Ms. Hunter:

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite spoke in laudatory terms about the Government's support for high technology industries. I wish it were so.

In my riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands there are many high-tech industries. They are small firms that are being jeopardized by the Government as a result of its budget cuts to the Unsolicited Proposals Program.

As the Hon. Member pointed out, there is an imagination factor in science and technology support work. The work done by one small firm will contribute to the work of another small firm, as is happening with the small firms in the Saanich Peninsula. The development of science and technology is improved as those companies help each other.

That type of work is seriously jeopardized as a result of the Government's cancellation of the Unsolicited Proposals Program. Many of the things those firms are doing on the Saanich Peninsula have application for the Canada space program. While they are particularly interested in the work associated with the Institute of Ocean Sciences, the Hon. Member will no doubt realize that deep ocean research has applications to space research.

I ask the Hon. Member if he would do as I did, and plead with the Minister responsible that the Unsolicited Proposals Programs be reinstated? It is crucial for research and development work in Canada.

Space Agency

Mr. Edwards:

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Hon. Member's question. I think it is an important and significant question which deserves a proper response. I will try to give it.

The Hon. Member asks about the Unsolicited Proposals Program. I suggest to her that she offer to those aspiring firms and research incubators, if you like, in the Saanich Peninsula to do what is being done in my Province of Alberta, which is networking. The Hon. Member may be familiar with that in another context, but I think it would be entirely appropriate that she take a leadership role with those organizations and suggest they form the kind of collaboration that exists in Alberta with the Alberta Aerospace Council. It recognizes the reality of the funding difficulty as a result of the Unsolicited Proposals Program not being with us at this time.

She could seek to determine whether there is common cause not only among the firms in the Saanich Peninsula but also those firms in other areas of the country. This is an area in which all Members of Parliament in their own way can play a leadership role. I am sure her constituents would welcome her doing so.

Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this topic today.

The history of Canada is one of forging links, beginning with the voyageurs braving the rivers, then the spanning the nation by railroad, by radio communication, by air, by television and a host of other technologies that have drawn Canadians closer together over the years.

By developing the technologies that have allowed us to build a country in spite of geographic and natural forces, we have contributed vastly to the development of human knowledge and the development of technologies that are important not only to Canada but to the world.

Canada's contribution to space technology began many years before the launching of Alouette I at Vandenberg Air Force Base in 1962, and before Canadian scientists studied the ionosphere during World War II. Canadian space science began in the 1930s with the study of the upper atmosphere using ground-based instruments.

This history has established a strong foundation for Canada's contribution to exploring the stars with other

Space Agency

space pioneers from around the world. We have established such an enviable international reputation that Canada is the only non-European nation involved in the European Space Agency.

But that history has also shown us the direction in which we should go. The frontiers are no longer geographical, rivers or mountains or prairies to be crossed, they are now the frontiers of the human mind and spirit. Canada is in a position as no other country in the world to make a unique contribution to the ability of the human race to survive and thrive on this planet.

I want to refer to the report of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology on Canada's space program. It is called "A Voyage to the Future".

Very little has been said today about the future of that program. We have heard much about bureaucracies, budgets and administration, but nothing about vision. I want to talk about how our past can show us where we should go.

The committee stated in its report that the space program could provide challenging opportunities for our space scientists and at the same time be consistent with Canada's concept of its position in the world community.

That comment is made in the context of an initiative for Canada to participate in developing space-based remote sensing for verification of multilateral arms control. I have heard nothing this afternoon of our ability to make a difference to peace in this world and to divert our resources from arms production and destruction to productive uses.

I refer to the next page of the same report and the option for Canada to participate in the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme: A Study of Global Change. We have heard a great many words about environment but we have heard nothing about this unique opportunity and what it means to the commitment and the concern of all our citizens to the environment. The report states that the objective of this program is:

lb describe and understand the interactive physical, chemical and

biological processes that regulate the total Earth system, the unique

environment that it provides for life, the changes that are occurring in

the system, and the manner in which they are influenced by human actions.

Among the technologies needed for this complex understanding is the ability to examine the Earth as a planet from space.

It is in this context that the RADARSAT program was cited as a valuable technology for providing some of the: data that will be needed -

What we are talking about is some of the data that will be needed to save the world.

This should be a proud day for Canada. It should be a day of commitment and vision for the future, not only of our country and of our scientists but of the world and of the universe. I have heard very little with regard to that. I have heard more talk about commercial ventures, something which disturbs me greatly. If that is the motive, the driving force behind what will be done over the next few years to establish this agency, I fear for its future.

What is fundamental to the program is that labs do not function on their own, ideas do not come to fruition in a vacuum and technological miracles are not achieved without the lifeblood of a program, which is the dedication and commitment of talented individuals.

In its own personnel management manual Treasury Board states that in the development of policies and programs, human resources are no less important than financial and material resources. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in this program they are more important.

In 1986, the space agency was introduced as a means to enhance space science in Canada by co-ordinating and managing the space program and the space industry. Yet, since then, we have seen three years of numerous delays. It was two and a half years ago that the media releases were already prepared to announce the space agency.

In those two and a half years not only the scientists involved in this program and the programs themselves, but the very industry has been in limbo. Long-term investments by industry were put off. Initiatives were shelved.

In November, 1987, a physics professor and interim director of the Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science at York University called the delay a disaster from a scientific and technological point of view.

June 1, 1989

Canada's competitive position in the world of sophisticated space science depends on careful, timely and long-range planning, financing and implementation. Delays threaten competitiveness because they focus constant attention on today and stifle a focus on future goals.

The Canadian Space Agency was to be a co-ordinating body of 50 people. Now it will encompass laboratories and offices which will house as many as 300 workers. The Government has not clarified the reasoning behind such a dramatic change in plan from what was originally announced to the people of Canada.

In December, 1988, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) told the House that the programs would not be moved. He said that there was no question of moving any facilities, and that it was never on the Government's list, never even studied. It is not much wonder that the people who have made up Canada's space program for the last 30 years are wondering where they really stand with this Government.

We asked about costs today. I think the answer confirmed the worst fears of the scientists who are wondering now whether they have a future with Canada's space program. What the Hon. Member said was that there is a global budget, that it has not been enlarged and that money dedicated to space science, space research and space technology will now have to be stretched to the building of a new space agency, and to all the other costs associated with establishing a new agency.

A former Member of the House alluded to the depletion that is taking place in the commitment to space science in this country. I want to point out that from the same report that commitment to space science as a proportion of the space budget has dropped from 14 per cent to 9 per cent. That is not a commitment to the type of science or the commitment to the scientists who have made this program and made Canada internationally famous.

It is disturbing that the very Minister responsible for the program refuses to tell Canadians what the program is costing them. The Minister refuses to make clear what the long-term commitment of the Government is and refuses to justify the basis for decisions leading to the

Space Agency

Bill today and leading to what will happen in the next few years.

I want to talk now about people because I have heard virtually nothing about people today in the House from Members opposite. The space program is not technology. It is not hardware. It is not even laboratories. Nor is it satellites. It is the brilliance, the talent, the dedication and commitment of scientists and the people who work with them.

We have now passed exactly three months to the day since the announcement of the space agency was made on March 1 of this year. Those people are still waiting to understand what their future careers and their personal futures will be. The answers they need to make those decisions are not available to them yet.

I suppose all Hon. Members of the House have read the newspaper speculation about who will go with the agency and who will not go with it. Those decisions are being made not only for personal reasons but for program reasons. As they are being made, program decisions are being made.

I am sure there are some Members who sit opposite who believe that the scientists in this program are an expendable commodity and that their families are an expendable commodity. I am sure there are Members opposite who think that the technicians and technologists and the support people who work with them are an expendable commodity. I will let one of those people speak for themselves about the agony that the lack of information, the lack of clarity, the lack of commitment by the Government over the last three months and over the last three years has caused them.

"We were told the space agency was formed to make us more efficient. Does moving half our program people and leaving the other half here make us more efficient? Does losing half the people in the Space Mechanics Branch, some with 28 years experience, make us more efficient? Does losing all four members of the program we work with closely make us more efficient? Does losing Roy VanKoughnett, Director of Space Research Operations, a man who is probably the best manager in the Public Service, make us more efficient? People love their work. We are an efficient, effective organization where people come early, stay late, and don't charge for overtime. All that is gone now". It is not much wonder, when a letter from the Minister responsible for the program states that those groups going with the agency represent administrative and project management personnel. I wonder if the Minister himself knows who these people are and how valuable they are. Perhaps he thinks they are expendable.

June 1, 1989

Space Agency

Let me give you a few figures which tell you that they are not. When NRC tried to staff its Space Station Program, it took it over a year, from beginning to end, to fill 15 positions. The very people that we are undervaluing are in demand around the world. NASA is seeking to hire 1,500 people. These are jobs and career opportunities that these people can have when they simply say they want them. At the same time, we had our own Government in the Environment Department cutting atmospheric research that is related to the research program by 18 people in the last year.

I want to go back to the committee's report because it was such an excellent and thorough report. Here is what it had to say about the people:

-the picture I am painting is one of an aging, over-committed group of researchers who have, in the past, served Canada and their science well. They are, however, being asked to do all the tasks they have done in the past plus many others and are lacking the infrastructure of support so necessary to the successful discharge of their responsibilities. The lack of career positions in the space sciences-has led to a significant drop in the number of young people prepared to pursue a research career-

The report was equally damning of our ability to train and attract new people. Canada is facing a critical shortage of space scientists and engineers in the years ahead. We cannot ignore the warning signs. Without our scientists, we do not have a space program. Without our scientists, we do not have their technicians and their support staff.

Yet we want to take them now through this Bill and through the establishment of this agency, remove the professional status that many of them have at the Canadian Research Council, and their freedom to progress in their careers according to their ability, and put them in a classification system under the Public Service that is neither suitable nor adaptable to the kinds of training, qualifications and experience.

For three months, they have been unable to get answers as to how those situations will be handled. The Bill tells us that it will not be handled. Astronaut scientists will be given that special status but the space program scientists will not.

One of them said to me when I talked to him: "I don't want to spend the next two years of my life being a mover. I am a scientist." They want to know why they have to move into temporary quarters, disrupt their work for two years and then move again. For three months these people have been getting unclear answers and half answers which do not allow them to make decisions. All of this is undermining their commitment to the careers on which they have spent a lifetime.

Whatever happens with this Bill, the Government has to wake up and deal with these people with the respect and with the appreciation that they deserve. It has got to do it quickly or we will not have a space program. There is a serious crisis of confidence among these people. They are only a handful of people but they are all this country has on which to build its space program. Without them, there is no technology, bureaucracy or industry. There is no Canada in the 21st century out there protecting the environment of the earth. We have the best ability in the world to do that.

This is more than a career for them. This is their life work. For many of them, it is the life work of themselves and their families. This is a completely unacceptable way to deal with the employees that this Government hopes will become the employees of the Canadian Space Agency. It is urgent that these problems be dealt with or we will miss the opportunity to make the contribution to the development of human knowledge which Canada has been preparing itself to make for over five decades.

Personal decisions are being made, and as personal decisions are being made, programs will either continue or not continue. The integrity of the program must be maintained. The respect and the confidence of our scientists and the people who work with them in this Government's commitment to our future and to the future of Canada in space must be maintained. It must be done quickly or it will be too late.

June 1, 1989

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Questions and comments. Debate. Question, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to debate on the Bill, however, at this time, considering the few minutes left, perhaps it is more appropriate to ask a question.

The Prime Minister some time in October, 1986 stated that he intended to establish a Canadian Space Agency, which he would have working in co-operation with industry, universities and provinces. This new agency would help ensure that the benefit of Canada's role in space would be shared by all Canadians. My concern is that he said, "by all Canadians". In the Bill there is a change in terms of how the employees will be governed in terms of employment by the Public Service Employment Act, which is different from the usual way that landed immigrants may not benefit from employment opportunities. Does she see in this Bill an indication from the Prime Minister that in fact he will consult with the universities?

Mrs. Catterall:

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I regret to have to interrupt the Hon. Member.

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

Atomic Energy Control Board

That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should instruct the Atomic Energy Control Board to conduct a public review into the safety of nuclear power plant employees working twelve-hour shifts.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is self-evident and is prompted by the fact that in nuclear power plants in our country and, more precisely, in Ontario and New Brunswick, we have a practice of working shifts that span a 12-hour period. The shifts include workers, engineers and operators. The support for the present regime of 12 hours has been forthcoming from the unions because of the social advantages that this shift offers to workers, namely, that it allows a better arrangement of free time and time with families. Support for this is undeniable and understandable.

Up to this date, as we all know, no serious problem can be attributed to the length of the work day or to the 12-hour shift. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency, in its 1984 guide book on nuclear power, says on the subject of plant personnel that most nuclear power plants in the world use eight-hour shifts.

It is interesting to note that at the seventh symposium on training of nuclear-facility personnel held in April, 1987, a paper prepared by Dolores S. Morriseau, Paul M. Lewis and J. J. Perensky, entitled "Improved Human Performance Through Appropriate Work Scheduling" notes, and I quote:

Numerous reports on non-nuclear industries indicate that fatigue increases after eight hours and increases rapidly after 12 hours.

The authors go on to say that the reading speed slows after four hours and after eight hours a pilot's performance in flight simulators declines. In actual on-the-job situations, after eight hours aircraft accidents and occupational injuries increase and drivers take a greater risk.

June 1, 1989

Atomic Energy Control Board

The authors also cite one nuclear plant in the U.S. without identifying it by name which abandoned a 12-hour work day because the operators became too fatigued. As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, nuclear power plants are very complex installations. The incidents at Three-Mile Island in March, 1979 and Chernobyl in April, 1986 have altered the attitude of the public considerably and, in particular, to the potential dangers of nuclear accidents. Both accidents are still clear in the minds of the public and they raise questions, including matters related to operating safety. This is the purpose of this motion today.

It is a matter that directs the Government, through the AECB, to conduct a public review and to look into the safety of nuclear power plant employees' working shifts when extended, as it is now, to a period of 12 hours.

The public concern is one which not only prompts this motion but prompts the question as to what is our energy future. It is appropriate in the debate on this motion to raise the question as to what Canada's energy future is, because we really do not know what it is. We seem to be operating in a policy vacuum in this respect. No longterm plan has been proposed and no consultation preceding it by way of a parliamentary initiative, if you like, with the public and interested sectors as to the future.

We know, though, that in recent times because of the greenhouse effect and the pollution from carbon dioxide, the Canadian Nuclear Association has been promoting the notion that we should find the answers to the greenhouse effect through the construction of additional nuclear plants.

This is why it is extremely crucial at this stage that we approach the question of energy in its totality. I am using this motion in a way to piggy-back into the House the larger idea, namely, to call on the Government because we do need urgently some clearly defined plan which will lead us to the articulation and definition as to what will be the energy future for our country. We should pay attention to it because energy is an extremely important issue. It has environmental as well as very important economic ramifications.

I believe it is also dangerous to leave a vacuum at the present time and to allow the notion that nuclear power is going to be the answer. That is not the solution and there are many reasons for that.

First, there is the question of cost. A nuclear power plant is extremely expensive. The Darlington power plant, which will reach completion by the fall of this year, will start operations with one nuclear reactor and gradually, over time increase to four, is estimated to cost some $11.6 billion. This for one plant, Mr. Speaker. The cost, therefore, of a nuclear future for Canada is staggering.

Second, we know from experts who have studied this matter that if we want to tackle the question of carbon dioxide pollution in order to slow global warming, we are told that for each dollar that we invest in energy efficiency, namely, in ways of using the energy we already have and producing it in a more efficient manner that we can displace seven times as much carbon dioxide than with each dollar invested in nuclear power. The authors of the paper on the subject, Bill Keepin and Gregory Kats, estimate that even if 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants could be built every one to three days over the next 37 years, carbon dioxide emission would continue to grow.

I referred to cost and effectiveness. Let me now tackle the question of waste. A parliamentary committee worked on the question of nuclear waste in the last Parliament. It proposed a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear plants. Why did we do that? Because we felt that it would be better to have a moratorium until the matter of safe disposal of the used nuclear rods is established. At the present time when the nuclear-spent rods have to be disposed of, they are placed in water as a temporary measure. It is not their final destination. Of course once final disposal of the spent rods is established, a considerable expenditure will be required. As we know, studies are on their way in the Canadian shield to establish at what depth and to what degree of safety these spent rods can be disposed of. That final disposition has not been finalized. It is yet to be determined. It is a cost that is not yet known. It is an indication as to how this particular source of energy relies on a cycle that is yet to be completed. We therefore do not know the final cost of the final phase of disposing of the waste.

That brings me to the matter of decommissioning. When a nuclear plant goes out of business, so to speak, it has to be decommissioned. We do not know what exactly the process of decommissioning implies and what the

June 1, 1989

cost of decommissioning is. All we know is that it is another very high cost. If one combines the question of waste and the question of decommissioning, one realizes how uncertain and how costly the nuclear future is if the entire cycle is taken into account of the utilization of nuclear power.

Needless to say, there is the whole question of risk related to potential accidents. There is an increasing amount of studies and reports that are reported mostly by newspapers and the printed media where we leam that children living near nuclear power plants suffer from a higher incidence of leukemia than children living a distance away and with whom comparisons have been carried out.

Combining the question of health risk, particularly in relation to children with the cost of decommissioning and of final waste disposal, we see a future shaping up for nuclear power that we would not like to pursue. We therefore want to look at alternatives in the interest of public health, the environment and the economy.

If the future is not to be nuclear, then what are the energy options for Canada? Obviously, efficiency and conservation are the most immediate and least expensive opportunities that are being offered. The International Energy Agency, in a study on how Canada uses its own energy, has concluded that we are inefficient in the use of our own energy to the degree of 30 per cent. That means that we could be using the same amount of energy that we dispose of at the present time by 30 per cent more with a utilization that is 30 per cent higher than at the present time if we only were to adopt certain measures that relate not only to conservation, but also to more efficient equipment, machinery, appliances, motors, and the like. That is a big percentage. It is a considerable figure that has been identified for us by the International Energy Agency.

Then there is the question that is increasingly knocking at the door as an opportunity and that is the necessity of finding ways of using renewable sources of energy which we have virtually abandoned as a result of budgetary cuts, the most recent one last April when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced the closure of 12 renewable energy offices under the auspices of the Department of Energy Mines and Resources.

Atomic Energy Control Board

Of course the picture is much broader than the opening or closing of offices. The potential of renewable sources of energy which range from solar, to wind, to biomass, to small hydro initiatives is enormous. If we were to put our subsidies and incentives behind renewable resources to the same extent that we have so far put behind the non-renewable sources of energy, we would be crossing the threshold of tapping this renewable opportunity very soon. Unfortunately, we are not as close as we could and should like to be.

In order for us to make decisions about the energy future of Canada which implies also making decisions about the environmental future of Canada, this whole matter of planning and of devising an energy policy is becoming more and more urgent by the day. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is by means of this motion and through you that I urge the Government to put its resources and available skills to work in order to give Canadians an idea as to what our energy future ought to be.

As I said, the process ought to start with a countrywide consultation which would then provide the main elements for an energy plan. It then could be the subject of debate in this House, finalized by way of perhaps a vote or deliberation that would give the final stamp of approval to initiatives of this kind. I know that my time is up. I will conclude by saying that it would be in our collective interest, in the interest of our economy and the environment to launch this process of designing an energy future for Canada at the earliest possible time. It is for this and for future generations that we must do it and I urge Members to support this concept.

Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to reply to the motion of the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), that motion being:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should instruct

the Atomic Energy Control Board to conduct a public review into the

safety of nuclear power plant employees working twelve hour shifts.

May I say before I get into the meat of the matter that it is always a pleasure to listen to the Hon. Member for Davenport in this House and elsewhere. He was an environmentalist long before it was fashionable to be one. Now every politician in Canada is an environmentalist. Even the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Vander Zalm and this Government are born-again environmentalists, except when some action is required. They like to talk about it but not act on it, but that is not true of the

June 1, 1989

Atomic Energy Control Board

Member for Davenport. He is always worth listening to, especially on the environment. He does everything well. I will point out that I once beat him at a bocci game, an Italian bowling game, in the Commercial Drive section of Vancouver. I know he would never want me to tell that to anyone. So I will keep it to myself after this.

This is an important motion because it focuses on human error, not that we do not have wonderful employees in our nuclear power plants. We have some excellent and decided employees. But thank God we have not had any real big accidents. We have had some excellent dedicated employees. David Suzuki is the environmentalist who appears frequently on television and in the media. He also is from my home province. I remember David Suzuki telling me that the problem with this wonderful new technology in the world that is supposed to be safer and safer, is that most of it is run by human beings, by us, and we make mistakes. All it takes is a problem with your spouse or with the kids or perhaps there was drinking the night before or you are tired or your mind is on something else. Then there is a Chernobyl or Bhopal or Valdez.

We have seen accidents in the past and unfortunately we are going to see more of them in the future. We should be trying to do everything we can to cut down on human error. It is not going to be totally possible but there are some instances where we can improve. That is why health and safety for Canadian workers is so important. That is why health and safety measures to make sure those workers do not make mistakes are so important for the rest of us.

What the motion does, as I see it, is to have the AECB, the control board-in Canada there is the AECB, the board, and AECL which is the company that operates the Government's atomic energy research and atomic energy industry in Canada-to have the board in this instance do a public review into safety. I would like to see a bigger public review. The Conservative Party, when they were in opposition and when they put forward their Party platform for the 1984 election, said that there should be a royal commission into the future of the nuclear industry in Canada.

The nuclear industry has been troubled for some time. It has been a vast spender of public money. We have not been selling nuclear reactors abroad. So it has been virtually bankrupt for a number of years. The Conservatives in opposition proposed an inquiry into the future of that industry.

The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and myself a couple of years ago went across the country to hear delegations and to visit nuclear power sites. I visited Point La Preau in New Brunswick. We went right down into the Canadian shield. It was the most amazing trip. In White Shell, Manitoba, we went down an elevator into this mine that the AECL was experimenting with to look at water that was going through the Canadian shield. We asked one of the engineers down in the bowels of the Canadian shield, how can you tell the different water and he said, well the water that has been here thousands of years will not be radioactive but any water that is radioactive came in the earth after 1945. Therefore, all the water in the surface of the earth has a certain amount of radiation in it that is detectable. It is only the old water that is still pure.

The whole point of that site at White Shell, Manitoba was to research what the Hon. Member for Davenport talked about, the problem of the storage of spent nuclear fuel. I have seen at reactors in Ontario and New Brunswick swimming pools with this eerie blue colour where the rods are being stored. They are stored in this country and in other parts of the world. We have to do something with them. What are we going to do with them? Perhaps they have to be stored in the Canadian shield. It raises an interesting point. I am sure the Hon. Member for Davenport, if he had more time, could have talked about this and that is the whole ethical concept of the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry is now advertising that it is actually a pretty safe industry and it might be the way of the future. When you bum coal, you get acid rain. You are going to run out of oil and gas and there is lots of coal. They say that in the long ran, it might be cheaper to use nuclear energy, but they forget that they still have not worked out the full costs or the methods of dismantling reactors or finding ways to store and deal with the spent fuel which is a world-wide problem.

The world is moving into a new system of dealing with the environment. I call Mrs. Brundtland the NDP or the

Socialist Prime Minister of Norway. She did a report for the United Nations which talked about sustainable development. That is, future development should only take place in terms of whether we can deal with the environmental results of that development and apply it to the nuclear industry. If we apply her ideas to the nuclear industry, perhaps when it says expand the nuclear industry because we have not found the way with dealing with the wastes it does not make as much sense.. In my view, you should not start an industry or a development if you cannot deal with the waste. That is what sustainable development is about.

The Hon. Member also mentioned Canada's energy future, that we are in fact the biggest per capita consumers of energy in the world. I agree with him. That future involves conservation and efficiency. I visited Denmark and I saw how they use efficient heating, how they have motors and transport that are much more efficient than what we have. We are of course not Denmark. We are a bigger country and it is more difficult but we could be a lot more energy efficient. This Government has cut back on energy efficiency programs, conservation programs. We could use wood wastes in British Columbia. We could use solar and wind and of course the energy source of the 21st century will be hydrogen.

I could go on and on and talk about this, but I support this motion because the Hon. Member has put his finger on what David Suzuki talked about, and that is, you can have human error. We do not want human error in a nuclear power plant near the suburbs of Toronto, for example. That is why it is a good idea to review the situation of the shifts and the health and safety standards of the employees and of the plants.

Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this debate on the motion brought by the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). The motion is:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should instruct the Atomic Energy Control Board to conduct a public review into the safety of nuclear power plant employees working twelve hour shifts.

Certainly that is a very commendable motion in its own right. However, as I listened to the debate presented by the Hon. Member for Davenport and subsequently the spokesman from the NDP, it seems they want to go into the whole concept of power and energy and get away from the motion itself. First, I would like to deal with the

Atomic Energy Control Board

motion, and perhaps respond to some of the comments raised by the hon. gentleman.

An international agency report of 1984 was referred to. It deals with numerous types of agencies outside of nuclear power plants in the world where 12-hour shifts have been implemented. It refers to one particular nuclear power plant in the United States that abandoned the 12-hour schedule. I wish to deal with the 12-hour schedule.

Problems with rotational shift systems that have people working either the morning, the afternoon, or the night shift, each lasting eight hours, have caused organizations to search for an alternative shift design that would create fewer problems for shift workers while maintaining the desired productivity and, in particular, safety of the plant. As a consequence, modified schedules built on the 12-hour work day have come into use as part of management's efforts to decrease the undesirable aspects of shift work. Those schedules allow coverage of the continuous operation and, at the same time, provide the shift worker not only with more leisure time, but leisure time which coincides with the free time of family and friends.

There is no doubt that the effects of shift work on family life is not enjoyed by those many people who do in fact work shifts. There are perceived impacts on family life by absences, for example, when families participate in community events, school events, or simply quiet time in the backyard.

I have never worked shifts, but in my constituency there are numerous facilities that employ shift workers, including automotive plants, steel plants, furniture plants and others, as well as a plant included in the motion presently being debated that was presented by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). That plant is the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. It is one of the largest in the world, and rates very highly world-wide for its efficiency. It generates some 4,220,000 kilowatts of power. It employs 1,500 workers, many of whom are unionized. Of those 1,500 workers, 1,000 of them work a 12-hour shift. That plant has been on a 12-hour shift since 1985, although its first unit went into operation as far back as 1971.

Atomic Energy Control Board

The Bruce Nuclear Generating Station on the shores of Lake Huron employs some 3,600 workers, of which 2,800 are on 12-hour shifts. It is also one of the largest and most efficient in the world. For your interest, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you of the magnitude of the nuclear-generation industry in Ontario.

The Bruce and Pickering plants combined produce more than 50 per cent of Ontario's hydro electricity. Pickering alone produces 20 per cent of the requirements for electricity in Ontario. Pickering's Unit No. 7 ran 100 per cent a year and is the world's leading lifetime capacity performance leader. Pickering's Unit No. 6 was the world's individual performance leader for the calendar year 1988. That is certainly not an industry that seems to be having efficiency problems of any consequence at all.

The Bruce heavy water plant, which is a part of the Bruce nuclear plant, is integral to the Ontario-based nuclear generating industry, and is a neighbour to the nuclear generating station itself. It has been on a 12-hour shift schedule since 1979. The Bruce heavy water plant has been free of a lost-time accident since July, 1983. In July of this year it will achieve six million man-hours of work since the last lost-time accident. It has one of the best safety records in Canada.

The employees of the Bruce Generating Station observed the benefits experienced by the employees of the heavy water plant of the 12-hour shifts. In their negotiations with management they requested the same schedule. In 1985, a year after the international report referenced previously, 12-hour shifts were implemented on a trial basis. A review took place and after one year, based on the trial period that was implemented, 17 parameters were monitored during the trial to provide data pertaining to public safety, employee health, safety, productivity, and costs. I would like to refer to a letter to the Director General, Reactor Regulation of the Atomic Energy Control Board in Ottawa from E. P. Horton, Director, Nuclear Generation Division. It is dated May 12 and I wish to quote one paragraph which states:

Overall, the results of the 12-hour shift trial monitoring program indicate that human performance has not deteriorated following the change from 8 to 12-hour shift working. As a result, it is concluded that the risk to the public from the operation of Ontario Hydro's Nuclear Generating Stations has not increased due to the change in

shift duration. Based on the results of the monitoring program, I request AECB approval for Ontario Hydro to change from temporary to permanent 12-hour shift working subject to continued support from the workers involved.

In discussions I have had as late as two hours ago with Ontario Hydro, the feeling is clear and the employees have not requested a change to the shift schedule, and it is only with their support that this shift schedule would in fact work. A passing comment was made to me that, if Ontario Hydro attempted to change it, it would perhaps have a wildcat strike on its hands.

One of the reasons the Hon. Member for Davenport feels that we should review the nuclear generating capacity in Canada and our program relates to health concerns. I, as well as every Member in the House, would certainly be concerned about the health of Canadians, particularly if it were impacted by nuclear powered generation. The Hon. Member for Davenport mentioned many newspaper articles that dealt with a report on leukemia incidents in and around nuclear plants.

I have a nuclear plant in my riding, and I made a point of reading that report. The report deals with the occurrences of leukemia in children aged zero to four years covering the period from 1971 to 1986. The report included a survey of a 775,000 population base. Not every person was contacted, but the base of population for the study included Scarborough, Markham, Ajax, Pickering, Whitby, Oshawa, and parts of Uxbridge. It was a substantial population base. The report concluded that there was no evidence to show that there were more cases of leukemia in my jurisdiction than would be found anywhere else in Canada with a similar population base. On a health basis, there is nothing to date available to indicate any concern with regard to health.

There is no doubt that all Members in the House would like to see less carbon dioxide in the air. That is why the Member for Davenport should be including nuclear energy in his comments as being a positive aspect. A nuclear power plant does not generate one pound of carbon dioxide. That point should be considered. It has also not been proven that a nuclear powered generation plant has any impact on the environment, water, or air quality in and around the plant, and therefore throughout the rest of the market-place.

June 1, 1989

We also must talk about the cost of Darlington in the process. I agree that $11 billion is a lot of money. However, a $ 11-billion will generate 10 per cent of the capacity that Ontario requires in electricity. That is twice as much as we get from Niagara Falls at this point. Based on the economics of nuclear power it certainly is an item that should be high on the agenda.

Part of Ontario's benefit has been its ability to attract industry, partially because of its low cost and partially because of its reliability of supply. Nuclear power generates 50 per cent of the supply, and it is substantially lower in cost than some of the alternatives, including coal and oil.

Although I like the gist of the motion which deals with safety in plants. There have been substantial reports conducted to indicate that there is no support whatsoever for the concept that employees working 12-hour shifts work less safely than those who work eight-hour shifts. Therefore, I see no reason to support the motion presented today.

Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):

Mr. Speaker, the question of safety in nuclear power plants is very important. Whether or not working 12-hour shifts would have an detrimental effect, however, is not at all clear.

First, no increase in accidents were reported for 12-hour shifts in various industries. There is no indication that absenteeism has increased with 12-hour shifts. Third, it has been found that resignations have been effectively constant and internal turnovers have in fact reduced.

Before I expand on some of the evidence in that regard, I want to respond to some of the comments made by the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell) and my hon. colleague, particularly with regard to nuclear energy within the concept of energy use in Canada.

I am concerned that people talk very loosely about such things as the greenhouse effect and other environmental questions which I believe are supported at this time by very soft scientific evidence. The proponents of nuclear energy say that their energy does not create carbon dioxide, which is an issue which the oil and gas industry is saddled. However, let us consider that this

Atomic Energy Control Board

planet has produced a substantial amount of carbon dioxide over millions of years and life has continued to exist and evolve. We must be careful not to make assumptions without taking into consideration such things as the effect of the oceans in absorbing carbon dioxide, and extrapolate to conclusions which may or may not be correct.

I support the arguments made by the Hon. Member for Davenport and the Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam about the need for more study. The Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, and various other groups in this country must make more detailed and effective study on the interrelationship of energy use. We should not single out nuclear energy, or oil and gas as particularly bad without first establishing a much more sound scientific hypothesis into the effects and consequences of the use of those types of energy.

I would ask Members to bear that in mind when we are dealing with a very complex scientific subject about which no one can make categorical statements. It definitely requires more study and I hope the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources will look further into the energy options study that began in the Thirty-Third Parliament. It needs a good deal more review so that we may focus on what we should be doing with energy in Canada in the long term.

Now that 12-hour shifts have been employed by most industries and companies in Canada and in many other countries for several years, we can review the experience that has been gained. This covers the reaction of shift workers at work and at home in relation to domestic and social requirements, and of the employers who are concerned with not only the health and well-being of their employees and the public, but also productivity and profit. The positions that have been taken by organized labour are also of interest when one considers this new way of working.

A primary concern about the introduction of 12-hour shift work is that tired workers may make mistakes and compromise safety, either for themselves, for their co-workers, or for the public. Surveys of petroleum and chemical plants that have been using this shift schedule provides us with some indication of the possible effects.

Because of fears about possible deterioration of safety performance, management tends to place increased emphasis on precautionary measures with the implemen-

Atomic Energy Control Board

tation of a 12-hour schedule. Employees, too, recognize that they might be more likely to make mistakes because of fatigue. Management usually feels that these initial fears lead to a greater conscientiousness and, thus, to safety performance that was at least as good as it has been on the eight-hour shift. Some plants have reported that they had operated for more than two million person-hours without a lost time injury, and one had operated for 10 million person-hours with the same results.

Absenteeism is another important indicator of how people feel about the work they are doing. Evidence shows that absenteeism is in fact reduced when plants are on the 12-hour shift. The primary reason is that employees who work three and four-day weeks do not want to lose the long holidays. For example, someone working a three-day week would lose one-third of their pay if they lost one day of work. There is a great incentive to be present, active and participating in the workforce during those three days in order to have four days of holiday. Many companies have reported that employees are much more effective and focused on their job with these 12-hour shifts.

Staff turnover has been looked at as a possible indicator of problems that have been created by the 12-hour shift. The available evidence seems to indicate that resignations have held constant, and internal turnover, in the form of transfers from shift work to day work, showed improvements in many cases. A number of plants have noted this internal turnover problem as one of the major motivating factors in evaluating employees' requests for the 12-hour shifts.

I submit that there is no particularly convincing evidence that working 12-hour shifts is detrimental to worker health or safety. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that workers not only prefer 12-hour shifts and a compressed three or four day work week, but they also perform as well or better with this organization of their work schedule.

In any event, I am sure that the Atomic Energy Control Board is well aware of the need to carefully supervise and monitor the implementation of any changes in working conditions and that as a responsible organization it has no need for directives or public

hearings in order to deal with this fundamental aspect of their business.

In conclusion, I reiterate my statement about the need to diffuse the discussions on energy options. We need to study the question in order to develop a base of information that will allow the Government and this Parliament to make decisions that will benefit Canada in the future.

Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise today to speak on this motion. I must say I am somewhat disappointed at the two opposition Members for using the motion as a vehicle to talk about the energy industry in general rather than the specific motion before us. I would be pleased at another point in time to talk about the energy industry.

In talking about 12-hour shifts as applied to the nuclear industry, I can speak from personal experience. In university I worked eight-hour shifts one summer and 12-hour shifts another. I feel I have experienced both rotations and know a little bit about them.

My memory about the one summer I worked eight-hour shifts is a very dark memory indeed. I can hardly remember any social activities or being able to do anything. All I remember is nights at work and days sleeping. The other summer, the summer when I worked 12-hour shifts, was a much more pleasant summer. I had to work fewer days although they were longer and I enjoyed myself much more.

In fact I would say that long rotations of eight-hour shifts are in fact more dangerous to worker safety than 12-hour shifts. I remember working seven evening shifts in a row and coming off a shift at 8 a.m. in the morning being very fatigued and spending quite a few days to turn myself around. However, I was able to adapt much more quickly working 12-hour shifts.

I would like to spend a little bit of time looking at some of the industry experience in implementing 12-hour shifts especially in the process industries. Shift work in one form or another is a fact of life in 25 per cent of the North American working population. Alternating day, night and afternoon shifts is no longer something that only industrial workers, miners, hospital and railway personnel have to accept. It is becoming more common in certain process industries where the technical processes cannot be interrupted without affecting the

product, or where expensive equipment is used more profitably in constant operation.

Continuous process operations such as those found in oil refineries, chemical plants, seed and aluminum mills, glass plants, and paper mills require around the clock manning and present special problems in scheduling work so as to minimize worker dissatisfaction. The shift worker employed in such operations, usually on a rotating eight-hour basis, faces many problems.

Interest in shift work is skyrocketing as many experts are looking at rotating shifts as a factor in human error involved in nuclear power plant incidents, air crashes and other accidents. Many newspaper, magazine and television specials describe rotating shifts as involving problems for the shift worker, such as working at unusual times and having few weekends away from the job, and the adverse effects psychologically and physically because shift work is contrary to normal bodily processes. Family and social life are adversely affected because the shift worker, although working 40 hours weekly, finds leisure time occurring during hours when friends are at work, when children are at school and most people are sleeping. This is indeed difficult.

Humans seem to thrive on regularity while any irregularity appears to create psychological and physical problems. These in turn affect the occupational health and safety of the worker. On the other hand, some workers prefer shift work. It seems more relaxed. Weekends seem longer. There are opportunities to take courses. There are more daytime hours for personal activities.

The term "rotating shift work" covers a wide variety of work schedules. These shifts can either be continuous, running three shifts per day, seven days per week, or semi-continuous, running two or three shifts per day with or without weekends. Rotational shift work implies that shifts rotate or change according to a set schedule. Workers take turns working on all shifts that are a part of a particular system. Fixed shifts, such as working night shifts all the time, are not included in the definition of rotational shift work.

However, it should be remembered that workers on fixed night shifts and rotational shift workers have much in common due to the constantly changing schedules, night work and disruption to family and social lives. The

Atomic Energy Control Board

shift workers must function on an abnormal schedule. The night shift worker sleeps when most people are awake and works when friends and family do not.

The typical North American pattern of a five-day work week followed by two days of rest is replaced by constant changes in schedules from one day or week to the next. Changing schedules like this can cause problems. Scientific studies throughout the world have demonstrated that shift work by its very nature is a major factor in the health and safety of workers.

What has brought many of the problems of shift workers to new light is the increased knowledge of biological cycles in the body. Many human physical functions follow 24-hour cycles. These cycles are called circadian rhythms. The word "circadian" comes from the Latin circa dies and means about a day. Many different bodily processes follow a daily rhythm. For example, they regulate sleeping, waking, digestion, secretion of adrenalin, body temperature, pulse and many other important aspects of body functions and human behaviours. These rhythmical processes allow for high activity during the day and low activity at night. Normally, the body uses cues from other body processes and from the environment such as clock time, social activities, the light-dark cycle and mealtimes to keep the various rhythms on track.

The health problems from rotational shift work arise partly because the body rhythms are disrupted by changing eating, sleeping and working schedules. The body temperature is a good example of a typical body rhythm. The body temperature is highest during the afternoon and early evening, roughly around 6 p.m., and lowest in the morning, 4 a.m., the typical times of activity and rest. However, if the activity pattern is changed, for example, if the person is working at night, the body temperature does not vary over 24 hours as much as normal, and it also does not totally adjust to the new schedule. The temperature rhythm as well as other body rhythms are out of phase both with each other and with a person's activity pattern. This can lead to feelings of fatigue and disorientation.

Jet lag is a term often used to describe these feelings. Most of us, especially those of us from the West, experience this on a Monday morning after a long flight when we lose two or three hours and have our schedules

June 1, 1989

Adjournment Debate

disrupted. I am sure many Members of the House can identify with that.

There is some question of which aspects of circadian rhythms can adapt when one is living on an abnormal routine. Some do not seem to adapt much at all. People have been asked to sleep according to an artificial day duration such as 21 or 27 hours rather than the usual 24 hours and measures have been taken of how their psyiological functions adapt. It may be that continuous exposure to changing abnormal conditions over a period of years would increase ability to alternate the pattern of bodily rhythms, but not enough is known at the present to speculate.

In closing, I would like to say that most people if offered the choice would take the 12-hour shift. They would opt for the rotating 12-hour shift because it presents them with opportunities for social time and being with their families. I would say that a happy worker is a safe worker. What is necessary is not to change the shift but to co-operate between labour and management to create a safe working environment and to put safety as a goal in itself.

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):

Mr. Speaker, on May 24,1 asked questions of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) in connection with the Budget leak in general. Of course, there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then, particularly the astounding statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) today about being prepared to leave the issue of press freedom totally to the courts. I want to come back in a moment to the other point.

The charge against a member of the media, or what the charge says, the simple possession of so-called stolen

property, which is the way in which the Criminal Code might describe the simple fact of publishing a leaked document, is a great disappointment. It is one on which I think a comment has to be made since it is connected, at least by subject matter, to the issue that I have given notice of to speak on during the late show.

What the Prime Minister has suggested, in effect, is that we will leave it to the courts of the land to decide whether the publication of leaked information, as Doug Small is alleged to have done, is a crime or not. I do not accept that. I have to indicate my great disappointment in this increasing trend or tendency in one way or another for the Government to leave matters to the court, rather than taking a responsibility as a parliamentarian, which all of us are, for the state of the law of the land.

I am asking: Does this mean that the Prime Minister is prepared to say that if the court determines that journalists can no longer make use of leaked information, then so be it, and we are going to accept that? That to me is not an acceptable position, given the Canadian tradition, and given the well understood practice over decades, to which some Members of the Government admitted that they were themselves a party to having obtained leaked material to make it public. As far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister should not have said that this is something which is going to be left for the courts. He should have said that this is a well established feature of freedom of the press about which we are going to tell the courts of the land what we feel.

I have argued that I do not think that the charge against Doug Small should have been laid. I do not think it should have been proceeded with. I do not think that the Prime Minister should say, in a cavalier way, that this well established feature of the freedom of the press as we know it in our country is something that is going to travel through the courts of the land and perhaps be determined, if the Government decides to appeal it high enough, by the Supreme Court of Canada.

To turn to the specific point that I wanted to make and the question that I asked in the House of Commons on May 24, the first mistake that this Government made was the decision by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to proceed with a Budget that he knew had been leaked. It is true that the Budget in Brief was in the hands of Doug Small. The Government states that it did not know about the Mutual Life leak until the next day. I am not

challenging the Ministers' statements about that fact. However, look at what they did know about Doug Small. They knew that Doug Small had said that he got it from someone in a car. We learned that same day that another journalist had been offered that Budget in Brief for money. We know someone out there was travelling around with a copy of the Budget in Brief. How long did he have it? Who else did he give it to or sell it to? How long had it been in their hands? These were all things that the Minister of Finance was prepared to risk when he decided to go the press building that night and read his Budget to the media.

My question to the Solicitor General, which I directed to the Minister of Finance at greater length is this: Knowing what the Government knew that day about the state of the leak, conceding as it has said in this House that it did not know about the Mutual Life leak until the next day, but that the Government did know the facts as I have stated them, how could the Minister bring that Budget forward and ask the Canadian people to accept it?

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that the bulk of the Hon. Member's comments has no connection with the question he put on May 24, 1989. He knows perfectly well that this evening, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Member's insistence is of some concern, we cannot comment on a case that is already before the courts. I shall therefore direct my response exclusively to the question that was put on May 24 by the Hon. Member to the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I must repeat once again that the Government, that the Ministers who answered the questions about the leak cannot change the story, because the story is true. The matter has been discussed at length during Question Period. I will therefore repeat what was said.

A Budget leak was confirmed early in the evening of April 26. The Government tried to obtain the consent of the Opposition parties to reconvene the House. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that this consent was denied.

Adjournment Debate

The Government therefore judged that in the circumstances, it would be better to release the Budget right away and to go before the public. The Minister sent copies of the Budget Papers to the clerks of the House and to the leaders of the Opposition parties. When the Minister announced his budgetary measures to Canadians, the Budget Papers were simultaneously distributed to the information media and officials of the Department of Finance were made available to the media to answer their questions.

Mr. Speaker, the media gave the budgetary measures complete coverage, both that evening and the next morning, so that when the Minister rose in the House on April 27 to formally bring down his Budget, the measures were already known to the Canadian public. In fact, certain measures had become effective as of 10 p.m. the night before.

The information contained in the Budget had been in the public domain for nearly 20 hours before the Minister of Finance was able to rise in the House, to bring down his Budget, at 5.40 p.m. on April 27.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister explained at page 2092 of Hansard, it would have been quite inappropriate and disruptive to the financial markets if at that stage the Budget had been withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, when the Government, when the Minister of Finance released the Budget Wednesday night, we reacted responsibly and as well as we could in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 38 to pursue a matter I raised in this House on May 15. The issue is child care.

On that day I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) to explain his intentions regarding introduction of a child care Bill that more truly reflects the needs of Canadian families and their children. I want to underline that question, Mr. Speaker, "that more truly reflects the need of Canadian families and their children".

The Minister responded by saying the Members opposite opposed the Bill from the outset, and he was referring to the Bill that died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament. Now we find when the Government has decided that it cannot proceed it cries crocodile tears and

Adjournment Debate

pretend it was in favour of it. My tears are not over the demise of a very bad Bill. My tears are because the Government does not yet seem to understand that it was a very bad Bill, much less why it was a bad Bill. My tears are because this Minister refuses information for parents and caregivers about the reality of what is needed by children in Canada. My tears are because the Government chooses to pit working parents against non-working parents in the most blatant divide and conquer technique and then says Canadians cannot agree on what is needed. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, my tears are for the children who need child care today now while they are children, not after more studies.

The shelves of the Library of Parliament groan under the weight of mountains of child care studies while the children of Canada cry for child care spaces.

There is a daycare centre here in Ottawa that has 250 children on the waiting list for six spaces. The only movement those names see is from the infant list to the toddler list and from the toddler list to the pre-school list. If the family is lucky, they will get a call when the child is ready to enter kindergarten.

Many of the provinces and territories made comprehensive plans for expanded child care programs based on commitments of this Government. Since the introduction of the Budget, these plans have disintegrated. They have disintegrated like a sand castle at high tide, washed away by this Government's Budget.

Indeed the Minister of Social Services in Ontario, because of the Budget of the federal government, is reported to have suggested that if daycare centres in Toronto are having a tough time financially, they should be sold to the private or profit sector. Hardly a solution.

The availability of culturally appropriate child care is absent from Indian reserves in this country. Health and Welfare officials have said they made a conscious decision not to fund child care on reserves, yet 40 per cent of the native population is under the age of 15. Of 663 reserves in Canada, less than 70 have child care facilities.

Before I close, I would ask the Minister who will respond to this statement not to give me a litany of how an increase in maternity leave will help children, as children need child care after maternity leave ends; or of how some women are willing to sacrifice and stay home. I ask the Minister to remember that often the sacrifice is to go to work. I would ask that the Minister not say that we voted against the Government's bad Bill, because with that Bill we would still be facing a crisis; or to have school boards apply for funding. In B.C., school boards do not provide child care. I would also ask that he not ask me if I am willing to pay more taxes for child care. I am willing to pay fair taxes along with every other sector of this country.

I appeal to the Minister to tell this House and Canadian families what is planned during the mandate of this Government to ensure that children will be in safe, affordable, accessible child care. I pray the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not going to travel this country and look into the question himself after rejecting all of the information before him and come back to us with the promise just before the next election of a grand plan. I pray that what we will hear is that there will be action now to fill the desperate need for child care.

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that as women and as Members on the Government side, we share the dismay of the Hon. Member about the fact that the Government was obliged to cancel temporarily an admittedly important part of the national child care project.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member doesn't think that the Government made this decision with a light heart. I hope the Hon. Member doesn't think that we made this decision coldly, without any emotion, because as Members we know what the situation is in our ridings and we know there is an urgent need for child care, now that women have fortunately decided to become an integral part of society and enter the labour market.

I can tell you that as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, I am most interested in this issue and I think that the Minister has shown that he too is very concerned about it.

We said, Mr. Speaker, that we were convinced-and I hope that the budget measures that we brought forward and coming budgets will show we are right-that we can attain our objectives before the end of our present mandate.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said in her statement that the for-profit private sector was not the solution. I would like to say to her that perhaps she should change her position. I met with businessmen, particularly from my riding, Mr. Speaker, and I was extremely glad to see that they are now concerned about this issue. I brought together seven or eight very important businessmen and I asked them if it would not be possible for them to finance a day care centre in a specific area to help their employees who have problems, because there are people who come from Montreal to work in Mirabel, for example, or Saint-Janvier, and have trouble with traffic, etc. It would be much easier if there were a day care centre in the workplace, in Mirabel. So a group using the special projects fund will do a feasibility study on what would be required for such a day care centre, Mr. Speaker. I think that is one approach that must be considered. It is not only the Government or the provinces, because we must not forget that the provinces have a lot to do with it- Until (more) financial resources are available, the Government will continue to fund part of the day care costs for eligible children in the provinces from the Canada Assistance Plan.

In terms of the tax system, Mr. Speaker, we also have an important change to the child care deduction and the supplement to the child tax credit.

In closing, I know that my time is limited, I would like to reassure all Hon. Members that the Government is very concerned about child care and together, we will try to work to find new approaches. That is the purpose of the special initiative project, Mr. Speaker: so Canadians can think about new ways to provide child care. Thank you, and I obviously share the Hon. Member's regrets because I am sorry about it too.

Adjournment Debate

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

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):

Mr. Speaker, on May 15, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) responded to my questions on the impact of the announced cut-backs by National Sea Products in Nova Scotia and the consequences of the new landing regulations for fish in British Columbia. She stated, "I do not accept the suggestion that this Government has destroyed those jobs". According to a document prepared by the Department of Fisheries as a backgrounder to the new landing regulations in British Columbia: "The relocation of the export restrictions could result in the export of large quantities of unprocessed fish. This will affect the raw material supply for processors. It is not possible to determine the time lapse for the employment and income impacts to be realized."

This Government has embarked on this policy and the long-term negative impacts have not been assessed. The Department of Fisheries study states that large quantities of Canada's unprocessed fish will be exported. That means fish processing jobs will also be exported. In Atlantic Canada, the recent quota reductions have placed in jeopardy some 6,500 processing jobs in Newfoundland and 2,500 in the Province of Nova Scotia.

An announcement has already been made by the largest fish processing company in Atlantic Canada that their facility in Lockeport, Nova Scotia will close permanently on October 1. This will mean the loss of 200 jobs. This will have a devastating impact on that community. The processing plant is the principal industry for the town and for the surrounding area. Indeed, in Atlantic Canada some 1,300 communities are directly dependent on the fishery. According to statements made as recently as today, the Government is predicting a bleak future for the Atlantic fishery. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), have indicated that Atlantic communities may require massive assistance, similar to the $1 billion provided to western farmers in the form of drought relief.

June 1, 1989

Adjournment Debate

In my Province of British Columbia, the future of the fishing industry looks disastrous. This is a direct consequence of actions taken by the Tory Government. In the B.C. processing industry there are up to 8,000 people employed during the peak season; 70 per cent of those employees are women, many visible minority women. The average annual wage is $21,400.

The new landing regulations of the Government have stripped the B.C. industry of the right to process our own Canadian fish prior to export. The new regulations of the Government will deny those workers and their families a secure future. We should have a right to our own Canadian resources. We should have a right to our own Canadian jobs.

According to the Minister, the solution for those women who will lose their jobs is to accept the fact that the jobs will be gone. At no time did she deny that jobs would be lost. Instead, she told the House that her Department would be working with the affected communities through the industrial adjustment service and would use other programs to assist those communities.

The Minister also indicated that unemployment insurance would provide the necessary fail-back for those forced out of work. The Minister did not accept the fact that her changes to the Unemployment Insurance Program will have a negative impact on those workers because: "The current UI Program remains in effect".

The Government's cut-backs to unemployment insurance will take effect next year. According to the Minister for International Trade, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the collapse of the Atlantic fishery will also likely occur next year. Those workers who once required 10 weeks to qualify for UI, will require up to 16 weeks to qualify next year.

The jobs being lost on both coasts are high paying union jobs. On the East Coast those jobs average more than $10 per hour. In B.C., the average is approximately $14 per hour. They are unionized jobs with safe working conditions and decent benefits.

The Government seems to be offering those workers, the majority of whom are women, two options: get out of the industry entirely, or accept jobs that will offer them and their families far less.

The House royal commission on employment and unemployment stated that the future directions for the less developed regions of our country lay not in the imposed plans from outside the region, but rather on the strength which is found within those communities. The report also stated that people who live in the smaller communities will require a revolution in the education of their citizens. The federal Government has cut back on funding for post-secondary education. The report stated that they will need to be linked into the development schemes geared to the regions, but funding for regional economical development will be cut severely in the next year, and they will require the security of an income security system which meets their needs. However, the federal Government is committed to withdrawing totally from the Unemployment Insurance Program.

The Minister referred to training as a salvation for those women and their families who will lose their livelihoods as a result of a crippled fishery. She claimed that the training programs will provide a more stable future for women which will end their reliance on cyclical jobs. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women, and the Association for Community-Based Training and Education for Women, have all been highly critical of the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program which is so often referred to by the Minister as the answer to the question of training.

The type of jobs which have received funding from the program are low-paying, dead-end jobs which the Government describes as marketable skills. According to the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women, almost 12,000 fewer women are being educated for new work under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The Minister argues not for a secure industry in which women represent 70 per cent of the workforce, but for a system which women will recognize is designed to remove them from their jobs.

In conclusion, the Minister said on May 15 that the programs in place are adequate. Yet the very next day the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) said, as reported at page 1794 of Hansard:

June 1, 1989

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

The women of Canada deserve better.