus and used it for training which was previously paid for out of general revenue. Now that we have high unemployment there is no money left in the fund due to the government's changes in the legislation two years ago.
Last year the government said, in writing, that it was going to freeze the UI premium for three years. That was in the legislation. Why then is the government breaking its word of last year? Can we ever believe this government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we are not breaking our word of last year. The federal government is still advancing money into the UI fund.
The hon. member is taking issue with the fact that we are spending money on training. The Minister of Employment and Immigration just announced that he was going to increase and enhance the training fund from $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion. The hon. member should be applauding that.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are concerned with the murders, the sexual assaults, in short the increasing violence against women in our society. I believe they would support strong action now.

November 20, 1991
Oral Questions
I want to put a question to the Minister of Justice in the area of the rape shield law.
Will the minister confirm that in her new rape shield bill proposed for December the government will include a definition of consent which is objective and unequivocal?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am happy to do that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get the minister on the record for that.
Let me follow it up with a supplemental question. The minister will realize that legislation is not the only thing. Hopefully early legislation is something, but it is not the only thing she can do.
I want to ask the minister if she will follow the lead of the Ontario government as a signal to other provinces by issuing instructions to her Crown counsel in the territories, where she has jurisdiction, to automatically oppose defences using women's past sexual history? Second, will the minister institute immediately a mandatory program of education for trial judges on this very important matter of violence against women?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to see the recent action in that regard by the Ontario Attorney General since I had in fact strongly recommended that course of action at our federal-provincial meeting in Yellowknife in early September. I was true to my word by giving the same direction to my own prosecutorial staff who, as the hon. member quite rightly stated, only prosecute the Criminal Code in the territories. So I would, with respect, suggest that I was ahead of the Attorney General of Ontario in that regard.
The hon. member will know that the question of mandatory judicial education is a difficult one in order to respect the independence of the judiciary. I have, however, raised a number of themes with the head of the Canadian Judicial Institute which provides judicial education for federally appointed judges on this and on a number of other issues, including in fact public awareness and attitudes toward firearms and firearm related
offences since, during the course of that issue, concerns were raised as to whether the courts were in fact imposing the full effect of the law. We are working very co-operatively in that area.
As you may know, the component of judicial education on gender bias is now a mandatory component for all judges attending seminars and I am hoping that we will see more of that sort of activity to support the work that Parliament does in putting the statutory frameworks in place.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister for industry.
Yesterday we learned that Canada has suffered its first merchandise trade deficit in 15 years. Unemployment is increasing. Today we learned from Statistics Canada that more than one-third of husband and wife families in Canada rely on unemployment insurance.
How can this minister carry on with the same policies that have created this state of desperation for so many Canadians? When will he announce new measures to reverse our economic slide, to get jobs going and to get people off unemployment insurance and welfare?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the purpose of the prosperity initiative that I announced less than one month ago. The purpose of that is to encourage Canadians from coast to coast to discuss among themselves what they can do, what their companies can do, what educators can do and what governments can do to improve the competitive position of the Canadian economy. That is the best way that we can preserve our standard of living and address the problems of unemployment that my hon. friend has just referred to.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this minister's prosperity agenda is a joke. This is a minister who preaches consultation but he will not listen when workers, small businesses, manufacturers and exporters tell him that the dollar is too high and they cannot suffer higher unemployment insurance premiums. This is a minister who will not listen when he
November 20, 1991

consults. Now he wants more consultations and he is not going to take action until next fall.
What are the millions of Canadians who are on unemployment insurance and welfare going to do while he goes out and carries on these phony consultations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend may think that they are phony consultations, but these are consultations among Canadians, by Canadians to try and find out how we can improve our competitive position.
Tim Reid, the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, says: "It is a good idea to take a tough look at some of the competitive issues that outline Mr. Wilson's paper". I would encourage my friend, rather than quote Douglas Peters, the senior vice-president and chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, who is also a member of the Leader of the Opposition's personal global task force on competitiveness, to go and review those prosperity papers and find out what we can do as Canadians collectively to improve our standard of living.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, eveiy single legitimate economist in this country who read the prosperity papers said they were an empty, vacuous document of no worth whatsoever.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in London, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions sent a clear message to our bankers to restrict credit to Canadians. In other words, we were told that they had to tighten the screws.
My question is as follows: While Canadians are doing all they can to get through the crisis and our industries are doing all they can to create jobs, why does the government want to cut off their only lifeline?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I got the first part of the hon. member's question. Could it be repeated, please?
Oral Questions


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: The Superintendent of Financial Institutions in London clearly said that the Canadian banks must restrict credit. Is that government policy? Is it a true reflection of what this government is saying as opposed to all the pack we have been getting in this House from these ministers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to perceive how one can suggest that the Government of Canada is pursuing a tight money policy with interest rates at the lowest rates they have been in 14 years.
The hon. member should know that there is keen competition among the Canadian banks. The Bank of Montreal has, for example, been a leader in reducing interest rates to the level of a prime rate of 8.25 per cent.
If the hon. member has any specific cases that he can provide me where bankers are not providing the lines of credit that are necessary, I would certainly be interested in looking at them.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, does this minister have any understanding of the way the financial system works? His most senior public servant in this country, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, has said clearly to the banking community that he wants them to tighten up. He is saying to them: "I do not care how interest rates drop, I do not want you to lend money to Canadian businesses to create jobs". Is that government policy? If it is not, will he repudiate the superintendent here on the spot?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, now the hon. member is getting into what is and what is not good business practices. I suspect that any bank has to look at the ability to repay. I guess the hon. member wants the Canadian banking system to take on the same kind of approach to dealing with the finances of the country as the savings and trust companies do in the United States.
The hon. member should recognize that we have one of the soundest, best banking systems in the world and the hon. member should not be criticizing it at this time of difficulty. He should be praising the banking system in Canada because it has served us very well.
Oral Questions FORESTRY

November 20, 1991


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry.
In a report to Parliament a year ago, the forestry and fisheries committee recommended the development of a Canada forest accord as a federal-provincial undertaking toward the practical implementation of the concept of sustainable development in Canada's forests.
In its official response, the government accepted this recommendation which calls for the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers to initiate a visionary process of consultation and consensus building with respect to future forestry policies.
The need for such a process seems even further emphasized by the current constitutional proposals concerning sustainable development and forestry as well as other resources.
My question has three parts. Has a start yet been made on developing the Canada forest accord? What progress has so far been achieved and what are the future prospects for actually reaching such a forest accord in Canada?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for his ongoing interest in support of this notion. Clearly, all of us recognize that the principal responsibility for the actual management of the forests does rest with the provinces. Nevertheless, the notion of a forestry accord such as was proposed by the committee of this House, which my hon. friend chaired, is one that includes all of the environmental equations, the importance socially and spritually of our forests and our national and international obligations. It has found its way on the agenda of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers who are working to develop a new forestry accord and a new forestry strategy by March 6.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Last week the California Public Utility Commission ruled that Californian natural gas buyers could rip up existing contracts with Canadian suppliers starting next October.
This American decision to refuse to honour contracts bargained collectively by Alberta gas producers could have disastrous consequences in this already depressed industry, and will hit the smaller independent Canadian producers especially hard.
What steps is the minister taking to defend Alberta gas producers in this case by challenging the California commission's "tear up the contracts" ruling?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question. It is a very legitimate question.
As he possibly would be aware, prior to the CPUC's decision, I asked my deputy minister to put forward the case very strongly, which we did at San Francisco.
Additionally I met with the minister of energy, the Hon. Rick Orman, as well as a number of industry officials yesterday, today and even prior to this week.
I am very concerned about the unilateral decision that a state regulator has taken. We have tried to build a gas regime under the free trade agreement where contracts would be honoured, where the sanctity of contracts would be respected.
I appreciate that the hon. member has added his voice, and I intend to take further action as we look at our options collectively. I appreciate his support.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, obviously meetings with Canadian producers and Canadian energy ministers will probably prove helpful in this situation, but cannot be seen to be a substitute for decisive action that is required now if Alberta producers are to be defended.
November 20, 1991

Would the minister consider funding one or more court challenges to the California commission's ruling in a competent court either in Canada or in California?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would appreciate, as he mentioned in the first part of his first question, this is a very serious issue not only for Alberta gas producers but for the efficacy of trade between our two countries.
I have not eliminated any options. I will accept his suggestion as another one that we are carefully looking at. Obviously time is not an issue which can be delayed long in terms of any further action we might consider.


JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Canadians feel that they have a right to a judicial system that is both fair and expeditious. This right is being jeopardized by the minister's lackadaisical approach to the appointment of judges.
The minister will know that the justices and judges in this country are overworked, and that the Chief Justice of the General Division of Ontario has openly criticized the minister.
Why is the minister not making these judicial appointments? Is the government so intent on cutting spending that it is prepared to sacrifice our judicial system?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, nothing of the sort.
On the contrary, in the past year we have appointed 64 new judges; 29 of them to the Ontario Court, General Division, which is about a 50 per cent increase from the number of appointments that are normally made in that time period.
In fact, in terms of the productivity of my office in finding candidates, having them vetted and appointing them, we are acting at record levels.
With respect to Ontario, I recognize that there are vacancies to be filled in the Ontario Court, General
Oral Questions
Division, but as I commented the other day, three of those are new positions and 10 of those are supernumerary positions, which means that judges who have reached a certain age may elect to have a reduced case load while still maintaining their salary.
It is kind of one step toward retirement. Therefore, those 10 positions do not represent an absence of 10 acting judges but a reduced workload for those judges. I am working as expeditiously as possible to fill those vacancies. I hope within the next couple of weeks to fill most of them.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the role of a supernumerary judge is not to replace him or herself. The reason the Department of Justice made so many appointments all at once is because it is so slow in making its appointments, it has to make a lot all at once.
If the minister says there is no problem, why has there been no Chief Justice of the Federal Court for 11 months? Why has Chief Justice Callaghan said that his job is crisis management? And why have 50,000 court cases in this country been thrown out? Why does the minister not deal with her own crisis, appoint the judges that need to be appointed and fill some of these vacancies that she has created?


A. Kim Campbell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the problem of court delays is a more complex one than simply filling the vacancies of federally appointed judges. After the Askov decision which resulted in quite a considerable number of cases being dismissed in Ontario, it was in fact the Ontario Attorney General who tried to fill the levels of his own provincial courts, because in fact many of the criminal cases are dealt with at the provincial court level.
The Chief Justice of Canada has instituted an inquiry on court delays, of the concern about how courts are administered and on how those might relate to delays.
I would with respect suggest that things are done very differently in Ontario than they are in my own province of British Columbia and I believe some of those aspects of court management affect the ability of the courts to deal with a mounting case load. All I can say is that I am prepared to do everything possible to try to assist that.

November 20,1991
Oral Questions
I would say though that the appointment of judges is a very important responsibility. Over the last year I have changed the nature of the committees which vet candidates for me on an arm's length basis to make sure that those committees themselves are more representative of gender and other minorities in society so that they will give a better reflection of society when they are vetting the qualifications of candidates to sit in such an important position.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It appears the minister has finally agreed with what the Liberal Party has been saying all along, that credit card interest rates are simply too high.
What I would like to ask him is this. The time for talk is over, the time for action on these rates is now. The minister has the authority to change the situation. Why does he continuously refuse to use that authority?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I said last week that I think, as do many Canadians, that those interest rates are high. I insisted that consumers should have a strong look at this and make the right decision when they borrow whatever money they need and in what situations.
It is possible for consumers to get to the local branch of their bank or caisse populaire and get a loan at 14, 15 and 16 per cent and avoid paying 28 per cent on department store credit cards. They have to make their own decision. We must remember that.
Last week three banks lowered their interest rates on three different occasions. It is going well. I would say so far so good.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, 12 per cent above prime is not high. It is too high.

I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question. The minister refuses to understand that credit
card interest rates are usurious. Why does he refuse to defend Canadian consumers? Why is he defending bankers? What is the reason for it?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think that what I said is to the benefit of all Canadian consumers. I have said it and repeated it many times. There are different interest rates and very strong competition among the banks across Canada, be it for personal loans, mortgage loans or credit card loans. I think that this competition among the banks in Canada must be maintained. From time to time, I believe it is necessary to send these banks a signal. The consumer and corporate affairs committee chaired by my hon. colleague also sent a signal. They are looking into it.
I can assure the hon. member that I will follow this very closely; however, it is not in Canadians' interest to set a ceiling on interest rates but rather to encourage consumers to shop around more and to stimulate competition in that sector.


OYSTER FISHERY
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is an oyster question referring to the oysters in Wallace Bay.
Wallace Bay is consistently closed for inordinate delays during testing in the harbour. At the present time there are ongoing tests into the sixth and seventh month and meanwhile the harbour is closed to the oyster fishery. It causes hardship and confusion for the fishermen.
Why does it take months and months to get the test results in Wallace when it can be done very quickly in other areas? Will the department move to shorten the time frame for these tests?


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from Nova Scotia for that question.
November 20, 1991

People know the fishermen were advised last year that sampling would be done this year on the waters in their harbour at Wallace Bay. The samplings were done by Environment Canada and took place between June 14 and October 1.
The hon. member will also know that the health standards for the consumption of fish and other food products in Canada are very high. The evaluation of those samples is being done and we should have the results within just a few weeks now.


NATIONAIR
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport who knows that Nationair locked out its fully trained and experienced flight attendants yesterday and replaced them with trainees with no hands-on training.
Specifically these trainees were not given the opportunity to practise on an aircraft emergency simulations for fire, smoke, incapacitated co-workers or even emergency evacuations, even though the air navigation orders require line indoctrination for cabin attendants.
Canadians need to be assured that they can travel safely. Will the minister immediately investigate Nationair and, if he finds its operation is unsafe, suspend its licence?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret the incidents that are occurring at the present time at Nationair. They come under the responsibility of the Minister of Labour who has assured both parties that the federal mediation and conciliation service remains available to assist the parties if they ask.
As for the safety of the operations at the present time, I must tell my colleague that the officials of the Department of Transport have stepped up their inspections and monitoring of the airline to be absolutely certain that the public can travel safely.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence who will know that the Department of National Defence has contracted with
Tributes
Nationair to supply passenger services between Canada and our base in Lahr, Germany.
The travelling public has a choice to make but military personnel and their dependants do not. I would ask the minister if she would consider suspending the contract with Nationair until such time as this dispute has been finalized.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that we will take every measure at all times to ensure that military personnel and their families who travel, wherever they travel, will do so under absolutely safe conditions.
This is a commitment which we maintain and I can assure the House of that.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is a general disposition in the House to hear certain tributes this afternoon.


SIR WILFRID LAURIER
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, I asked for unanimous consent of the House and after the usual consultations I was confident that we would receive it.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the object is to pay homage to one of Canada's greatest and most illustrious citizens, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of his birth.
As I was speaking with a history student, Mr. Giuliano D'Andrea, about Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I noted that-

A great historian, a great American historian, Will Durand who was a Canadian by birth, had once said that history for the most part was guessing and that the rest was prejudice.
I do not believe there is any history of Canada that could diminish the legacy that was left by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his contribution to Canada.

We celebrate today the 150th anniversary of the birth of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Born in Saint-Lin, north of

November 20,1991
Routine Proceedings
Montreal, he studied his humanities at the College de l'Assomption, then studied law at McGill University in Montreal.
First elected in 1871 to the Legislative Assembly of Quebec, he was elected to the House of Commons in 1874. In 1887, Laurier became the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and, in the 1891 elections, he fought against Sir John A. Macdonald. But it was in 1896 that he became the first French-Canadian to be elected Prime Minister of Canada.

As Prime Minister, Laurier pushed for greater autonomy from Britain at a time when British imperialism was particularly popular in English Canada. The Manitoba school question and the Boer War were very contentious issues between English and French Canada, but Lauri-er's government eased the tension through statesmanship and firm leadership.
Perhaps his greatest achievements lay in the western parts of this great country. His government opened the door to thousands of immigrants who settled as farmers in the prairies. Thousands of others helped build two transcontinental railroads and it is under Laurier that ethnic neighbourhoods began to flourish in such cities as Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.
Then in 1905 under his premiership two Canadian provinces were created: Saskatchewan and Alberta. It was a great day in Canada's history.

His talents, especially as an orator, are legendary. He captivated the imagination of people from all walks of life. He inspired confidence to Canadians by showing them that their country had its place in the community of liberated and independent countries and that they should be proud of it. He opened Canada's doors to all the peoples of the world who found here peace, freedom and unprecedented prosperity.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the President of the Privy Council, I wish to table in the House today, the fifth annual report of the Public Service Staff Relations Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 1990-1991 annual report of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 26 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
The history of our country, as our national anthem states, is an epic of the noblest deeds, those of tolerance, peace and democracy.
Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Andree Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34,1 have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report on the activities of the Canadian chapter of the Interna-

November 20, 1991

tional Assembly of French Speaking Parliamentarians at the meeting of the executive in Quebec City on August 31, 1991. '


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Canadian Branch, parliamentary delegation to the 37th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in India and parliamentary visit to Hong Kong from September 22 to October 5, 1991.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, October 28, 1991, your committee has considered Bill C-35, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein, and to repeal certain provisions thereof that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect and has agreed to report it without amendment.



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I know there was a commitment made on our side of the House that we would do that and it is our intention. I will follow up to see why it was not done.']
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.
Business of the House
The committee respectfully requests that an extension be granted for its consideration of order of reference dated September 18, 1991 with regard to work place hazardous materials information system.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later on today.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the dealings of the House for the remaining part of the day.
I am just wondering whether or not there would be disposition in the House, should the debate collapse on Bill C-38 prior to six o'clock, to have the vote which is scheduled for 7.20 tonight take place earlier.
The remaining five minutes on Bill C-204 and the final vote could take place at around 6.20. I am wondering whether or not there would be disposition among members of the House to proceed with that earlier time for the vote, so that we could notify all members of the House who are present in Ottawa of this change.
If it is not possible, I can understand why and would be happy to live with it; but in view of the fact that we may lapse the debate on Bill C-38 well before seven o'clock members might have a change of mind.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, as usual my hon. friend has come up with a thoughtful suggestion as to ways and means of making the House of Commons as productive as possible. While I would not like to close the door on the suggestion, I am afraid I must say that I personally have notified a number of members of Parliament that the vote will actually take place shortly after seven o'clock.
I will endeavour to contact these people to see if they cannot make some changes, but in light of the fact that it was scheduled for seven o'clock, people have been informed that it is going to be at seven o'clock. For many people it is a very important vote so I have to say that I am afraid I cannot go along with the proposal but I will leave the door open.
I will endeavour to do my best to communicate with those people that I have spoken to personally and if

November 20, 1991
Business of the House
there is any way to accommodate my friend naturally I will do that, but at the moment I am afraid I am unable to do so.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, in our caucus this morning we notified members that it would likely be about 7.20 this evening. If there is a fairly quick decision then we have time to contact members but if the decision was to be made at 5.45 or something like that it would be totally inappropriate. There is a time limit on that open door and it has to be fairly quick because we have 158 members to be contacted and a limited amount of time to do it.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can make another thoughtful representation to members of the House. It may be to the benefit of all members if we kept the door open until approximately four p.m. If there is no agreement by that time the vote will be scheduled, in accordance with the rules, for 7.20 this evening and we will proceed accordingly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, because of some difficulty we have had with votes on private members' business, I simply want to clarify this matter very thoroughly.
My old friend has suggested that unless we can come up with some alternate proposal before four o'clock, we will proceed with the normal seven o'clock bell ringing or shortly thereafter, but if we can do something in the next three-quarters of an hour we will, but if not the status quo remains.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I think that this is an eminently wise proposal for us to look at.
I do want to indicate to the House that in the event that the debate on Bill C-38 collapses prior than to seven o'clock and we have not come to some agreement that we would want to start with Bill C-12 today and continue it into tomorrow for third reading.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, that was not the understanding that House leaders had yesterday in our meetings with the government House leader and the parliamentary secretary. In fact, moments ago we had a discussion where I clearly indicated to him that would not be our preference.
Of course the government has the procedural right under the rules to proceed with Bill C-12 if it so desires,
but I thought, in the spirit of reform and co-operation which was the basis of my thoughtful representation to the House, that the hon. member opposite would not want to dissipate that good co-operation which he is receiving from opposition members and proceed quickly and in due haste without proper consultations between the respective House leaders. I hope he will reflect upon that suggestion that he has just made.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that if there is some way that we can facilitate dealing properly and thoroughly with Bill C-38-it appears that is what we are doing now and we look forward to the completion of that stage. If it is possible through further discussion to enter into a completion of C-12 or a resumption of C-12, I want to simply say we would be pleased to do that. It seems to be in the best interests of the House and moving legislation expeditiously and properly will do that.
So I will look forward to further discussion among the parties in an effort to make this as productive as possible.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do want to make the time of the House as productive as possible and I appreciate the goodwill offered by my friends and colleagues on the other side of the House.
What I want to indicate is if the debate on Bill C-38 is completed prior to seven o'clock, which would be the normal private members' time, rather than have the House stand down and not proceed with any work I thought it would be wise to call Bill C-12. We certainly have no intention of pushing the bill forward to completion today but simply make sure that we use the full time of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would appreciate it if hon. members could be brief, because the Chair would prefer to see this kind of discussion taking place at meetings outside the House. Once again, I would appreciate your co-operation.
The opposition House leader has the floor.


David Charles Dingwall: It is kind of premature on your part, Mr. Speaker. However, I understand the concerns of the Chair. The Chair should also be concerned with the fact that it is reported in the media that members on this side
November 20, 1991

of the Elouse do not co-operate all that much with members on the opposite side.
I wish to point out to the Chair and to members opposite there is a great deal of co-operation. We had certain understandings which were consummated by the three political parties in private session yesterday.
I do not want to get into the details of that, Mr. Speaker, but the parliamentary secretary has made a deviation from that and I wish to underline that. It does not mean that we will not be prepared if he so wishes to use the rules to the government's benefit, we will be here and participate in the debate.
I want the Chair to recognize that we are attempting at every opportunity to co-operate with the government in terms of facilitating legislation, debating it on the floor of the Elouse of Commons, but when the parliamentary secretary makes a deviation from that, we have every right entitled to an opposition party to bring that to the attention of the Chair and to all members that in fact there is a deviation from the clear understandings we have.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let that sit on the record. The bottom line is yes, there is a great deal of co-operation between the parties in the House and it is something that I encourage and try to foster.
I want to say very clearly that it was my understanding from discussions we have had previously that the backup bill for any period of time when we completed debate during this week would be Bill C-12.


David Charles Dingwall: You are wrong.


Albert Glen Cooper: What is the bill then?


David Charles Dingwall: We are supposed to proceed with Bill C-38 tomorrow.


Albert Glen Cooper: Would you like to proceed with Bill C-30? [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please.
I do not think the House is the appropriate venue for this kind of exercise. I trust hon. members will understand that no offence is meant and that my request for co-operation is directed to both sides of the House. I simply want to spare our viewers these discussions which I think would be more appropriately by conducted outside the House.
Routine Proceedings
That being said, I again recognize the hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we will get on with it. As you suggest, Mr. Speaker, the most appropriate way would be to discuss this among ourselves beforehand.
I want to take this opportunity to reflect on the comment made by my hon. friend, the opposition House leader. While we have strong feelings, perhaps opposite to one another in terms of legislation and policy, I want to simply say: Yes, there is a good deal of co-operation. There is a good deal of hard work that goes on to make this institution a productive, meaningful place.
Sometimes it may not seem that way but as a practitioner here, 99.9 per cent of the time it works, very well as a result of the willingness to work together. Let us do that now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: That being said, the Chair will look forward to any agreement that ensues and is subsequently communicated to the House.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I want to move:
That the second report of the Standing Committee on Consumer
and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations presented to the
House earlier this day be concurred in.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting this concurrence motion today. Perhaps there has just been some breakdown in communication. I wonder if my hon. friend would explain what report this is. There has failed to be some plenary discussions. I do not want to buy a pig in a poke, so to speak.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House, I would be happy to accommodate the hon. member. In fact, his colleague on the committee of consumer and corporate affairs and the committee as a whole were charged with reviewing WHMIS. We have not completed that. It was to be reported to the House

November 20, 1991
Routine Proceedings
some time in early November. We wanted some extension of time and that is what the motion was.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is indeed a privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia.
They are very concerned at what they perceive to be a reduction in law and order in the communities surrounding Kamloops, as well as Kamloops itself. They are concerned that the RCMP appears to be understaffed, underfunded and hampered in its ability to carry out its duties to uphold law and order and are simply calling upon the Government of Canada to ensure that proper funding is provided to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, duty and privilege to present to this House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition which has been certified correct by the clerk of Petitions, signed by literally hundreds of Hamilton and area residents who are in support of the parents of Nina de Villiers and draw attention to the House and request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society. They are pleading with this House to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition to the House from residents of my constituency, in particular from Prince Rupert, who petition the House that since Croatia instituted a democratic government in a multi-party election conducted in April 1990 and since 94 per cent of the population of Croatia have voted for independence, the petitioners call
upon Parliament to take the initiative in officially recognizing Croatia as an independent and sovereign democratic nation.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of Vancouver, Lillooet and Victoria, British Columbia as well as Scarborough, Ontario, which notes that in March 1986 the Conservative government accepted a report from the subcommittee on equality rights of the justice committee and its recommendations, saying that it would take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination.
They note the government has still not introduced this legislative amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act some five years after the promise was made. They note that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has consistently called for this amendment and that a number of other jurisdictions, including Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and the Yukon have all included such protection in their acts.
Finally, they call upon Parliament to urge the government to immediately bring forward an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition signed by residents of British Columbia which points out that full consultation among all parties affected by any changes in the long distance or local service relationship must take place prior to any legislative action or regulatory action, that the CRTC hearings on the Unitel bid must be integrated with the development of the over-all Canadian telecommunications policy.
Therefore, they urge Parliament to ask the minister of communications to oppose Unitel's bid to compete with Canada's telephone companies in long distance service.
As well as urging consultation, they urge the minister of communications to hold local hearings in our community before deciding the fate of Canada's telecommunications system.
November 20,1991


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition. It is similar to the first petition just tabled by the hon. member for Burnaby- Kingsway. Whereas the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure 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. The petitioners point out that this was promised by the government over five years ago.
I notice on the petition that it comes from many of the constituents of the Minister of Justice's riding in central Vancouver but it is also signed by people like Mr. Mcllroy, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Scheck and various people from my own riding of Coquitlam and I would like to table this petition.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to present a petition signed by over 100 people from rural communities in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario. These people are strongly protesting actions of this government which they see as a direct attack on the rural way of life in this country, including cuts to VIA Rail service, abandoning rail lines, neglect of fishery, forestry and agriculture and the erosion of rural postal services.
The petitioners are strongly calling on Parliament to support Canada's rural way of life and to reject the Conservative government's program of cutbacks and closures.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by a number of petitioners from the Ottawa area and the capital region stating: Whereas the presence of asbestos in the work place poses a serious threat to all the work in the parliamentary complex and whereas employees of the House of Commons, the Senate, Library of Parliament and staff of members and senators have no health and safety protection under the law, the undersigned call upon Parliament to press the govem-
Routine Proceedings
ment to finally proclaim parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment Staff Relations Act.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition, under Standing Order 36 which has been certified, from a number of my constituents from the city of Revelstoke and Trail, British Columbia. These petitioners point out that Canadians of Ukrainian descent have a long and proud heritage and have made an enormous contribution to building our country and that Canada's Ukrainian roots should be better recognized by the federal government.
The petitioners ask Parliament to advise the federal government to declare September 7 Ukrainian Day in recognition of the rich heritage and enormous contribution of Canadians of Ukrainian descent.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 104, 129 and 139.


Mr. Holtmann: What is the status of the land compensation claim dealing with the surrender of St. Peter's reserve submitted by the Peguis Indian Band located in the Interlake area of Manitoba?


Hon. Thomas Edward Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: In 1976 the Peguis Band submitted to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a land claim dealing with the surrender of St. Peter's Reserve. At the request of the band, and agreed to by the department, the claim was withdrawn because extensive additional research was required. The department's Research Funding Division provided a contribution to the band in 1987-88 to assist the band in completing its research. To date the claim has not been resubmitted. On October 2, 1991 the band advised that additional supplementary research is required and legal issues have to be addressed before the claim can be resubmitted.

November 20,1991
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Young: Did the government consult with recently retired senior public servants concerning the Public Service 2000 task force and, if not, why not?


Mr. Leonard Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Yes, there have been consultations through various means:
(a)	the Public Service 2000 consultative committee includes four former senior officials-two former secretaries to the cabinet from the Ontario and Quebec governments, two former senior federal officials- Gaetan Lussier and Jaffray Wilkins;
(b)	the Public Service Commission undertook a survey of senior public servants who had recently left the Public Service;
(c)	many less formal consultations with former public servants, most of whom incorporated their views into articles or speeches, such as Gordon Osbaldeston, former secretary to the cabinet, Jack Manion, former associate secretary to the cabinet and John Carson, former chairman, Public Service Commission.


Mr. Nunziata: What is the dollar value of all assets and cash seized by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department that were handed over to the government as a result of prosecutions related to the Narcotics Control Act for (a) 1989 (b) 1990 (c) 1991?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 80 could be made an Order for Return, this return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 80 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni): For the years 1984-91 how many project applications to each department or crown agency were made by the (a) Six Nations Traditional hereditary Chiefs/Kanesatake Band (b) Kanesatake Communications Society (c) Onentokon Treatment Services and, in each case, (i) what was the nature of each project application (ii) which projects were approved and for how much money (iii) were any projects either approved or rejected among those submitted for review by the member for Argenteuil?
Return tabled.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?
NOTE: The net deposit is the total amount deposited less any amount returned to either the Metro Toronto Police Department or the owner(s).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
leader and the independents that I have been unable to communicate with some of my colleagues regarding the vote tonight. I am afraid I will have to say that the vote will have to proceed at the predicted time.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I have a question to my hon. friend the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Yesterday, at the end of Question Period I asked whether the documents quoted by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Question Period would be tabled. The government House leader said that he would be rather pleased to table those.
iH

	YEAR	NET DEPOSIT


Some hon. members:: Agreed.	s
(a)	1989	$249,400	(b)	1990	$390,140	Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on two points of order. I simply want to inform both the government	(c)	1991 (to October 17)	$386,030	House leader as well as the Official Opposition House	11
November 20, 1991

I have checked with the Table and they have not been tabled yet. I wonder if my friend could see to it that they be tabled.


Albert Glen Cooper: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I know there was a commitment made on our side of the House that we would do that and it is our intention. I will follow up to see why it was not done.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tilesday, November 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill C-38, an act to provide for the continuance of Telesat Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the disposal of the shares therein of Her Majesty in right of Canada, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in this debate. I will begin by saying that this bill is definitely a bill whose time has not yet come.
Contrary to the argument of the government Telesat Canada clearly still serves an important public policy purpose. In particular it provides necessary satellite telecommunications services to the north and other remote regions of Canada.
Normally when I speak on bills I talk about the ramifications for my own region, the Atlantic, and in particular for my own province, Nova Scotia. This particular bill does not have specific ramifications in my province. It does however have ramifications in some of the remoter areas of the Atlantic, such as Labrador and parts of Newfoundland.
It seems particularly ironic to me that we would be looking at shortening the public policy life, indeed terminating the public policy life, of Telesat Canada, which provides such a necessary service to the remote areas of the country, at a time when we are all so concerned with pulling the country together rather than pushing it apart.
Government Orders
The government argues that the sale of Telesat will contribute to a healthy market driven telecommunications sector vital to the continued growth and diversity of the Canadian economy. One cannot argue that a healthy market driven telecommunications sector is not vital to the continued growth and diversity of the Canadian economy. Of course I would not even start to do so at any time. That is the kind of thing that we all believe in. Surely among the other things we all believe in is some sort of equivalency, if not total equality, of access to national matters of importance for all Canadians. What is of more importance in this information age than access to the information spread across the remote areas of this country by Telesat Canada?
The whole concept of a public policy role finds its greatest spiritual home in this country of ours because we are both blessed and cursed by our geography and population. The fact of our small population spread out across our gargantuan geography has been mentioned heaven only knows how many times in this Chamber. Every single one of our provinces has its remote areas. Our northern territories are remoteness personified vis-a-vis the centres of the country, whether the nation's capital or the larger cities. It is absolutely incredible to think that this government can actually give credence to the idea that Telesat Canada has ended its feasibility as a public policy organization.
According to the government the servicing of the northern and remote areas will not be affected by this new legislation. Who has the crystal ball over there? Who has suddenly become the soothsayer on the government side? With with the greatest respect to my colleagues on the government side, if they claim to have some sort of soothsayer who knows what will or will not happen as a result of the privatization of Telesat Canada I can only say that in the minds and hearts of Canadians, whether on this side of the House or across this country, there is not a whole lot of faith in the government's soothsaying abilities. We certainly have seen that it was not absolutely on target, considering the alleged benefits that it told us were going to come from the free trade agreement. We certainly have seen that all the good things that were supposed to stem from the GST are obviously not coming home to the minds and hearts of Canadians. Any soothsaying in that direction was clearly off the beaten track.

November 20, 1991
Government Orders
There are other areas of soothsaying where the government has fallen down. It was here, in this very Chamber, barely two weeks ago when the Minister of Finance told us the recession was over. The next day he had to eat his words. Indeed he has eaten his words, which is more than some Canadians will be able to do because of the inability to predict even the close future by this government.
When the government said to the people in the northern and remote areas of this country: "Do not worry, be happy, privatizing Telesat Canada is not going to affect your access to telecommunication services", I am afraid we have to say: "Gosh, we just do not believe you". "We do not even guarantee" said the hon. minister. I guess that makes me feel better. A guarantee from this government will make everyone in Canada sleep easier on that one. The touching faith of the hon. Minister of State for Finance and Privatization again overwhelms me-or should I say underwhelms me.
The government has also promised that Telesat will maintain its monopoly on the provision of satellite telecommunication services for the next 10 years. This provision, however, surely an oversight, has not been included in the legislation. Perhaps that alone should give rise to a certain amount of scepticism on the part of the Canadian people. It sounds unbelievable to think that the Canadian people would even be sceptical about this government. I can see the look of horror on the face of my colleague from Ottawa Centre but yes, the people of Canada are sceptical about promises that are written on water, not written in the legislation that the government is bringing forward.
Let me remind you that Telesat is the only Canadian carrier which provides commercial satellite facilities and services across the country.
I have some questions for the government. How will the government force the hand of a private sector company to provide services which may not be profitable, such as providing services to the northern and remote regions? We understand that there are good corporate citizens in this country. We all understand that. Everyone on this side of the House believes strongly, indeed fiercely, in a healthy business sector.
We stand here in recessionary times. We stand here when businesses are going bust all over this country. We stand here when bankruptcies are skyrocketing. Is a privatized company such as this one going to do the unprofitable in the face of the major profits they can make in the other areas of the country? The minister is again astounded that I should even voice such questions. I am just supposed to sit here and take it on trust. Well I am sorry. My constituents did not send me to Ottawa to take the government on trust. Take it on, yes, but not on trust.
The private sector does not have this responsibility. The responsibility lies squarely within the purview of the federal government. A federally owned corporation, put up to advance, promote and defend the cultural underpinnings of Canadian society, which is the mandate of this government, must remain the mandate of this government and must not be thrown away.
When business decides that certain things are unprofitable, they decide it according to their annual reports, their statements, their financial forecast, et cetera and rightly so. That is the way business works. Something this government does not quite understand is that governments and business are not absolutely identical. Government has responsibilities, particularly in the area of what the soul of a country is. If you sell off all of the tools that give you some ability to ensure that the soul of your country remains healthy, then is it any wonder we are in the troubled times we are in with regard to the whole state of this country? Is it any wonder?
I do not accuse the government of malfeasance. I accuse it of just not seeing; of perhaps not looking in the right direction; of perhaps not understanding what is necessary to keep this country on an even keel and on the straight track.
It is also the right of Canadians who live in northern and remote areas to have this access. The minister is nodding at me. I know he agrees. I know that. What I am asking him and his government is: What is your guarantee? You tell me you have a guarantee, but I hear you will, you will, you will. I should take it on trust. I cannot take it on trust. At the very least, why do you not amend the legislation and add in the provision of satellite telecommunications services for the next 10 years? That would be a small thing. It might make us all feel better.
November 20, 1991

Government intervention in the cultural sphere is crucial to providing Canadians with a common experience. Over the last several weeks we have listened to some of the problems we have with our common experience in this country. We are going through what I certainly hope will be the worst period in our history with regard to national unity and our sense of faith in the future. I hope nearly all members in this House will agree with me, that what we have been going through is the nadir, and it is not going to get any worse. From now on we are going to solve our problems in a spirit of reconciliation, non-partisanship, and a spirit of what is best for the most incredible country on the face of the earth.
But in the meantime this legislation is not helpful. It does not add to the debate we are going through at this very time. It does not add to the sense of security that Canadians are so desperately seeking.
Telesat Canada, via its provision of satellite services, actively supports what should be the cultural policy in Canada. It gives the appropriate underpinnings for dissemination of that cultural policy across the country. That may be taken away and left in the hands of people who may well be good people and good Canadians, but their responsibilities are to their shareholders, their boards of directors, and to a limited number of people.
The Government of Canada's responsibility is to the 25 million Canadians who care passionately not just about their future but about their ability to flourish as a country. Is it any wonder that those of us on this side of the House question this legislation? Is it any wonder that we have fears about this legislation? Is it any wonder that we say that this legislation is premature?
There may come a time when Telesat Canada should indeed go to the private sector, but it seems to me that getting rid of one of the major areas by which the government can enforce its communication policy in the midst of what is a crisis of national unity is downright stupid.
I would go further than that, except I do not want to impugn the motives of the government. I do not. I believe that the members of the government have as much of a passionate commitment to the future of Canada as do the members of the Official Opposition. I see something being done that is downright impractical
Government Orders
and counterproductive for a large sector of the Canadian population, for the largest segments of the country.
I see something that is going to go against the forces that we are trying to generate to keep us together. I have to speak out and say this is what we think. Please look again. Can you really believe that this is what you want to do?
There is a saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face, and I am afraid this is what this government is doing. The face of government is already unpleasant enough to the people of Canada without marring it yet one more time.
I want to go on and talk about what happens after the 10-year period relating to the monopoly provision expires. Is there any provision for an extension? What will happen to this fundamental instrument of public policy, presupposing it lasts as the minister keeps guaranteeing it will? Who will fill the void?
If we are not to keep renegotiating 10-year periods, we will have to deal with this in some sort of permanent manner. If we do not, the status of the artistic community and the artist in Canada, for example, will suffer from uncertainty, not to mention the uncertainty that is already facing the people who are the benefactors of this organization.
ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Television Artists, has said: "While broadcasting is among the strongest links between Canadian communities, it is also the pipeline for an influx of non-Canadian programs which challenge our distinctiveness as a culture".
By virtue of its provision of broadcasting services through the use of its satellites, Canadian television programs can be transmitted to remote regions, diminishing the sense of isolation and difference which people living in these regions experience. Surely that is a truism. Surely we all know that. Surely we all want to see that guaranteed again.
What better way to guarantee it than to retain this particular organization with its Crown corporation status? Why privatize? Why? What is the reason? Surely privatizing Telesat Canada is not going to help in a great way to reduce the deficit of this country. I cannot believe that is the case. Surely we do not sell off what is an

November 20, 1991
Government Orders
essential part of our birthright for what is essentially a mess of pottage.


An hon. member:: Actually keeping it will reduce the deficit-


Mary Catherine Clancy: Absolutely. It makes a profit and yet the government wants to get rid of it.


An hon. member:: What about Imperial Oil?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Oh, yes, but I say to the minister that as far as I know we never owned Imperial Oil, unless I missed something.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I tell the member from Mississauga that we certainly would. We wanted you to keep Petro-Cana-da too.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Mary Catherine Clancy: The hon. member from Mississauga will have his opportunity. I suggest he calm down.
By virtue of its provisions of broadcasting services through the use of its satellites Canadian television programs can be transmitted to remote regions, diminishing the sense of isolation and difference. That bears repeating: the sense of isolation and difference.
Keep in mind that we are seeing an absolute explosion of telecommunication satellites and that we live, as none of us surely needs to be reminded, next door to the largest, most widespread cultural giant on the face of the earth. Every single one of us is bombarded with American television, American radio, American music, American films, America books, American magazines and so on and so on and so on. That is fine.


An hon. member:: Some are carried by satellite.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Some are carried by the satellite, absolutely. That is exactly my point. The hon. minister said that some are carried by the satellite. When those satellites are in private hands, will it be more lucrative to carry American programming or Canadian programming? If it is more lucrative to carry American programming, what then happens to the entire state of Canadian culture?
I will tell you what happens. Without a solid commitment from this government, without a solid responsibility given to the government, inherent in the government and forced by the government, Canadian culture could very well wither on the vine.
We are all agonizing as a group of parliamentarians about the best way to keep our country together. If the government persists in this foolish enterprise, the fact that we have a country may soon become irrelevant.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this moment go by because the hon. member made some statements about service to the north that I think have to be answered.
She has a very legitimate concern about the north being serviced. There is no question about that. She is worried that if the government sells its shares in Tele-sat-by the way it is half owned by the private sector now-the north will not be serviced. We have no power over assuring that the north is serviced.
Let me remind the hon. member of a letter that was written to her colleague, the critic for privatization. He was concerned when we announced the sale of Telesat about service to the north. The president of Telesat who by the way is not a bureaucrat but a business-


An hon. member:: Government appointee.


John Horton McDermid: No, he is not a government appointee. He is hired by the company and has the interest of the company at heart. He made a couple of veiy clear statements to my hon. friend and to the government when we discussed privatization.
The first statement was that service to the north is very profitable for Telesat. That does not guarantee service to the north, and I am the first to admit it, but she is saying that it was a loss-leader. It is anything but. It in fact is a profit centre for Telesat. She should understand that first.
Second and most important, Telesat's customers, the Telecoms and the Canadian Broadcasting Industry, are mandated by the CRTC to provide those services to northern Canada. They must do that to get their licences. So service to the north is guaranteed. I can tell the hon. member, if she has looked into this at all, the expense of putting terrestrial supplies and services in the north is just impossible because the terrain is the toughest in the world. It is impossible, so they have to use these particular facilities.
The other thing of course is that the Telecoms are large partners in this particular operation as well. Service to the north is assured by the CRTC in the mandates that it gives to the broadcasters and to the telephone companies. I think that is very important and she should understand that.
November 20, 1991

The only other comment I would make is that ownership in a company does not guarantee or assure services or a policy or philosophy of a particular government. She suggested that we put the 10-year exclusivity mandate in the legislation. Another government could come along and amend that legislation just like that. That is not where that type of thing should be put. That should be put in the offer of purchase and sale to guarantee that they will have that exclusivity for 10 years. It has in the past been an exclusivity to them by policy, not by legislation.
As the hon. member may know, a company that happens to be a customer at Telesat applied for a satellite licence just recently. The government and the Department of Communications, in their wisdom, felt that at this stage in the development of our telecommunication system in Canada exclusivity should be given to Telesat.
The member said she does not trust the government or does not trust what we say, and that is fair enough. If that is the way she wants to handle it, that is fair ball. But maybe she would trust the president of the company who has a genuine interest in serving these areas, first of all because his customers are required to do that and second because it is profitable for the company.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his comments. I fear that once again the hon. minister has misunderstood what I said. No doubt it is my fault for not being clear enough.
First, I do not have all that much faith that Telesat Canada will be mandated by the CRTC to provide Canadian services. That is my concern.
My concern is about the providing of Canadian programming to the north. I realize that right now it is very profitable. That could change.
Was not the CRTC, in dealing with the CBC some years ago, extremely concerned that the Windsor station should stay and provide a Canadian news service to the Windsor area, practically like a dagger stuck in the heart of the United States? That particular mandate has gone
Government Orders
by the boards. That is the reason for my lack of trust. That is why I say that you cannot be sure that these things will remain the same.
I do not deny the profitability in the north for an instant. I want to make it quite clear to the minister that I was not suggesting that the service to the north was a loss-leader. That is where I possibly, inadvertently, misled him.
However, I am saying that providing Canadian programming could very well become less profitable than providing the super stations or whatever the explosion of programming from the United States will be.
There is a further question. People have a perfect right to watch whatever they want. In all Canadian cities there is the option of as many as 30 television channels. They run the gamut from movie stations to Canadian stations, American networks, American private stations, et cetera.
I do not have any empirical evidence but I would suggest that Canadian programming, with a few exceptions, suffers in the great wasteland of American programming that is available. We are not trying to, should not and will not be able to legislate to say: "I am walking into your house and telling you what channel you can watch".
We must mandate to ensure that Canadians have a broader choice of Canadian programming to watch as a result of services provided by their government, not services provided in the open market.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the member could explain to me how the Canadian National Railway, which is the owner of the shares to be transferred to the minister, is a cultural organization necessary to the culture of the country.
Why is it so important to the culture of the country that the railroad owns the shares? If it is so important to the culture of the country that the railroad should own the shares, why should the minister not have those shares in the minister's hands? Perhaps the minister could find some other organization to buy the shares that would be a better cultural arrangement for the country.

November 20, 1991
Government Orders
Is the member opposed to the minister doing something in this regard? Is the member also opposed to the money from the sale of these shares going to the debt reduction fund?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, some debt reduction because of the 3 per cent of the shares held by Canadian National. The hon. member is only talking about 3 per cent. He should check his figures.
There was another question raised that was even more interesting when it comes to the cultural life of this country and the way this government misunderstands it. The hon. member from Mississauga asked me whether I really think that CN is such a great cultural institution. Yes, I do. Those of us in Atlantic Canada who do not have much of it any more think it is a great cultural institution. It is another one of those great cultural institutions that bring this country together.
Indeed it was the vision of a great Conservative, Sir John A. Macdonald, who no doubt is revolving in his grave listening to the member from Mississauga, that holds us together and this government has at a great rate systematically, certainly in the Atlantic region, tom down. Is it a cultural thing? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what is cultural. Keep CN from selling that line from Sydney to Truro, keep CN from getting rid of the rail lines that go through Atlantic Canada, keep this country together and keep the Atlantic region viable.
We cannot all live in downtown Toronto. Some of us need the services that this country is supposed to provide.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow my hon. colleague from Halifax on this subject. I see that she is leaving to attend a committee meeting that she has delayed me from being at myself. I was hoping she could stay and we might engage in some interesting debate after I am finished. With that disappointment I will proceed.
I am very pleased to give my support to the government's decision to sell its shares in Telesat Canada. I do so because I believe it is pertinent to our goal of enhancing the competitiveness of Canadian firms.
Enhancing Canadian competitiveness is part of our economic plan to ensure greater prosperity for all of Canada. In order to succeed we must draw on the talents and efforts of all Canadians. In today's increasingly competitive economic environment anything less will result in declining standards of living for all Canadians.
In the 1960s there was a popular song that proclaimed that times were changing. In fact times are always changing. Those who fail to adapt are doomed to be left behind. In today's environment the ability to adapt to change is fundamental to the ability to compete, as any successful business person will be able to tell you.
Allow me to explain the connection between competitiveness and government divestiture of Crown corporations and other Crown holdings such as Telesat Canada. I will be the first to admit that when government ownership of an enterprise serves a valid public policy purpose government ownership should be maintained and we should support it. The protection of Canadian technology, the nurturing of infant industries and the process of nation building are three such purposes requiring public ownership that come to mind.
However a critical examination of our Crown holdings and investments reveals a number of entities whose original raison d'etre-economic, social and cultural-have either been realized or become obsolete or, given the passage of time and events, will probably never be realized.
At one time in our history government ownership was a viable means to provide services which the private sector was unable or unwilling to provide. I would like to read some remarks that the president and chief executive officer of Telesat Canada provided to our Standing Committee on Communications and Culture recently. He recalled the beginning, in 1969, when the government enunciated its objectives in setting up its ownership of that corporation.
One objective was to provide the ability to have national radio and television networks. The satellite now does that. Before that time the CBC was available in parts of Canada and not in others. Today it is available in every town and village in the country, including the far north.
The second objective was to provide all-weather reliable communications between points in northern
November 20, 1991

Canada and between northern and southern Canada. The satellite did that and still does it. That is no longer an issue. It is here to stay.
The third objective was to provide reinforcement to heavy route east-west communications in southern Canada, and as he points out Telesat does that. One of the things it does, and few people apparently know it, is provide a back-up facility for the fibre cable networks which run east and west. When the networks are dug up by the backhoes for repair or replacement, all of the telephone traffic between Ontario and British Columbia and between British Columbia and Alberta flow over the satellite.
Eldon Thompson, chief executive officer of Telesat Canada, is by the way a New Brunswicker. In a moment I am going to read into the record the very significant performance record in recent years of that company. Eldon Thompson was a former president of N.B. Tel and has distinguished himself both in his own province and on the national scene. He says that in addition to those three original purposes for the government's involvement in Telesat Canada there was a final one. It was to give impetus to Canadian scientific development in manufacturing, and they have certainly done that. There is an export business in Canada today centred on space and satellite equipment, and in fact Telesat Canada itself exports. He points out that they currently get 6 per cent of their revenues from engineering consulting services which they deliver around the world by Canadians based in Canada.
The original purposes for government investment in Telesat Canada have been realized. I think that having justified those purposes the next threshold of achievement by Telesat Canada will be best realized in the private sector.
At one time in our history government ownership was a viable means of providing services which the private sector was unable or unwilling to provide. For the most part that time is past. Due to the maturity, diversity and dynamism of our economic infrastructure, the private sector in Canada is now able to provide the services Canadians need in most circumstances without the government's direct participation. As a private enter-
Govemment Orders
prise businessman I applaud that reality in this country. I believe it adds to the dimensions of potential which Canada faces in a very magnificent future, if we can get our current problems resolved.
Therefore in many instances the government's fiscal and human resources are being needlessly tied up in jurisdictions where they are no longer required. This is not just inefficient. It is another word for really being uncompetitive. It translates into lost market opportunities and ultimately into reduced employment.
Let me also remind my fellow members of a basic reality. More than ever before Parliament now has the available legislative powers to influence the direction of the economy strongly and resolve social problems without resorting to public ownership of corporations or joint ventures such as Telesat.
It does not take a genius to comprehend that when government ownership of private enterprise is both uncompetitive and inefficient it should be discontinued. We understood this years ago, and that is why we implemented the privatization program. While Telesat is not a Crown corporation, the sale of the government's shares in Telesat will achieve the same results and the same benefits as though it were privatization.
For example, through privatization we assist in creating new investment opportunities, new job opportunities and new market potential for Canadian firms. That is both pragmatic and rational. It is also the path which almost all of our trading partners throughout the world are following. Failing to do so ourselves will lessen our ability to compete in a world that grows more competitive every day.
We can also promote competitiveness and economic growth by liberating Crown holdings whose potential for expansion is seriously impeded by continued government ownership. By its very nature the government decisionmaking process is slow. This can seriously affect the performance of Crown holdings whose major arena of operation is the fast moving private sector, which often requires companies to react quickly to changing conditions.
Without the restraint and constraint of government ownership and its complex accountability mechanisms, these firms can generate new vigour, set new goals and create new markets.
It is perhaps appropriate at this time to read briefly from the financial statements of Telesat Canada for

November 20,1991
Government Orders
1990, just to put in perspective the significant performance of this company under government ownership. Then we may contemplate the even grander dimensions that it could achieve under the new vigour and energy that the private sector scenario provides.
In 1990 Telesat weathered a rate rollback and aggressive competition within the telecommunications marketplace. It was limited by an economic recession and still managed to increase operating revenues by an unparalleled 21 per cent over 1989. Despite operating expense increases of 11 per cent over the previous year, Telesat recorded net earnings applicable to common shares of $26.4 million, an increase of 29 per cent over 1989.
I will go on to examine the past five years of remarkable growth. In 1990 Telesat completed its first five-year period as a direct telecommunications service provider, with compound year over year revenue growth exceeding 12 per cent. Today Telesat has depth and strength on three vital fronts: as the carrier of choice to Canada's broadcasting industry, carrying signals for virtually all of Canada's national and regional broadcasters; as an important source of transmission services to other carriers and resellers; and as a direct provider of business communication network to government and industry.
In all three areas Telesat has experienced remarkable growth, characterized by the increase in its customer base over the past five years from less than 90 direct customers to more than 350 now, by an increase in its asset base from less than $600 million at the end of 1985 to $1.2 billion at the end of 1990, and by a compound year over year increase in net earnings of 20 per cent since 1985. Those are remarkable financial and economic business achievements.
One of its long-term goals is to become a world player in the next generation of satellite based personal communication systems and its 50 per cent ownership in Telesat Mobile Inc. already gives it a large stake in the North American mobile communications market. At year end it was pleased to announce the contract signing to procure Canadian and U.S. M-SAT satellites that will be operated by TMI.
That just gives a perspective of the excellence of this company, achieved with 53 per cent direct and indirect government ownership. It speaks to the threshold of
opportunity, which I am confident redirection into the private sector will bring.
In another perspective let me remind my hon. colleagues of the pressing need to bring Canada's national finances under firm control, one of the purposes of our privatization program. By reducing federal expenditures on Crown corporations or holdings such as Telesat, we will assist in reducing the federal deficit and the national debt. The rewards of doing so are an easing of inflationary pressures, the lowering of interest rates, the prospects for a strong economic recovery, sustained future growth that brings new jobs, and higher levels of prosperity.
As I have described Telesat is ripe for private ownership. We have looked at its inventory of six operating satellites and its five-year record of assisting the private sector in developing a domestic satellite communication system. The original purpose of government ownership has been achieved and it is no longer relevant. The time has come to reap the dramatic potential of this divestiture for the government, not only to assist in our expense control efforts and the contribution to our national debt reduction program but to give Telesat itself the vibrant opportunity which private ownership indeed will bring.
Telesat now provides commercial satellite systems and services nation-wide, including northern and remote areas of Canada. As my hon. colleague, the minister responsible for privatization said a few moments ago- and it was confirmed through a letter from Mr. Thompson, the chief executive officer-those services are secure and unviable. There is no prospect that the integrity of the Telesat service to northern Canada will be diminished.
For economic reasons as I explained earlier, we believe the delivery of these services is best left to the private sector. As it is, Telesat provides its services in competition with private sector telecommunications companies. While Telesat's satellite based telecommunications technology continues to benefit Canadians, securing this objective no longer requires government participation in the company. Frankly if Telesat is not exposed to the disciplines and opportunities of the private sector, then those private telecommunications companies with which it now competes will have a decided advantage. That
November 20, 1991

certainly is not in the interest of Canadians or the government. We believe that Telesat's market position will be better maintained through full private sector ownership.
The company will continue to produce and provide its services for Canadians on a commercial basis without the government sitting on its board. Telesat will thrive through a stronger incentive to succeed and the enhanced flexibility to pursue commercial opportunities. Its ability to compete will be enhanced as it becomes more innovative, more cost effective and more efficient.
Given the pressing need to enhance our national competitiveness and the state of our national finances, selling the government's Telesat Canada shares is a prudent, sensible and fiscally responsible action. Although Telesat Canada is not a Crown corporation, the sale of the government's equity interest in the company will contribute significantly toward the reduction of the federal deficit.
In closing, we on this side of the House prefer that Canadians have every opportunity to excel against our foreign competition. That is why we intend to sell our shares in this remarkable company, Telesat Canada, and thereby create new investment and market potential for the company, and new employment and investment opportunities for all Canadians.
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-38 that is being debated in the House today.
I would first like to congratulate and thank our member, the critic from Okanagan-Shuswap, who represents primarily the Vernon and Salmon Arm areas, for all of the work that he has done in this particular field. Actually, I had a chance to read Hansard and some of the comments made by the Minister of Privatization and by our member when the bill was debated on Tuesday at second reading.
I would just like to say a few things about Telesat Canada and telecommunications policy, or the lack thereof in Canada. I would also like to offer my view with respect to the current government's position as it relates to privatization and selling off public property.
Government Orders
My first comment is in regard to the privatization of Telesat Canada. As the minister outlined in his opening comments, it is technically a disposal of shares, although it is being treated very much like a privatization measure, as if it was a Crown corporation.
We have some concerns on this side of the House in terms of the government decision to dispose of Telesat Canada. Two main concerns come to mind.
Our first concern is that it is Canada's only domestic satellite system and should remain in the hands of Canadians. I was reminded of just how important telecommunications and other communications methods in the country were during the gulf war, while meeting with representatives of Canada Post. They fear that this government might just have Canada Post on the privatization block as well. The member for Mississauga cheers that notion.
This particular postmaster commented that the Government of Canada, at that point during the war, was really turning over our ability as a nation to control and regulate communications policy in the country. So there is a real concern there in terms of loosening the public control over these corporations. I will make a point later about that. I think even the minister might agree with me on some of the concerns over regulating companies in these very vital areas of communications and transportation.
The second concern, from the notes that have been provided to me, is that there is still a struggle in Canada to achieve a communications policy between the federal government and the provinces. In particular, some provinces such as Quebec have demanded to control communications policy outright. I recall previous attempts by some ministers in the government of British Columbia to control communications policy. It is my view that Telesat Canada is one of those operations that I think the Government of Canada should still have a firm hand in.
Regulation, and I think the minister might even agree with me, has become a traditional tool of government, regardless of what side of the House, to regulate and attempt to ensure that there is a minimum level of service.
I am concerned about that, and I will use transportation as an example. Deregulation has caused reduced service in the north. Yet regulation tends either to

November 20, 1991
Government Orders
guarantee monopoly or guarantee profit and actually eliminate a great deal of competition.
I will be very frank. I sometimes question the ability of regulators actually to guarantee service, be it in communications policy or transportation to the public. However at the same time there is a question about how to ensure that there is the so-called competition to guarantee that service.
I will return to the transportation example. In my community of Prince George there are two airlines competing. While there is not a great deal of difference our regulations, in this case administered by the National Transportation Agency, basically ensure that the level of service they end up providing becomes a minimum as opposed to the maximum that might be achieved. Regulations tend to create a glass ceiling. I am not sure I have a solution for that today, but it is certainly something that we have to consider and examine.
In particular, with respect to northern communities, I am especially concerned about what may be a reduction in the control that government and regulatory agencies have over various organizations like Telesat. One comment that struck me was made by a representative of one of the companies in Toronto after a journey through northern B.C. He said that he was astounded by all the satellite dishes that were around. This was a very senior representative of a communications firm who clearly had not got out of Toronto enough to realize that satellite dishes in people's backyards in northern B.C. is a very common thing.
This person was very senior in his company and obviously participated a great deal in regulatory hearings about communications policy but had no idea whatsoever about what ordinary people in a northern and remote part of British Columbia actually do. Yet agencies rely on his input into the regulatory process to develop policy. If that is what we are doing we are not going to have the best kind of policy in this country.


John Horton McDermid: Which satellites do they access?


Mr. Gardiner:: Exactly. The minister makes an important point. The point I am making is that I do not know if we have been getting the best out of the CRTC, often an urban dominated approach. We have some extra work and maybe additional comments could be made in that area.
I just want to finish by discussing very briefly the government's general direction in what would seem to be a disposing of Crown corporations and its interest in other corporations. I do not think it is a great sin that the Government of Canada is involved in some of the vital parts of our economy. I do not think we have a visor vision in thinking that the tool of public investment is an important one for this country. In fact if you look at the history of Canada, in particular the building of Canadian Pacific Railway, the government played a role because of the nature of our country in how it has been developed and its history. I think it should remain.
We are not afraid of government intervention where necessary in the economy. There is cause in many areas that I can think of for expansion. Obviously it has to be done wisely. We are suggesting that at this stage of the game, given the vital nature of Telesat, this is not a wise policy. We are hopeful that when the bill goes to committee there will be more evidence of this nature and when it comes back to the House for further debate additional points can be made.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the hon. member's comments about the satellite dishes in the northern parts of our country.
He may be interested to know that north of my riding, which is just north of Toronto, in the rural parts of Ontario where there is no cable service, you see a great amount of this as well. It is not just in northern Canada, but it is also in areas where there is just not the cable service, where the companies have not got in.
I think the hon. member has made a very good point in expressing in a philosophical way the difference between the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. He obviously made it very clear that the New Democratic Party feels that in order to regulate and to control that it must also own, it must also have its meathooks into whatever it may be whether it be the energy industry or the banking industry.
I think it still has it on its books, although the hon. member can correct me. It is part of its policy to nationalize one of our banks. It has not said which one, but said that it felt it should nationalize one. That was
November 20,1991

one of its policies. It also wants to nationalize one or two of the oil companies. That was in its policy.
Maybe it has changed. I am not sure. He made it very clear today that the government should continue to own the satellite company in order to regulate satellite communications in a country.
The regulation is there. This company has not been regulated or dictated to as to what it should broadcast or what it should carry in the past. That has been done by regulating its customers. The broadcasting industry and the telecommunications industry have in the past and will continue to, as far as this government is concerned. He may have a different idea, but as far as this government is concerned, we intend to, through the Canadian Radio and Television Commission assure that the north, our remote areas of this country, are serviced and are serviced by satellite.
That is the only way they can be serviced in a meaningful way. Any of the telcos or the broadcasting industry will tell you that even with the new, wonderful creations they have of terrestrial transmission that in the north it is totally impossible to do it. It is just not economical. Of course, the satellite system is and that is very important to this country.
I would differ with my hon. friend in saying that we have not dictated to this particular company the type of broadcasting it should carry and so on. It carries the TSN network which gives us Canadian sports coverage and sports coverage from around the world, as a matter of fact 24 hours a day, and much of the other broadcasting that goes on in this country as well as telecommunications, especially to the north.
I disagree fundamentally with him that we do not have to own in order to assure regulation and service to these other areas. I think comparing transportation deregulation with the sale of our shares in Telesat is really comparing apples and oranges.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment back to the minister.
It is fair comment about satellite dishes in Ontario as well. I suppose there are probably satellite dishes on
Government Orders
some of the apartment buildings in downtown Toronto and downtown Ottawa. That is a fair comment there.
I guess the point I was making was about this very senior person who obviously we rely on a lot for policy and comment, not seeming to be aware of much about communication policy out and beyond the Toronto area.
The second point: I am glad the minister feels that there is a clear difference between the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party in terms of what we can do in the economy of Canada, how it relates to government participation in the economy and government ownership of parts of the economy. Canada likely would not have been built if we had followed the kind of policies this government is now pursuing. I think you just have to take a look at where the public sector has been involved. In my province, when we think of things like B.C. Ferry Corporation, B.C. Rail, very successful Crown corporations, and when we take a look at some of the very important Crown corporations in Canada now, CN, Canada Post and when we had PetroCan, as windows on the industry. I do not quite if I would go quite as far as an earlier speaker did and say that CN is a cultural institution. Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that there is a difference between the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. We see a vigorous and energetic and positive role for the government in the Canadian economy.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of speaking on this legislation.
I want to start by thanking my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River for outlining our party's position on this legislation.
Before I proceed there seem to be philosophical ideas and proposals floating around the House today and I would like to say, for the benefit of listeners and Canadians, that I think it is important for them to also know where the Liberal Party stands on these philosophical questions.
The federal government or the Conservative philosophy calls for the private sector to do all of the work on its own. The NDP philosophy calls for the government to do everything. The Liberal Party calls for a partnership between the private sector and the public sector in order

November 20,1991
Government Orders
to achieve the best answers to our socioeconomic problems.
A member on the government side mentioned that one of the reasons this corporation is going to be sold is because we desperately need the money to put toward the deficit reduction fund.
I would like to suggest that this so-called gimmick reduction fund does not kick in until possibly 1996. As a result of that, there is really no point in trying to give the public the impression that the sale of Telesat or any corporation the federal government has interest and would in fact be used to reduce the deficit. It would be going in one way or another to the general revenues where the government could use part of that money for accounts payable.
As well my party's approach to the question of dealing with the deficit is through economic renewal, through improved productivity in the work force, through the encouragement and increase in the highly skilled work force in our society and ensuring that it is highly skilled and prepared to produce.
On the question of how to reduce the deficit, my colleague could only look at the shortfall in our society as a result of illiteracy, for instance. There is approximately $4 billion on an annual basis in lost productivity. There is $10 billion lost on an annual basis to society as a whole as a result of illiteracy. That is one area the government could focus on if it is really interested in reducing the deficit and dealing with the question of productivity in our society.
When this question came about, I could not help but read one paragraph from a release by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, recently released.
The release indicates that Canada's biggest problem is that there is a growing sense of urgency about our future economic base. Dr. Arthur May, past president of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, says that we are not keeping up with our global competitors in generating new scientific understanding in putting these gains to technological advantage.
In the report which is entitled "Ten Years to the Year 2000" a strategy makes the case that more research and
development investment and more researchers are needed to keep pace with international competition and the complex environmental problems that will face the country in the next decade.
The report, which I have here in my hand, is quite an alarming one since the subject matter deals with science and technology, telecommunications and deals with the company that is an outstanding company not only here in Canada but also all over the world. The report indicates that when it comes to the Canadian deficit in terms of buying equipment or selling equipment in science and technology, the cumulative sum is $53 billion between the period of 1978 to 1987. If you look for instance at 1987 alone our deficit in the area of science and technology comes to about $7 billion.
The report goes on to talk about Canada's research environment and talks about international comparisons which show that Canada's spending on research and development is one of the lowest of major industrialized nations. In fact, according to the 1987 statistics, it shows Canada at a 1.38 per cent standing when it comes to those expenditures on research and development as a result of the Gross Domestic Product. That is far below countries such as the United States at 2.83 per cent and Japan at 2.78 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, when you look at 1986 the total expenditure in Canada was approximately $5.6 billion, which was a minimal amount when you compare it to the United States of $117.4 billion, or when you look at Japan spending $41.8 billion in the area of science research and development.
When we look at the research and development expenditures over the last 15 years, what we have been seeing in Canada is a decline in terms of expenditures.
Canada's poor research and development performance is a cause for alarm. There is no question about it. If we are really serious about increasing our society's investment in research and development, we cannot forget the fact that the federal government has a role in the field and that is leadership.
That is why I wanted to just give this very brief introduction about the state of our society when it comes to research and development and where we compare with the rest of the world to clearly state the case for not selling our shares in Telesat Canada. The reason why we
November 20, 1991

should not be selling our shares in Telesat Canada is that Telesat Canada has proven not only to the rest of the industries in Canada but to industries around the world that it is a leading force among other industries in the area of telecommunications such at Northern Telecom and many others.
Mr. Speaker, if you will recall, when Telesat Canada was established under the Telesat Canada Act in 1969, it was a joint venture between the Government of Canada of the day and the major Canadian telecommunications industry. The purpose of it at the time was to develop a domestic satellite based telecommunications systems and services. As of today, Telesat is the only Canadian company that provides commercial satellite facilities and services across Canada. It is also the only Canadian company that provides basic telecommunications facilities to northern communities and to remote regions in Canada.
Telesat owns and operates six satellites and a network of approximately 500 earth stations. It has launched two satellites this year, Anik-1 and Anik-2. The company's revenues are derived from leasing satellite capacity to major television broadcasting companies, to Telecom Canada members and to other smaller firms that provide specialized value added telecommunications services.
Telesat also earns revenues through the provision of voice, data and imaging services to businesses in direct competition with Unitel, telephone companies and enhanced telecommunications service providers. The company also offers international telecommunication consulting services.
The reason why I define all those points is to give you a profile of Telesat and the kind of services it provides to the Canadian public. But of more interest, it is important to outline that in terms of revenue. In 1989 the net earnings were approximately $23 million; in 1990 the net earnings were $30.5 million. This is not a white elephant; this is a profitable company, this is a leading company in the area of telecommunications. It is profitable.
One would suggest that rather than just selling our shares in Telesat, we should be using those shares as a leverage, as a means for our government and for our society to play a leading role as an example for the rest of the industries in the area of science and technology so
Government Orders
that they can invest more in research and development and not less.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the situation here in Canada is that individual industries, individual companies are spending less on research and development. The government knows that, the industry knows that, the experts know that, and everybody is talking about the need for more investment in research and development. Since we have this leverage, I would suggest we should be using it and not abandoning it.
I cannot help but go back to the report which was released by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. On page 10 the writers talk about political initiatives. This is a very important point, Mr. Speaker. They talk about the fact that we as a society must develop a cohesive science and technology policy and invest more in research and development. They make the statement acknowledging the fact that by the year 2000 over 60 per cent of all jobs in our society are going to require at least 16 years of education. More and more we are becoming a society that depends on an information based industry, that we are becoming a society that needs a highly skilled work force.
I do not think that by letting our shares be put on the selling block that we are setting a good example, in fact, we should be doing the opposite. We should be investing more. Someone was asking me why. Why invest more? Because in all of the leading countries around the world in the area of space research there is government involvement. I would bet you, Mr. Speaker, that if it were not for the American government intervention in the area of space technology, they would not have been able to put a man on the moon.
This is no different for other countries such as the Soviet Union. If it had not been for the intervention of the government in the Soviet Union it would not have been able to achieve what it has achieved in the area. It is the same for Japan, France and all the countries around the world on the leading edge in this area.
I wonder about the wisdom of selling our interest in one of the finest companies in the world, Telesat. On an annual basis the revenues of the industry, especially in the telecommunications area, are in excess of $21 billion on an annual basis. If there is any flag that we as

November 20, 1991
Government Orders
Canadians could cany with a lot of pride it is the flag of the telecommunications industry. At this point I am at a loss to see ourselves moving ahead with this sale.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I found myself agreeing an awful lot with what the member said regarding government involvement in research and development, space explorations, telecommunications, et cetera. That does not mean that you have to own the company.
The Canadian government was involved in the space arm. It was developed by a private company called Spar Aerospace. We helped them out with the development. The Americans used the space arm in their space program. The space program in the United States is primarily driven by the private sector. You can name any number of companies involved in it. The government does not own them.
That is where I part company with the hon. member. I cannot understand why a government has to be in business in order to participate, promote or encourage research and development and entrepreneurship. I agree with the hon. member when he said earlier: "There is a time and a place for Crown corporations". The Progressive Conservatives established many of the Crown corporations we have today. There is no question about that.
In my opening remarks I said that there is a time and a place when governments should become involved, that is if the private sector is not prepared to do what has to be done or does not have the expertise. A country matures. An industry matures. As that progression takes place governments have the mandate to change. We cannot stay the way we were. Our parents and grandparents would love us to stay exactly the way we were. However things are moving too fast for that.
I part company with my friend who said: "In order for us to participate and promote and encourage we have to own". That sounds an awful lot like NDP philosophy. He said that the Conservatives think that the private sector can do everything. Obviously it cannot or we would have privatized everything, which we have not done. We have privatized those companies that no longer serve a public policy purpose. I am surprised, because he is a clear thinking individual, that he would support the philosophy that you must own in order to promote, regulate or participate.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, to differentiate us from the NDP we are not calling on the government to do everything. In fact we are calling on the government to be in a partnership with the private sector. Mr. Speaker, if you review the "blues" you will find that was the thrust of my presentation today.
The reasons that the government got involved in the area of research and development in 1969, the motives at that time, should be the same motives followed by the government today in the area of research and development. There has not really been any tremendous improvement in private sector investment in research and development since 1975 when contrasted with what the government has been investing in the area of research and development. Even with its involvement in research and development the government has not been able to kick start private sector investment.
It is not good enough for us to say that it did not work in the past and it did not work after 1969 when we set up the act and all those Crown corporations, so we can abandon it now. We have to be even more persistent because of the failure of the private sector to invest more in the area of research and development. We must lead the way, in partnership with the private sector. By no means am I saying that we should be taking over the industry and running it. Socialist or communist movements around the world have shown us that government-run operations do not necessarily prove to be that successful all the time. There is something to say about the need for one major industry in our society that is big, capable, and produces a solid product.
Simply put, Telesat Canada is that particular corporation. It has a world-wide reputation. We can use it as as an example for the rest of the industry. We could say that this is a situation where the government owned a little under 50 per cent and the private sector owned a little over 50 per cent. It could be a model for partnership between the private sector and public sectors. We could say: "Here is our money" and ask the private sector to put its money out all across the board. The end result would be a healthier industry that could be beneficial for our society and also could help us enter the 21st century as a leading force, especially in the area of research and
November 20, 1991

development. This is an area where we have a lot of strength, where we have a lot of expertise, where we could do a lot of good and could help other industries.
I cannot help but mention to my colleagues that when comparing the number of scientists and engineers in Canada with Japan you would find that in Japan there are approximately 10 times more engineers than in Canada but in Canada there are 20 times more lawyers than in Japan. This should give us a clear indication that it is necessary to balance things out and quickly shift toward increasing our investment in research and development in science and technology.


M. McDermid:: I do not disagree with the hon. member, I do not disagree with him at all. However a government can participate without ownership. In this particular instance the company has asked for privatization so it can be freed to expand and do more things-


An hon. member:: To raise some capital.


John Horton McDermid: To raise some capital and do some things. We are having a tough time raising capital in the government. As the hon. member knows the economic situation of the federal government is tight. This is a company that wants to expand, go to the markets, compete, and do more R and D. We can still help it through various government programs without ownership.
That is where we part company on this particular institution. Sixty per cent of the employees are now participating in a shared ownership plan with the company. The management are anxious to get on with privatization. I agree with all he said about the company. It is a great company. I think it is a fabulous and very valuable company. It will do even better without the shackles of government and the resultant slow movement.
To be quite honest the government has a very tough time raising capital these days, as I am sure the hon. member understands. We are on the same wave length. Maybe the same church but a different pew.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting comment by the minister.
The bottom line is that there are revenues coming from this institution on an annual basis. In fact there is a
Government Orders
lot of money coming from it. Is the $30 million or $40 million we are going to receive from the sale of this company going to solve all of our problems? The answer is no.
I would like to suggest that the government should consider that every time it tries to sell a Crown corporation or an organization in the science and technology industry to make it a requirement that the buyer must spend at least a certain percentage of money on research and development.
What are the requirements going to be on those who are going to buy those shares or on whoever will own Telesat at a later date in terms of investment in research and development?


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this bill, at this stage in opposition to it.
This country did not naturally evolve as a result of geographic or economic forces but was a creation of public policy.
A very small group of Canadians in a small section of the eastern part of this great continent decided that over a period of time they could actually create a nation extending from coast to coast. There were two essential elements to achieving that public policy objective. One was a good transportation system and the other was, increasingly important as time went on, a good communications system.
Those two were achieved by a number of instruments of public policy. One of those was ownership of the means of communication and the means of transportation which were not economically viable in such a geographically large country with such a small and scattered population.
Those instruments became more sophisticated as time went on. Telesat certainly has been one of those instruments of public policy to bring Canada's communications system into, not only the next century, but the next millennium.
The minister said that companies mature. I suppose this is one of those companies that has reached a certain stage of maturity. However the issue really is whether it and the nation have reached the stage of maturity where

November 20,1991
Government Orders
there is no longer a public interest in majority ownership of Telesat Canada.
As companies mature, so too do countries. This country is far from maturity. We are still a very small population scattered across a small fraction of our territory. The idea of nationhood still hangs together on very slim fibres of transportation and communications connections. Essentially it is Telesat Canada which has guaranteed that modern advances in communications technology will benefit not only the populated areas of southern Canada, the large fraction of our population of Canadians that live in major urban centres, but all those who live in remote areas, those who live in our northern regions, those who belong to Canada in a real sense only by the communication and transportation connections they have with the rest of Canada.
As companies and countries mature, the issue before us is, has this country matured to the point where there is no longer a public policy purpose for a company like Telesat Canada. I do not believe so and my party does not believe so.
Satellite communication is, in many senses, still in its infancy. The potentials that were set out in the original mandate of Telesat Canada are far from being achieved. The potential of Canada as a leading nation in the field of telecommunications are in their infancy and far from being achieved.
What I see in this bill is the intent to sell off and privatize a big chunk of our future because the future of this country right now is mostly potential. What we have to accomplish is still ahead of us and eroding the foundation on which that future will be built is not in the interests of this generation or of generations to come.
The minister mentioned that management is anxious to get on with privatization. Frankly that is not an argument that carries much weight with me. Over a number of privatizations, I have seen management anxious to get on with privatization often because it is to their benefit to do so. One of the statements on the public airwaves that has made me angriest in the last couple of years was, at the time, chief executive officer, president, whatever, of Air Canada on Cross Canada Check-up saying: "Privatize Air Canada and give me the freedom and I will run this company the way it should be run".
I nearly dove through the radio because I said to myself: "If you can run the company better than you are running it now, then why are you not doing it for the people of Canada who have invested in this company." I say the same thing to management of Telesat Canada: "If you can run it better, run it better". It should not make any difference whether you are doing it for your fellow Canadians as majority owners or for private companies as majority owners.
The straight and honest reason why this argument does not carry much weight with me is because there has seldom been a privatization from which management has not benefited financially and personally. They are seldom in a situation where the privatization has not been set up in a way to make sure that happens. So that is not a veiy convincing argument from the minister from my point of view.
The government obviously feels it is important to maintain the monopoly position of Telesat Canada and yet to remove it from regulation at the same time. That is a very delicate balance to start disturbing. Why I say the government feels that the monopoly should be maintained is that the bill does not provide for, but the government has stated, its intention to maintain that monopoly position for 10 years. However, it does not deal with what happens at the end of 10 years. What is the mechanism for maintaining the monopoly? If there is a benefit to the government continuing to intervene even after it has privatized the company, what is the balance between its continued intervention on behalf of the company in the marketplace and the benefits of continued public ownership.
It seems to me that this bill comes forward, as the numbers seem to do, in the area of privatization and in the area of telecommunications and in the area of transportation, without a very solid policy foundation, without a serious understanding of where we are heading in the future in a number of these domains.
Let me just give you a couple of examples of what I mean by that. Telecommunications and Telesat as part of that industry in Canada has a significant role to play not only in communications within Canada but in Canada's position in the international communications market.
November 20, 1991

Yet we have a vacuum of policy on communications. Where are we heading on communications? What is the intention of this government? I simply do not think it is good enough to bring forward piecemeal legislation without it being in the context of a policy direction that is demonstrably to the benefit of Canada and Canadians.
Second, we have a vacuum of policy in the area of global trade. We have no clear direction of what kind of market niches this country intends to carve out for itself in the future. We have, it seems to me, no policy that is based on at least an understanding and interpretation of where we think the world is heading, where we think the opportunities are and how we are going to mesh our expertise in various fields, how we are going to start developing new possibilities, new technology, how we are going to frame our education and our training programs in this country to allow Canadians to fit into that world of the future.
I hear a lot of words like global trade and competitiveness but I see no policy foundation on which we are making unique and discrete decisions that will help us as a nation be part of the world of tomorrow.
I see a vacuum of policy on research and development. We are seeing again the further erosion of basic research at the National Research Council. I have spoken on that in this House more than once, but again, no policy on research and development in Canada. There is no sense of future direction that is related to the global marketplace and what Canada will need to be strong in the future in that global marketplace.
Instead, we have traded off long-term prospects for short-term prospects. As we continue to clip the flowers off the research and development tree, which is the direction I see this government heading, we are forgetting to water the roots.
The minister mentioned that government does not have to be owner of a company or owner in an industry to participate in research and development in that industry and that is perfectly true. On the other hand, I see no policy direction with respect to this bill that says: What is the role of government in research and development in the telecommunications field?
We know as well that the use of satellite telecommunications is now and will be increasingly important in the
Government Orders
whole area of solving environmental problems, understanding them and applying the technology to deal with some of those environmental problems.
A public policy role for telecommunications in dealing with our environmental degradation world-wide is extremely important. Yet there is no sense, no policy for Canada to be following on how we should be investing in research and development in the environmental area. There is no discussion even of how abandoning the public role in the provision of satellite services in Canada will affect the potential that Canada might have to be an active world leader in some of those environmental applications of satellite and other telecommunications technology.
The minister says that there will be a 10-year monopoly but we do not really know that. In 10 years, what has happened? Is it quite all right with us that satellite accessibility to Canada, to Canadian carriers is only available through companies outside Canada, through satellites that are unconnected to Canada as a nation?
The government has an obligation to answer all these questions and to deal with these issues before it starts selling off piece by piece, part of the infrastructure that allows us to explore as a nation our full economic potential in the world, our full potential to contribute and to benefit internationally from telecommunications, our policy on research and development in many of the areas that the involving world is going to need and our role in environmental research and applications which are at least in one sector strongly linked to communications ability.
I want to mention the situation of one individual because I think it is relevant to this. A scientist who used to work in Canada and then with the sell-off of a major airline company was forced to move to the United States to find work. After two years he was back here this summer putting a serious effort into finding work in Canada. This is a man who has had international training, who is highly specialized in fields that are of significance to Canada in our future scientific research and technology endeavours. There is no place for him in Canada. There is no place for him in government, in the private sector and meanwhile Canadian companies and government departments are importing similar talents from other parts of the world.

November 20, 1991
Government Orders
If we do not settle where we are going in research and development, it will soon be too late to encourage young Canadians to go into the specialized fields that this country needs. It will be too late to keep them here. It will be too late to have companies with a culture of developing, promoting and using Canadian talent.
This is just one of many stories. This country has lost one brilliant scientist who should be, who wants to be, working here in Canada for the future of Canada.
This whole communications area is one in which Canada has been very much on the leading edge. We have been on the leading edge because of public involvement in the telecommunications industry.
In bringing forward the bill, as it has done today, in a vacuum of policy in a number of areas, the government is saying: "We are getting out of that", and it is giving us no assurances whatsoever that it even considers it important for Canada to stay at that leading edge. I consider that somewhat of an abandonment of responsibility to the future.
I want to take the one or two minutes left to me to speak about the hocus-pocus of deficit reduction. It is a great game that is being played these days of dividing the money up in four different pockets, three different pockets, ten different pockets and saying: "We are using this pocket to pay for this and this pocket to pay for that and somehow we will create a separate little pocket for deficit reduction and it will mean we are spending more on deficit reduction". Nonsense. The money comes in in one lump sum and it does not matter how many pockets you divide it into, it is how you are spending it that determines what your deficit is or is not going to be.
It is also true that one way to reduce the deficit is to get rid of the debt we are carrying. If the government is serious about using revenues to reduce the burden on taxpayers then the way to do that is to lower the debt we are carrying. That is not happening. What is happening is that debt is constantly increasing, but every householder out there knows that until you pay off your mortgage you are continually paying for your mortgage. We cannot have every major error in public policy justified by somehow it is going to reduce the deficit. Spending patterns are what creates or will reduce the deficit.
Nothing else. The government knows that and Canadians are not buying the line.
There are a number of policy areas that seriously need to be addressed by this government if the future for Canada is going to hold the same promise and potential that the past has held. I do not think that taking a step like this in a vacuum of policy direction is a wise thing to do.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment.
One of the comments the hon. member made I chuckled at because she said that the government does not have any policy-I think I quoted her right-to where the world is heading. If anybody had told us 14 months ago what was going to happen in the world in the last 14 months as far as politics in this world we live in is concerned, I would have been very, very surprised that anybody could have formulated a policy to understand what has happened so rapidly in the last 14 months in this country.
One of the things that really bothered me about her speech today was obviously she has not yet taken the time to read the paper that was just released by the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, which answers about 90 per cent of her speech. This paper lays out very, very clearly for the people of Canada the challenge that we have at all levels. This is not a federal government initiative per se. This is an initiative that involves the provinces, labour, management, most definitely educators, and the federal and municipal governments.
The interesting thing is that the meetings have already started. They are well attended. Abroad cross-section of the public is there, including labour and management, educators and so on, to put a final touch on exactly what the hon. member was talking about.
She stood up and said that the government was doing nothing about it. That is totally wrong. I would encourage her, as I would all Canadians, to take the time and it is going take a little time, to read this very good paper. There is no heavy, heavy terminology in it, so both she and I can understand it. It is good, common language. I would suggest that she take the time to read that, then I
November 20, 1991

think she would revamp her little speech she just gave in the House of Commons and congratulate the government on taking this initiative in co-operation with all the other groups in our society that have to play a most important part in what she was talking about. That is, of course, the prosperity, the competitiveness, the research and development, training, education assistance and so, to keep Canada in that place where it so rightly belongs.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment about the minister's comment. I find it fascinating that I said virtually nothing my colleague before did not say and the policy perspectives which the minister chose to compliment him on. Frankly, I find it a little bit condescending for the minister to refer to my "little speech" and the fact that I probably have not read a report, neither of which is true.
I think it is fascinating that the minister chose to make two totally different sets of comments on two speeches with virtually the same content.
I want to respond particularly to his points because the minister has precisely made my point. In fact, the paper he referred to, as I understand it, is a discussion paper. It is out there for discussion and makes precisely the point that those policy directions are not in place. The minister said: "Well, yes, there has been a lot of change in the world". Precisely when there is a lot of change happening one needs to have a clear sense of what are the strengths of this country, what is our future direction and where do we want to fit so we can adapt to those changes. That is not in fact what I see from the government and it is certainly not what I see in terms of our communications policy on an international level or environmental policy on an international level or our research and development policy.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the Speaker, who is a good friend of mine, would take the trouble to memorize the name of my riding.
As you know, I am very proud to represent the riding of Carleton-Gloucester. As for today's debate on Bill C-38 which provides for the sale of Telesat Canada by the government, I am also proud to say that the company is located in the municipality where I have been a resident for quite some time, and I am referring to the municipality or city of Gloucester.
Government Orders
Some years ago I had the privilege of being a member of Gloucester City Council which was actively involved in bringing Telesat Canada to Gloucester. We were very lucky, because despite some very stiff competition from a number of municipalities in the region which all wanted to have Telesat Canada within their borders, the company fortunately located in the city of Gloucester.
Telesat has 877 employees, 672 of whom are based in Gloucester, at the head office.

Telesat Canada is a profitable satellite communications company which is based, as I said, in Gloucester, my home town. Telesat is jointly owned by the federal government at 53 per cent or over 51 per cent and Canada's largest telephone companies. It is the only commercial communications satellite operator in Canada and derives most of its revenues from leasing satellite channels to broadcasters and telephone companies.
Telesat is regulated by the CRTC. The Telesat Canada Act was passed in 1969. The objects of the Telesat Act are set out in Telesat as follows: (a) establish satellite telecommunication systems providing, on a commercial basis, telecommunication services between locations in Canada and subject to the appropriate intergovernmental arrangements; (b) supply on a commercial basis satellite telecommunication systems and elements thereof in Canada or elsewhere; and (c) provide on a commercial basis services associated with the development, implementation and operation of satellite telecommunication systems and elements thereof in Canada or elsewhere.
The old legislation also contained safeguards which, not incorporated in Bill C-38, provided for the use of Canadian research design and industrial personnel, technology and facilities in research and development connected with satellite telecommunication systems and the design and the construction of the systems. It was truly a Canadian company dedicated to pursuing technological advances in the satellite telecommunication industry.
The government is promising that Telesat will maintain its monopoly on the provision of satellite telecommunication services for the next 10 years. However, it is not including that provision in the legislation. What happens after 10 years? What happens after this lease on public policy expires?

November 20, 1991
Government Orders
With regard to the global competition, while the government may have achieved part of the public purpose objective domestically, it has not fully achieved any extra-domestic or global objective which was permitted in the original legislation creating Telesat. The global competition challenge continues today more than ever and that should not be removed from Telesat's mandate, as is being done by and with the new legislation. The words authorizing non-domestic commercial initiatives in Telesat's objects are removed in this new bill.
The government may be taking Canada out of a high tech communications sector with a future in the global economy rather than making Telesat and Canada a leader and innovator in the field. Telesat has had the leading edge on the provisions of satellite telecommunications services. Rather than expanding and building on that edge, the government is saying that we have fulfilled the public policy purpose and is getting out.
The Americans would not have put the first man on the moon without the involvement of the American government. The private sector did not do it in the U.S. or in the U.S.S.R. when it put the first man in space. The government is so convinced by the ideology of its friends in the private sector it is now going to turn over this whole enterprise to it.
The government claims that it is disposing of the shares of its holdings in Telesat in its continuing efforts to reduce the deficit, and yet only the net proceeds of the sale of government shares will go to the deficit reduction fund. Why not the gross amount? The government appears to want to keep the $30 million book value for its own purpose. What is that purpose?
In research and development, Bill C-38 makes no provision for the continued use of Canadian research, design and industrial personnel, technology and facilities in research and development connected with satellite telecommunication systems, and the design and construction of the systems. The government is promising that a condition of sale will be a requirement that Telesat continue to give Canadian suppliers of satellites and major earth station equipment first consideration in their purchase decisions. However, there are no guarantees that such practices will be observed once the
government's shares of Telesat are sold. How will the government require that first consideration is given to Canadian suppliers? Does this breach GATT national treatment requirements? Is that why it is not in the bill?
I feel this is a back door deregulation. Section 14 of Bill C-38 provides a glimpse at the possibility of back door deregulation in Canadian telecommunications when it states that the CRTC may refrain from regulating Telesat activities under certain conditions. In legal jargon, the term used is "forbearance". Should it be the CRTC or Parliament which decides whether deregulation should occur?
Current Telesat shareholder Bell Canada is saying that it may dump its 25 per cent stake in Telesat if the government's 51-plus per cent shareholdings fall into unfriendly hands, such as a rival company like Canadian Pacific, for example. Bell is said to have been a potential suitor of the soon-to-be private Telesat. Will privatization destabilize and undermine both the market and the future role of Telesat if it is proceeded with through the open bidding process?
Telesat owns and operates six satellites, a network of approximately 500 earth stations, and has launched two satellites this year, the Anik-E2 and Anik-El.
The company's revenues are derived from leasing satellite capacity to major television broadcasting companies, Telecom Canada members, and numerous smaller firms that provide specialized value-added telecommunications services.
Telesat also earns revenues through the provision of voice, data and imaging services to businesses in direct competition with Unitel, the telephone companies and enhanced telecommunications service providers.
Finally the company offers international telecommunications consulting services. As I was saying, the Government of Canada owns 49.3 per cent of the shares of Telesat Canada and this coupled with what the CN owns amounts to over 51 per cent.
The financial position of Telesat Canada is as follows. In 1990 the operations revenues were $177.8 million. The net earnings were $30.4 million. The total shareholder equity is $282.4 million. The return on investment in 1987 was 10.8 per cent, and in 1990 is now 12 per cent. The book value is $34.54 per share. Telesat Canada has
November 20, 1991

doubled revenues in the past 10 years and government has a $30 million loan to Telesat Canada.
Why are we dumping Telesat Canada if it is such a good deal? The disposition issue is in my mind. The government will put toward the national debt plus the servicing the net value of the loan after sale. Then how much money is expected to go toward the debt after the sale, if we subtract the $30 million loan and the costs involved in transferring this loan.
My great concern here is the access to information after sale. We are going to have a possible sale of well over $150 million of Canadian shares. Will we have accountability of the disposition? The government has a poor track record in access to information. Take for example the case of de Havilland. Details have been kept secret because it was done, we were told, by Order in Council and therefore kept secret from the Canadian public.
I would like to know from the government minister once the sale is made-and I point out that I disagree with the sale-whether there will be full accountability of the disposition so that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, for example, can have a thorough look at money for value here. Are we doing the right thing?
In conclusion, in the Canadian way of life, government, community and business often get together as they have in the past to create des entreprises that are very successful. Why does the present government want to bash this way of life and sell off the Canadian ownership in these industries to whom I presume can only be their friends?


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to some of the comments that my hon. friend from Carleton-Gloucester just made.


Mr. Dionne:: I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that we are not properly represented in this House since there is no minister in the House.


Peter L. McCreath: I expect that with the presence of ministers in the House, my remarks will be even more carefully listened to.
Listening to my hon. friend, I could not help but think to myself that there really is a fundamental philosophic
Government Orders
difference between the people on this side of the House and my hon. friends opposite. My hon. friends opposite think that the purpose of the government is to employ as many people as possible, to put people on the payroll and create jobs. There is only one problem with that. In order to pay all those people they have to engender taxes and people do not like taxes. My hon. friends opposite have a different way of dealing with this. They would just build up big deficits. Now the country is burdened with those deficits and we have to deal with them.


Ross Belsher: There are only two Liberals-


Peter L. McCreath: It is our view that government should only intervene in the economy where there is a public policy need. Indeed that was the case in 1969 when the Government of Canada became involved in Telesat.
The objectives which my hon. friend read, for which that arrangement was made in 1969, have now been met and are no longer required. In our view there is no logical reason for the Government of Canada to remain in Telesat in an ownership position. The purposes for which the arrangements were made have been met. By privatizing Telesat we can accrue significant financial benefit and deal with the debt that among other things is the legacy of the previous government to the people and taxpayers of Canada. I do not think it is appropriate for the government to own things just for the sake of owning them.
My hon. friend has consulted, I believe he said, 672 people employed by Telesat who are constituents of his. It is my understanding that the people who work for Telesat are quite excited at the prospect of privatization. To a certain extent it unshackles the company and allows it an opportunity to grow and continue to develop and pursue market possibilities.
My understanding is that in fact the people of Telesat are quite enthusiastic about this and they support this, even if their member of Parliament does not.
My hon. friend raised a number of questions, and I will try to deal with some of them. He talked about accountability of the funding. I can assure him, as the minister said in presenting this bill, that once Telesat's $30 million debt and other costs of privatization to the Government of Canada have been removed, every single dollar will go to the debt servicing and reduction fund. I think this concept is very much supported. I know it is supported on this side of the House and by the public at large. I

November 20, 1991
Government Orders
trust and hope it will be supported by my hon. friend opposite.
My friend raised the issue of back door deregulation with respect to Telesat. The CRTC regulates Telesat under the Railway Act, which requires it to regulate all of Telesat's telecommunication services. This regulation will continue after Telesat is fully privatized. The forbearance provision in the bill is not intended to circumvent the power of the CRTC to regulate Telesat, particularly Telesat's monopoly activities. The CRTC will not abdicate its regulatory responsibilities, however the CRTC believes that some of Telesat's services are offered in competitive markets and do not need regulation. This government does not believe in regulating where it is not required. Accordingly, this legislation will give the CRTC power to refrain from regulating certain of Telesat's activities that it believes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. We are in the question and comment period. I hope that the hon. member will conclude or raise his question.


Eugène Bellemare: Today.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to conclude my questions and comments. I guess I was more commenting on the questions raised by my hon. friend opposite.
He mentioned the 10-year monopoly. Telesat is currently Canada's only domestic satellite carrier. At traffic levels forecast over the next 10 years, it is unlikely that the market could support an additional satellite operator. If that is still the case 10 years from now then that monopoly can in fact be extended.
In any event these are just a few quick observations and I am sure my hon. friend may wish to comment on them.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful for the way you pronounced the name of my riding so correctly and with such enthusiasm. At least four ministers have decided to come and listen to the end of my speech, and I appreciate that.

I am a strong supporter of the CPR techniques on the Hill, and I will soon make another S. O. 31 statement on CPR. You will recall that some time ago I had a demonstration for the members of Parliament on the Hill here.
I am very glad that you interrupted the member for South Shore because I thought I was going to be using my knowledge on CPR there for a while. He was certainly getting very excited, so much so that I was beginning to worry about his health. I noticed the hon. member got so carried away that at times he had trouble saying what he wanted to say. He accused me of being fond of deficits. I am against deficits, whether incurred by individuals, associations, municipalities, provinces or the federal government. However, I do not think we can talk about a deficit in this particular case, where we have a company that is making an attractive profit, a company that is in good shape, and when we have a mixed enterprise in which the government and business make an excellent team, in a field that is important today and will be in the future. I think the hon. member for South Shore made some serious mistakes, and I am sorry I gave my speech in the hon. member's language instead of my own, in which case he might have paid attention to the translation. He should have listened to what I said instead of getting carried away and saying all kinds of nonsense!
Finally, the hon. member talked about the sale of Telesat. I may remind him that when the government sold de Havilland, we never managed to find out the details of the sale because they hide behind the confidentiality of an order in council in other words, it was a Cabinet decision. I would like to have the assurance that when the sale takes place, we as parliamentarians will get all the answers about this sale, such as who was the seller, who made profits, who earned commissions, and especially this last. We also ought to know how much money was made or lost, and where all the money went. Can the government guarantee we will get an answer to those questions? I doubt it.
I see there are some ministers here, ministers I admire very much, and I would like to hear from them a guarantee that everything will be disclosed.
November 20, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Just one comment. I do not know whether the word "cochonnerie" is parliamentary, but perhaps the term was a bit stronger than the hon. member intended. I just wanted to mention this.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
Mr. Charest:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the sake of clarity, I just want to make it very clear that we have just carried on division the motion that you have just announced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: You are right. That bill is carried on division and referred to Legislative Committee E.


Mr. Fee:: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there have been some discussions among members from all parties in the House and there is general agreement that we suspend the sitting of the House until seven o'clock when we reconvene for private members' hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to suspend the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The sitting of the House will be suspended until 7 p.m.
At 5.51 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.
Private Members' Business SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 7 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please, it being seven o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 36, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
On a point of order, the hon. Minister of State for Finance and Privatization.


WAYS AND MEANS
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you and to the House for interrupting the proceedings, if I might just for a moment.
Pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion respecting the Income Thx Act and other legislation, and I ask that an Order of the Day be designated to debate the motion.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tbesday, October 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blaikie that Bill C-204, an act to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act (ending development and exportation of prescribed items and substances), be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee D.
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is the largest exporter of uranium in the world. Indeed, my province of Saskatchewan has over 20 per cent of world uranium production. Cameco Corporation headquartered in Saskatoon is one of the world's largest producers of uranium. It supplies uranium fuel to electrical utilities throughout the world.
Cameco alone employs 1,200 people in Canada and more than two-thirds of those in Saskatchewan. Indeed, in northern Saskatchewan Cameco is the largest single private sector employer. The Canadian uranium industry

November 20, 1991
Private Members' Business
in total accounted for more than $850 million in export sales in 1990.
Canada has developed a world class nuclear technology which satisfies the stringent standards and procedures that are required by the Atomic Energy Control Board. Candu units in Canada supply close to half of Ontario's electricity, about 30 per cent of that of New Brunswick and altogether more than 15 per cent of Canada's total electricity. In 1990 about 17 per cent of the world's electricity was generated by over 400 nuclear power plants operating in 24 countries. So nuclear power is indeed a factor in today's world and we must continue to ensure that it is managed well by qualified and experienced people to serve the needs of the public in a safe and reliable manner.
In the health field, hundreds of thousands of people are undergoing treatment involving radioisotopes, the production of which require a nuclear reactor.
Cobalt 60 is a manufactured isotope used for a variety of medical uses. The Canadian company Nordion International is the world's major supplier of Cobalt 60, which is produced under a contract in Candu nuclear power reactors. Nordion also provides most other reactor produced radioisotopes used around the world, primarily in medical diagnosis. The Canadian industry's pioneering work in nuclear medicine has been instrumental in improving the health of individuals all over the world. Indeed over 500,000 patients in more than 80 countries are treated annually using Canadian nuclear technology.
The use of radioisotopes goes beyond the medical field into other areas of health. Nuclear research has resulted in the development of new plant strains, with higher yields and greater disease resistance. Other applications in agriculture determine the soil moisture in different land areas and their abilities to meet the water needs of specific crops and to track the way crops take up nutrients as a step toward improving fertilizers.
Still another application is to trace the ground water movement of contaminated streams in order to ensure that drinking water intakes are not at risk.
As well, food irradiation promises to improve our ability to preserve food while at the same time reducing the incidence of food-borne diseases. The process for the preservation of food is an area of extraordinary potential significance to Canada and the Third World.
An enormously important additional health benefit to nuclear energy stems from the fact that no pollution from combustion products results from the process of nuclear reaction. Nuclear power emits no greenhouse gases, no sulphur dioxide, no carbon dioxide.
The use of nuclear generated electricity for energy applications that currently use fossil fuels will reduce emissions of both greenhouse gases and acid gases which cause acid rain.
It is obvious that renewable means of providing electricity such as wind, solar and tidal power will not come near to meeting Canada's growing needs. We must face the challenge of producing greater quantities of electricity in a clean fashion, thereby protecting the environment and ultimately the health of Canadians.
Passage of Bill C-204 would compromise Canada's successful nuclear power program and the continued supply of radioisotopes for medical treatment and diagnostic purposes. Bill C-204 puts in jeopardy Canada's highly regarded reputation as a reliable and stable international trading partner. No doubt Canada's competitors would take full advantage of this opportunity. The Canadian uranium industry and its mining, processing, exploration and development, which attracts additional major international investment into Canada would be put at risk.
Canada just sold one of its world class reactors to Korea. This sale will inject over $400 million into the Canadian economy. Further orders would strengthen the high-tech part of Canadian industry. There are over
100,000	Canadian jobs dependent on the nuclear history. The viability of the Candu must not be jeopardized by the threat of the moratorium proposed in Bill C-204.
The benefits of nuclear energy that I have addressed today are primarily associated with medical and health services provided by the use of radioisotopes generated in nuclear reactors. These benefits to Canadians, along with many others discussed by previous participants in this debate, clearly indicate the need to preserve and protect Canada's nuclear industry. I urge hon. members to oppose Bill C-204.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being after 7 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 93 the time provided for debate has expired.
November 20, 1991

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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

Before the taking of the vote:


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, since this is a Private Member's Bill, I think you would find there is unanimous consent for taking the vote row by row instead of by party, as is customary. This means each member will be able to vote individually.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is the House in agreement that the division be taken by rows?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Perhaps I may remind hon. members of the procedure for taking the vote row by row. Members in favour of the motion will vote first. Members on my right will be asked to rise one row at a time, and members on my left will be asked to do the same. The procedure will be repeated for members opposed to the motion.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
It being 7.35 p.m, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). The House adjourned at 7.35 p.m.



Thursday, November 21,1991