1982-05-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
On Saturday, May 8, the world was stunned at the report of the death of our fellow citizen, Gilles Villeneuve, the brilliant Formula One driver, who was killed in a fatal accident under the tragic circumstances we all know. Canadians idolized Gilles Villeneuve and eagerly followed his daring feats around the world. He always did his utmost in every race, and we applauded his every success. Gilles Villeneuve was a symbol of our native courage, and this showed in his spirit and his determination and desire to win. He was an inspiration and an example to all young people because of his sense of discipline and his passion for excellence.
It is a heavy loss for the people of the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere, and especially for his friends in Berthierville, where he was born and where he grew up. In Gilles Villeneuve, Canada has lost one of its foremost representatives, and one of whom all Canadians were proud.
On behalf of all Canadians and the people of the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, Gilles Villeneuve's uncle, and the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That this House extend its most sincere condolences to Mrs. Johanne Villeneuve and her children, his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Seville Villeneuve and all their family and to all the people in Berthierville in their cruel loss following the death of Gilles Villeneuve.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the text of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Liberal government is not only boycotting a panel discussion being sponsored by the Media Club of Ottawa on freedom of information, a subject Liberals would prefer to discuss in secret, but because of the embarrassment their boycott might cause the host minister, the Hon. Judy Erola, the location of the panel is being moved from Parliament Hill to Carleton University. I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the host minister for the Media Club of Ottawa's panel discussion on freedom of information counter the embarrassment caused her by her Liberal colleagues in boycotting the session by doing all she can to embarrass them into making freedom of information a priority matter for discussion in Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the positive proposal made by President Reagan for a two-phased reduction of ballistic missiles, specifically the mutual reduction of long-range missile warheads to quantities at least one third below the current levels and the creation of an equal ceiling on all other levels of strategic nuclear forces, including limits on ballistic missile throw-weight, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House commend President Reagan for his innovative initiative and urge President Brezhnev to accept the offer in the same spirit of good will in which it was made in order to facilitate confidence building measures necessary for the equitable achievement of the ultimate goal of mutual, balanced, and

May 10, 1982
5.0.	43
verifiable reduction of nuclear weapons to the lowest possible levels at the earliest possible moment.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, testimony before the miscellaneous estimates committee indicates the Prime Minister has short arms and deep pockets when it comes to paying for personal expenses. I note that he is now joyriding and freeloading at the expense of our navy, at least that small portion of our obsolete navy which is not in dry dock. I wonder if the right honourable gentleman's inspection tour was really because of his concern for our Armed Forces or was it simply a political gesture, a political photo opportunity, a feint to take attention away from our economic woes. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That a statement of unequivocal personal commitment and support for our undermanned, under equipped and over extended Armed Forces be made by the Prime Minister as he has a duty and an obligation to assure those Canadian men and women in uniform that they are not second-class citizens serving with second-rate equipment and ships.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Massive cutbacks in the number of beds available, and staff lay-offs in hospitals in British Columbia, have occurred. This means longer waiting lists for important surgery and poorer quality health care in many other respects as well. The federal government is partly to blame for giving anti-medicare types like Bennett a pretext to do this with the cutbacks it has effected in established programs financing. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House regrets the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare refused to see the needless danger her government was creating for medicare through the EPF cutbacks, and instructs her to put the so-called revenue guarantee money back into the federal funding for health so that those
provinces which care about medicare will have the money to improve health care in their provinces, and so that those who don't care about medicare, the Governments of B.C. and Ontario, won't have an excuse for their atrocities against the health of Canadians.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Recent reports from Statistics Canada show that the number of murders committed during the course of another crime, such as armed robbery, has increased dramatically since 1976. Recent polls and surveys have shown repeatedly that it is the wish of as many as 82 per cent of Canadians that Parliament should vote again on the issue of capital punishment. Since capital punishment was abolished in 1976, 23 police officers have been murdered while carrying out their duties. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House refer the issue of capital punishment for first degree murder to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs before yet another policeman is killed in the line of duty by a criminal who need not fear our hamstrung criminal justice system.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Given that Canada needs approximately 210,000 new housing units each year, and that CMHC says there will be only 146,000 units built this year, which represents a shortfall of about 64,000 units and given that the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed Canadians is over 1.2 million, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the government effect a program that will erase the housing deficit, thereby putting 120,000 Canadians back to work.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
May 10, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my motion arises out of reports that the Prime Minister may name former Conservative and Liberal Member of Parliament "Jumping Jack Horner" as the next chairman of the CNR. In view of the fact that the CRN is an important instrument of national transportation policy, and in the name of parliamentary democracy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House direct the government to refer its nominee to head the CNR to the Standing Committee on Transport, and that the Standing Committee on Transport be given the power to accept or reject the nomination of the Government of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Prime Minister took his three sons for a short holiday jaunt this past weekend and, at the end of his pleasure cruise, described what is left of our once proud navy as "super". In light of the fact that under the Prime Minister's reign one of the many disasters to have befallen this nation is the drastic decimation in size and effectiveness of the Canadian military, and in light of the fact that his maritime venture provided visible evidence that he is "at sea", something we have always known as we have watched his repeated failures to pilot the ship of state, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That the Prime Minister clarify his terse comment, and tell this House if "super", referred to the fact that the decline of our navy has taken place as he planned, or if "super" referred to his relief over the fact that the discipline of the officers and men of the navy prevented them from throwing him overboard, as surely they must have been strongly tempted to do.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
The Late Gilles Villeneuve


CONDOLENCES TO FAMILY OF LATE GILLES VILLENEUVE
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, we were all shocked to learn on Saturday about the death of the Canadian Gilles Villeneuve in a terrible and unfortunate accident which occurred during his last lap around the Zolder circuit in Belgium. The Berthierville pilot had astounded the whole world by his ability, his spirit and his determination in an exclusive and increasingly dangerous profession. Even though quite young, Gilles Villeneuve had already won many Grand Prix and he had quickly won not only the admiration, but also the affection of all those who saw him in action in international races. He inspired and nurtured an exceptional pride among his fellow citizens. Canada and the rest of the world have lost a great champion.

Our auto racing star was only 32 years old. Numerous press reports claim that many of his own competitors would recognize that he was the best racer in the world. As a Canadian, I like and I am proud to believe them. But, over all, Gilles Villeneuve was a fighter, and his success was well-earned. Cherished by crowds everywhere in the world, he always remained a plain, simple man. Gilles Villeneuve was certainly one of the most likeable international athletes, and we are all shocked by his sudden death.

I want to express on behalf of the Canadian government our sincere condolences to his wife, his two children and his entire family.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I would like to express my colleagues' and my own sadness at the tragic and premature death of a great Canadian and a great champion, Gilles Villeneuve. It has often been said that Gilles was a determined and aggressive competitor, and he proved it once again at the time of his accident when he was trying to improve his starting position for the race.
Gilles Villeneuve was a young man from Berthierville who focused the attention of the whole world on Canada. He gained the unconditional admiration of all Canadians at the time of his first major victory when he became the first Canadian to win the Canadian Grand Prix in Montreal four years ago. He then had a series of international wins in South Africa, Long Beach, Watkins Glen, Monaco and Spain. But in spite of his success and his fame, he was essentially a humble person, a family man, whose dream remained to return to his native Quebec. Today, le petit grand homme de Berthierville will be returning.
To all his family, his wife Johanne, his children Jacques and Melanie, his parents Seville and Georgette, his brother Jacques, we want to express our most sincere condolences. All Canadians share the feeling of having lost one of their own and
80114 -25

May 10, 1982
Oral Questions
want to tell his family that they will remember Gilles as a man of indomitable courage and as a hero whom they loved and admired greatly.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I would like to join all of those who expressed their sadness following the tragic death of Gilles Villeneuve on Saturday in Belgium. 1 extend my sympathy to the family of Gilles Villeneuve. Canadians are mourning the passing of an exceptional individual, who died too young while pursuing too dangerous a profession. His courage and audacity were legendary.
I first saw Gilles Villeneuve race in my hometown of Gimli, Manitoba, in a Formula Atlantic race on a very rainy day in June, 1975. While the other drivers struggled with visibility problems, Villeneuve put on a facemask he had used as a snowmobile racer, which did not fog up and ran away with the race. It was this kind of ingenuity and skill that carried him to the top in motor racing, first in Formula Atlantic and subsequently on the Grand Prix circuit.
Gilles Villeneuve will be very sadly missed, not only by those of us who are sports car racing fans, but by all Canadians whom he represented so well as an ambassador in the international world of motor sport. We all extend our most heartfelt sympathy to his family at this very unhappy time.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: On behalf of the House of Commons, I too extend my sympathy to the family of Gilles Villeneuve to whom I will convey hon. members' expression of sympathy.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In the Israeli-Arab war of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973, the rise in predominance of missiles was noted by astute defence ministries in many countries. Unfortunately the Canadian government seems not to have noticed how smart the smart weapons have been getting, either then or since then. Can the minister assure the House that similar events in the South Atlantic have not gone similarly unnoticed?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I take due note of the question of the hon. member for Victoria. I have just returned from the Defence Planning Committee NATO meetings in Brussels and I can assure the hon. member that this question has been discussed
among NATO countries. Obviously, there is no question, that with regard to what he calls smart weaponry, today we have to be smarter and the anti-missile missile system is one of the most important defences, which we have learned from the recent fight in the South Atlantic.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister tell the House how many of the ships now in our surface fleet have an anti-missile defensive capability such as that provided by the Sea Wolf or Sea Dart anti-missile missiles?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, obviously our frigates are not equipped at the moment with the anti-missile missile system. Even other countries have frigates which are not equipped with such a weapon. However, I can assure the hon. member that this question will receive very important consideration in the specifications for the six new frigates which are on the drawing board at the moment. Clearly we realize, as well as he does- being a veteran of the last war as well as myself-that the more prepared we are to defend against any kind of weapon, the greater chance we will have to have a better deterrent and a greater chance for victory regardless of the circumstances.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The minister neglected to inform the House that several other countries do have anti-missile missiles on their frigates.


TYPE OF VESSELS TO BE ACQUIRED
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I notice in the capital program projections which had been prepared in 1980 that they showed funding for three consecutive frigate programs. Has the minister considered purchasing any other type of vessel other than a patrol frigate for the ships that are to follow the current six-frigate program?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment to the hon. member. Since we were re-elected about two years ago we have made decisions on these issues. We have decided to implement a program for six new frigates. We have considered all possible alternatives, of buying, renting, or even borrowing ships from other countries. All of these alternatives have been rejected for a number of good reasons. We decided the best way to proceed would be to promote the new frigate program and try to accelerate it. I might say that if hon. members opposite had made a decision on this during the nine months they were in power, perhaps we would still be six months ahead of schedule.
May 10, 1982


DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The issue is whether or not he intends to carry on with a similar program to the one which is already in place and proceeding. Or is he prepared to examine seriously the requirement of the Canadian navy to have a vessel capable of carrying the type of missile systems talked about by the hon. member for Victoria?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, concerning the issue of the Canadian navy, I take objection to some of the remarks of the hon. member in suggesting that we have a navy which cannot fulfil its commitment. If one reads the statement made by Admiral Trane from NATO when he was here, one finds that he said that we have one of the most efficient navies as far as fulfilment of our NATO commitment is concerned our anti-submarine commitment, is concerned. It was not someone who did not know what he was talking about. He was someone who knows all the issues concerning anti-submarine warfare. He said we are capable of doing it and we are efficient. Besides all of that, even though perhaps some of the ships of the Canadian navy are old, we must not consider only the ships. One must consider the efficiency, capability, and devotion of the people working on those ships, and that certainly counts for a lot.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. There are about 120,000 Canadian families in this country who are victims of UFFI at this point in time, having accepted the government's advice and financial incentive to introduce this objectionable substance into their homes. Considering that the victims of a government policy ought to be compensated by the government for its own errors, I would like to ask the minister, in accepting this principle, whether he will tell us what he will be doing through the bill which will be before the House today for the more than 80 per cent of the victims who will not be compensated in any way for this disaster.
[Translation}
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised that it took the hon. member so long to discover that there is a problem for home owners who insulated their homes with UFFI. I suppose
Oral Questions
his curiosity was finally aroused when he met some 300 demonstrators last week in Toronto. For quite some time now, the government has shown its willingness to help UFFI victims by giving them advice, by paying for free tests in their homes and by advising them on measures to be taken to correct and reduce gas levels in their homes. As for people living in homes where gas levels are below the standard set by the Department of National Health and Welfare, and who are benefiting from the effects of proper insulation through savings on heating costs, I think everyone, starting with the hon. member, should stop dramatizing and depoliticize the issue, because it is clear that the resulting adverse publicity for insulation products, and especially this particular one, has made the market for homes insulated with UFFI practically disappear. The value of these homes has been reduced by adverse publicity, and it is only by concentrating on corrective measures that we shall be able to restore these homes to their original value.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister took a long time to say almost nothing.


COST OF REMOVAL OF FOAM INSULATION
John Edward Broadbent: I point out to the
minister that several members of this party and of the Conservative Party have been raising the issue with regard to UFFI for weeks, while the Government of Canada has done virtually nothing for the victims.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In this context, I want to ask the minister whether he will admit to the House that the average person will have to pay up to $20,000 to restore his or her home to a livable condition, if lucky, and that the ceiling for assistance which the government bill is providing amounts to $5,000. Second, will the minister admit that the total sum allocated in this bill, if used by the victims which have been created by the government, is adequate to pay only one fifth of the total number of families affected? It is inadequate compensation to the families who will get anything, and only one fifth of the families will be compensated. It is a totally unjust response by the responsible government. Will the minister admit that, and then answer the question: why does he not provide some assistance for the other 80 per cent?

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the conclusions of the hon. member, for a number of reasons. First of all, government compensation has never been offered in the case of hazardous products banned under the Hazardous Products Act. Second, in the past, when a person wanted to make a complaint, it was always directed to the manufacturer. This is the First time in the history of hazardous products that people are accusing the government instead of the real culprit if there

May 10, 1982
Oral Questions
is one, who would be the manufacturer. Third, the Canadian government's tax-free grant of $5,000 is being offered on humanitarian grounds, which has nothing to do with legal responsibility. It is a generous offer that is unequalled in any other country. The product in question has been on the market for many years, in 30 or so countries throughout the world. Canada was the first country to ban the product, and the Canadian government was the first government to offer direct compensation to UFFI victims, something that has not been done anywhere else.


REQUEST THAT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE BE CONVENED
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the question at issue is not legality. It is something that the Liberal government perhaps does not understand. It is a question of political morality. That is what is involved. To my knowledge, no other government except this one actually offered its citizens $500, and encouraged them to take this substance and put it in their homes. Surely that creates a political responsibility for compensating these victims. Is the minister telling this House that the government is not going to do anything more? In relation to that, I have a positive suggestion.
Why does the minister not take the matter to the provincial governments, which are involved in licensing and so on, and have a meeting with his ministerial colleagues? He could say that the federal government will put up 75 per cent of the cost, with the provinces putting up 25 per cent of the cost, so that these innocent victims can be fully compensated. Surely that is their due.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member finally said something sensible, namely, that on humanitarian grounds, not only our government but other levels of government as well should do their part. I have been repeating exactly the same thing for months. Perhaps UFFI victims may consider that the $5,000 offered by our government is not adequate, but at least it is there on the table. I am very pleased that the hon. member agrees with me that other levels of government, and especially provincial authorities, should also do their part and at least match the federal offer. I am happy to see that the hon. member supports my views, and I hope he will tell his provincial party colleagues who constitute the government in one of the provinces to support my views, in order to persuade all provincial authorities to make a direct offer to UFFI victims and also make provision for tax-free grants of up to $5,000.


Mr. Lalonde:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence unanimously supported the report on the Armed Forces reserves which called for increases in personnel and updated equipment. The minister stated, "Most of the recommendations are realistic and some are already in the process of being implemented." Will the minister explain how the recommendations will be implemented when the Armed Forces reserves are being subjected to a 10 per cent cut in training funds, not including the inflation factor?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I would be surprised if the figure mentioned by the hon. member, a 10 per cent cut in the reserves, is correct. On the contrary, the reserve budget this year has been increased, if I am not mistaken, by about 15 per cent. In addition, we are trying to integrate more and more of our reserves with our regular operations so that it will be much more interesting for those in the reserves. It is more useful for the reserves to train with the regular forces. Therefore, I would say that we are attaching more and more importance to the recommendations of the committee. We have said the recommendation was realistic, and that it would be something that I, as Minister of National Defence, would like to implement as quickly as possible. However, we have to take the economic situation into consideration. With a 19.2 per cent increase in the budget this year, we are trying to give priority to reequipping the Armed Forces to address some of the earlier questions directed to me regarding the army, navy, and air force. With this increase in the defence budget, we are trying to give a fair share to the reserves.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON RESERVES
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, I hope the minister's answer is not hypocritical, because the subcommittee and the minister have consistently been stating and recommending the importance of the reserves and their overall place in Canadian defence strategy. The information I have from many C.Os. in the reserves is that they have been orally advised of cuts. Which policy is the minister pursuing? Is he pursuing the recommendation of the committee that reserves should be increased to whatever size is necessary to respond to the mobilization requirements, or is he saying that their training funds will be cut, which will obviously decrease the number of men and women in the reserves? Which is it- increase or cuts?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member means by his allegation, because in the last two years that I have been Minister of National Defence the reserves have been increased in many areas. Equipment has been supplied to the reserves,
May 10, 1982

equipment they have not had for the past ten years. Everything possible is being done to give encouragement and incentive to the reserves to be part of the regular forces. The last Rendezvous '81 exercise involved many hundreds of reservists working with the regular forces. We have tried to do the same with exercises in Europe. I do not think the reserves can say they are not receiving their fair share of the budget.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Privy Council. Under our election laws, the spouse of a member of the Armed Forces serving overseas, for instance in West Germany, can only vote in the riding which her husband designates as his previous place of residence, even though she may never have lived there in her life. In other words, for voting purposes she is only regarded as an extension of her husband. Is the minister taking steps to correct this anachronism by proposing legislation that would allow the wives of military personnel and of public servants serving overseas to designate the constituencies in which they will vote based on their own past residence in Canada?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as we know, the Chief Electoral Officer will be tabling his report at the beginning of the next session. This report will be considered by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, as is usual. Following that study and report by the committee, the government usually brings in amendments to the electoral law. I hope the matter raised by the hon. member will be taken into consideration. It is a possibility that this matter, as well as others, will be reflected in some further amendments. At this stage I would, first, prefer to see the report of the Chief Electoral Officer and, second, the report from the appropriate standing committee. Then we will come forward with proper legislation.


REQUEST THAT LEGISLATION BE AMENDED
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I am wondering if the minister is aware of the issue I have raised. If so, is he also aware of the very real concern, indeed I can go further and say the anger that is felt by the spouses of military personnel serving overseas in that they really do not have full freedom to exercise their franchise as long as the present legislation exists? Is the minister doing everything in his power to bring pressure on the government not to wait until some future date down the road but to get this legislation changed so that the spouses of military personnel overseas will have the right to vote on their own residency and not that of their husbands?
Oral Questions


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member is raised with me practically every time I visit Lahr. I always bring the issue back here, and discussions about what we can do to treat these spouses as fairly as possible are currently ongoing. As the President of the Privy Council has just said, this matter is under serious consideration, and we will take the steps which are necessary.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Within the last few months he has visited Cambridge, and I know he is aware of the crippling unemployment in my community. Last month $350 million was given in ILAP assistance, $175 million for industrial projects in the Kitchen-er-Waterloo area. Why was Cambridge not designated under ILAP for industrial projects, having in mind the tremendous unemployment in that community?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the funding to which my hon. friend refers is for the total ILAP and covers all the communities designated or which could be designated. The boundaries in question are set in light of the criteria which have been publicly announced, and take into account the level of unemployment in a particular area linked with a downturn of a major industry or industries. However, we are certainly keeping the situation in a number of communities under review. The decision with respect to Kitchener and other communities related to the application of these criteria.


REASONS FOR NOT DESIGNATING CAMBRIDGE FOR ASSISTANCE
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, the minister will know that in the past there has been no community which had it better in terms of employment than Cambridge, but now 17.5 per cent of the people of Cambridge are unemployed. I will ask the minister again why ILAP assistance in terms of industrial projects was not extended to my community, which certainly needs such assistance as much as Kitchener-Waterloo.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat that the review of the situations of a number of communities in light of the criteria did not indicate the result my hon. friend is calling for, but we are certainly keeping the situation under active review, and Cambridge's present situation will be very much taken into account.

May 10, 1982
Oral Questions


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the Japanese auto and truck invasion of this country continues virtually unchallenged-certainly by anyone at the government level-does the minister intend to resist this invasion in some effective way, or is the unconditional surrender to continue?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I reject totally the premise of my hon. friend's question. To my knowledge the restraint level discussed with the Japanese a year ago has been met by them for the period April 1, 1981, to April 1, 1982.
We have indicated our position to the Japanese, which is that we need not only further restraint but also a level which takes into account the current situation in the industry and that a simple continuance of the present level is not acceptable to us. We are vigorously pursuing our discussions with the Japanese. There have been talks in Japan between our officials and those of Japan in the past week, and my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade, will be continuing his discussions with his Japanese counterpart in Paris this coming week.


REQUEST THAT LEVEL OF IMPORTS BE REDUCED
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is he not aware of the fact that tens of thousands of people in Canada are out of work, either at the manufacturing level, the parts manufacturing level, or in dealerships from coast to coast; that their associations attribute much of their problem to the heavy importation especially of Japanese autos; and that they are asking that something be done? They are not asking that the old quota be left in place but for a lower quota or some restriction to guarantee that the Japanese do not take over the 37 per cent of our market which it is now anticipated they will take over. If the Americans can get it, why can the minister not go and get a similar arrangement with the Japanese?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we have indicated to the Japanese that a simple continuance of last year's restraint level is not acceptable to us, and we are carrying on vigorous discussions with the Japanese to bring about an improvement in the situation with respect to the Canadian market. My hon. friend has, in effect, admitted that the problem of our industry is not due solely to the pressure of Japanese imports. The fact is that 70 per cent to 80 per cent of our production goes to the American market. There is a very serious recession there which many people feel is brought about by policies of the Reagan administration, policies my hon. friend would like to see applied in our
economy, which is something Canadians are not ready to accept.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Last week as workers ratified their new contract, Sydney Steel Corporation announced it would be closing its doors until at least midAugust because it did not have any new orders. As the minister knows, this throws 1,300 people out of work in an area where almost one in five workers cannot find a job.
The minister stated that CN had cut back its purchasing of SYSCO rails because their quality was not up to par. Considering that the only flaw in SYSCO rails was a small cracking and flaking problem which was corrected a year ago, will the minister immediately direct CN, which holds the key to SYSCO's survival, to resume its regular buying of rails from Sydney Steel?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, this is a rather complex situation, but I have never said that CN had stopped purchasing rails from SYSCO. As a matter of fact, CN has a program to purchase 88,000 tonnes in 1983. But the purchasing program for 1982 has come to an end, and the purchasing program for 1983 has not yet started; hence the idea that if someone wanted to pay for the storage or the pre-production of rails, activities could be resumed now. This is being considered now. The president of CN met with the Premier of Nova Scotia Friday and suggested that. So, CN is quite willing to accommodate. As I said, this is being considered. The question then is, is it better to take a summer lay-off and come back at a later date and produce the quantities needed by CN, or is it better to anticipate production and store it? This is being considered now with the greatest of good intention on the part of CN.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I hope the minister realizes that if Sydney Steel has to wait for two more years, it may not be in operation by that time. That is what is so bad.


CONSTRUCTION OF COKE OVENS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The joint federal-provincial study done in advance of the current business plan determined that the installation of new coke ovens would mean that Cape Breton coal could economically be converted into coke for export. Since the market for coke is expected to improve substantially next year, will the government, in co-operation with the province of Nova Scotia, begin to speed up the construction of such ovens so that two key industries in Cape Breton would be ready to take advantage of the upturn in the coke market, and
May 10, 1982

laid off workers at SYSCO could have jobs now building those coke ovens?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the agreement announced last June involved the contribution by the federal government of some 80 per cent of the $90 million required for the modernization of SYSCO, and the agreement represented the consensus between the federal and provincial governments and SYSCO management on the most effective course of action to modernize SYSCO facilities. SYSCO is a provincial Crown corporation and is responsible for its management and direction, but in spite of that 1 will be happy to examine the possibility and the practicality of moving ahead on the coke aspect of the plan, and I will be happy to provide further information as soon as I complete that work.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. 1 wonder if he could advise the House whether it is the intention of the government to refer the white paper on the federal sales tax change to the wholesale level, produced by the Minister of Finance, to a special parliamentary committee so that people interested in this issue could give evidence publicly to Parliament about the effect of the tax change on the consumer price index and on the level of income likely to be generated by the tax change?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 do not have such a reference in mind but 1 will consider the request made by the hon. member and talk about it to the Minister of Finance.


LEVEL OF TAX PAID BY CONSUMERS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I will address my supplementary question to the Minister of State (Finance) in the absence of the Minister of Finance. How could the government, in preparing that white paper, possibly contemplate that the level of tax paid by consumers would be reduced, in view of the fact that the tax charged to major retailers is increased to 9.2 per cent and that consumers buy a great number of those items from major retailers, so that clearly the tax paid by consumers will be vastly increased? Could the minister advise the House where the concept of a reduced tax impact comes in light of those facts?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, in the previous question, the hon. member
Oral Questions
made a suggestion to the President of the Privy Council, to the effect that the paper which has been published about changing the excise tax from the manufacturer's to the wholesale level be considered by a standing committee. The hon. member knows quite well that the legislation in its final form will be dealt with by that committee. We will then have every opportunity for a comprehensive study of the effects and the why and the how of such a change and of the procedure which is to be followed to reduce it for example from 9 per cent to 8 per cent without further impact on government revenues.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister responsible for housing which is related to the question put by the hon. member for Oshawa. We now know what the government's response is to compensation for the health victims of urea formaldehyde foam insultation. That only covers part of it. The minister knows that this whole problem arises out of CMHC granting a licence for urea formaldehyde to be used for insulation under the CHIP program.
Has CMHC, or the minister, or the government considered any further compensation for the 80 per cent of people who will not qualify for compensation under the bill today who Find their homes being depreciated in value, who Find they cannot sell their homes, and who find they are having difficulty getting conventional mortgages on their homes? What is the minister's response to the plight of those people?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that in Canada there is no legislation governing the manufacture of goods. The only government-approved products on the market are drugs. All other goods are marketed freely. We live in a free-enterprise society, and the manufacturer markets his products at his own risk.
The hon. member seems to want to make the government shoulder a responsibility it never had, and does not have now, for this product. It is true that the government accepted a certain number of products for insulation purposes, but it has never recommended a speciFic product to any home owner, whatever the Leader of the Opposition may say. There was a list of acceptable products, and it was up to each individual to select a product from the list in order to participate in the home insulation program, and 1 think it is important that the hon. member should understand this distinction.

May 10, 1982
Oral Questions


ROLE OF CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for housing. Did Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation approve or grant a permit for urea formaldehyde foam to be used under the government's CHIP program? If the answer is in the affirmative, does this not place an obligation on the government and on Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to assist in some way those who do not qualify for compensation and who are now stuck with homes that they cannot sell or on which they cannot get mortgages?


Mr. Nielsen:: NRC told you not to use it.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member is repeating questions that were already asked several months ago and all of which we answered in committee. The hon. member should take an interest in the work of parliamentary committees. If he is so concerned about UFFI victims, he should have been present when these issues were being discussed in committee. He was not, and his claims that we did not answer those questions are absurd.
Madam Speaker, I can say that the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation never approved this product. The Corporation accepted about 100 insulation products for the purposes of the program, but it never gave any guarantees for any of them. On the contrary, it required manufacturers to ensure that the product was made to special standards, to provide better insulating protection. A standard for this product was developed at the specific request of representatives of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The hon. member must remember that the standards set by the Canadian General Standards Board are not compulsory but voluntary, and that it is up to the companies to observe these standards.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and refers to the capability of the coast guard on B.C.'s coast. Confidence in Canada's search and rescue capability on the B.C. coast is seriously low following the loss of four lives from the Ramsey Isle fishing vessel. The Nuu-chahnulth tribal council's fishermen's association has gone as far as saying that the coast guard search and rescue capability is totally inadequate.
Considering that the coast guard's primary responsibility is for search and rescue, and that the Department of National Defence is the co-ordinating body for the Victoria Rescue Coordinating Centre, could the minister explain why there were no coast guard vessels or Department of National Defence vessels taking part in searching for the Ramsey Islel Only two patrol vessels from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and one research vessel from that department, were involved in that very serious search.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I wish I knew all the details of that unfortunate accident, but I really do not know if the ships that participated in the rescue operation belonged to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or the Department of Transport. I apologize for not knowing that in detail.
Be that as it may, I do not think it matters very much in the sense that, for rescue operations, it is a joint effort of the Department of National Defence which has the major responsibility, my department, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and others. I do not think my hon. friend should pay too much attention to the origin of the entity taking part in the rescue operation. I do not think it matters one bit.


REQUEST THAT PUBLIC INQUIRY BE HELD
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I think it matters vey much in this case because the search was not successful. There are a lot of questions about why it was not successful. Fishermen and others in British Columbia, including recreational boaters, would like to know the answer.
I wonder if the minister would consider following up on the coroner's inquiry into the deaths of the four fishermen on the Ramsey Isle? Would he consider having a public inquiry into the sinking and the efforts made by the various government departments? Rather than considering that the search and rescue capability should be a second or third priority of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, would the minister consider upgrading the coast guard facilities and equipment on the British Columbia coast so that it is the first priority of the coast guard? That is the co-ordinating body that calls in the equipment and manpower. This action is necessary to make sure that we do not have similar loss of lives in British Columbia as the result of the unco-ordinated activities of the government.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this is far from generally accepted. My hon. friend seems to have a poor opinion of the coast guard or the rescue operation jointly carried on by the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport.


An hon. Member:: A poor opinion of you.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thank you very much for that compliment. I return it with great generosity.
May 10, 1982

The hon. member's view is not public opinion, far from it. My friend is asking for an inquiry on the subject of the Ramsey Isle. I will look into it and see if it is justified. On the subject of the upgrading of coast guard equipment, the government is allocating more and more money to search and rescue. We have just approved, in cabinet committee, the program for this coming year where a number of ships, four, if 1 remember, are assigned to the west coast. I will be pleased to write to my hon. friend and demonstrate the progress being made on the west coast.
Accidents will happen. Obviously there is no way in the world that ships can be stationed at so many tens of miles from each other on a coast line 18,000 miles long.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last night on the CBC program "The Nation's Business", the minister, for the first time since October, 1980, had some good news for Canada on energy policy, which was that the National Energy Program would be changed. What changes does the minister have in mind and when might we expect an announcement?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to see that 1 have such a good listener in my friend, the hon. member for Calgary Centre. I am sure he learned a lot of things during the four minutes that the statement lasted.


Erik Nielsen: Somebody has to watch you.


Marc Lalonde: I want to tell him that indeed we have made several changes since the publication of the National Energy Program last year. Changes were contained in the agreements with the provinces, and were made subsequently with regard to projects that were eligible for the new oil reference price. There were several announcements in the last six months in that regard. As the situation evolves and conditions dictate, further changes will be made.
I have indicated this government is committed to energy security for Canadians, greater ownership and control by Canadians, and a fair deal for consumers. These are our objectives from which we will not budge. As far as making sure the program is adapted to circumstances is concerned, we have made changes in the past and we will continue to make some in the future.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, if the minister is interested in making changes which will really help, he will scrap the whole program and that will go further toward accomplishing those goals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


IMPORT COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Harvie Andre: Can the minister at least tell the House whether he will be changing the ridiculous import compensation program which results in taxes collected from Canadian consumers being used to subsidize imported oil to the point where Canadian production is shut in, thereby costing Canadians jobs and a lot of unnecessary expenditure by Canadian consumers? Will he at least change that part of the NEP?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member does not endorse the objectives of the National Energy Program, which enjoys the support of most Canadians. It is always the same story with the Tories: they are living in bygone days and are completely out of pace with current events.
Concerning the specific change which the hon. member has proposed, I should like to remind him that the purpose of the import compensation program which has been in operation since 1974, is to ensure that Canadian consumers do not have to pay more for imported than for domestic oil. It is a consumer protection program which is of paramount importance, especially to Eastern Canada, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec as well.
I should like to remind the hon. member also that wells in Western Canada have been shut-in for many years because of cyclical factors, to which they must adapt. In late April, I announced steps to support the industry in Western Canada and ensure the highest level of productivity from the oil fields in that area. We are already receiving indications of progress in this regard and I am sure that within the next few months there will be a considerable reduction of the shut-in wells in Western Canada.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary to the Minister of Transport. I doubt whether he will be able to tell me today, but I would ask him to take it as notice and provide a written answer. There are a number of Department of Transport helicopters based in Victoria, B.C. In view of the number of days the search continued, did those helicopters take part, or were they off on other duties when life was at stake?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think 1 should add to the remarks made by the Minister of Transport on the Ramsey Isle question and other side search and rescue incidents. As far as the Ramsey

May 10, 1982
Tributes
Isle is concerned, I can assure the hon. member we have on record 100 hours of air search and 124 hours of ship search. As you remember, this was in the area where the annual herring roe fishery was taking place and all facilities with the capability of search and rescue in the area were advised to be on the lookout for the Ramsey Isle.
Also, I can assure the hon. member that the search and rescue budget has been approved by cabinet with quite a good percentage improvement in it, both for capital equipment and operational items. I can assure the hon. member that coordination between my department and the Department of Transport is very close, and when things like this happen it is a priority with our departments to see that we save as many lives as possible.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the two hundred and thirty-sixth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) on Friday, May 7, 1982, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon.   J.-@: Madam Speaker, during motions under Standing Order 43 the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) indicated there was an increase in the number of homicides committed during the commission of a crime. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that, contrary to what he advanced, there was in fact a decrease between 1977-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That motion is not to be debated.


THE LATE HONOURABLE SENATOR HARRY HAYS
Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have just been told that the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal), who was to rise at this point to pay tribute to Senator Harry Hays, whose funeral will be held today, as you know, will not be here to perform that duty. So I rise to fill in for him, because, among other reasons,
I sat in Cabinet with Mr. Hays during the years 1965-66.
As everyone knows, Senator Hays had quite a remarkable career both as a politician and a businessman. As a politician, he was mayor of Calgary for three or four years before being elected to this House where he sat from 1963 to 1966, if I remember correctly, as member for Calgary South and minister of agriculture. In 1966, he was elevated to the Senate.
In business as in politics, Senator Hays-

He showed great qualities of originality, of boldness, of inventiveness, as a cattleman in particular. He will remain a legendary figure in the development of that industry in Canada.
Besides these qualities which he had in great abundance, he had a lovely sense of humour. Just on the spur of the moment I can remember two of his interesting remarks. One day in this House, he coined the phrase, which is probably in Colombo today, "Statistics are for losers." On another occasion he said, "The greatest form of culture is agriculture."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: This good humour was part of his trademark. For all the many services that he rendered to his country, we want to praise him today. As we all know, the most recent service he rendered was that of being co-chairman of the House of Commons and Senate Special Joint Committee on the Constitution with the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal). I am sure the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve regrets not being here today to pay homage to the late Senator Hays.
To the senator's family, to the people of Calgary and to the people of Alberta in particular, we express our deep regrets.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the action of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in giving the House of Commons the opportunity to pay homage to the memory of the late Harry Hays. I do so in several capacities-as an Albertan, as Leader of the Opposition and as someone who had the honour of being a friend of the Hays family and the senator for at least the last 20 years. In fact, for a period of time he was a constituent of mine. One of his services, which we can perhaps attribute to his sense of humour, was that he always voted in the city of Calgary rather than at his ranch in my constituency. That was certainly something I appreciated.
He was, as the Minister of Transport said, a man not only of great good humour but also highly innovative. He was a man of boldness and of broad vision. That boldness and broad vision showed through in the many activities in which he not only engaged but excelled. Those of us in Alberta knew him as a rancher. He was not an ordinary rancher, but one of the few in the history of our country who actually developed a new beef breed, the Hays converter, which was developed on his ranch west of High River.
May 10, 1982

He was a very successful mayor of the city of Calgary at an important time in the life of the city. He was an aggressive and successful businessman. He was respected on all sides of this House of Commons and he served vigorously in the Senate. Throughout his life he was a highly innovative man, a man who was prepared to break new ground and who had the courage to follow the paths that he opened.
Certainly on behalf of myself and my colleagues here I want to express our appreciation to his wife Muriel, to his son Dan and to his grandchildren for the service that he gave to his province, to his country and to his industry. He is a man who stood tall in a region where standing tall is admired. He stood tall and cast a shadow, I believe, that was admired right across the country. We will all miss him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of my party to express condolences to members of Senator Hays' family. His family has long been linked with agriculture in this country, especially with dairying, with auctioneering and with the livestock business. As was pointed out by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), Senator Hays was one of the few people in the history of our country to have actually succeeded in developing a new breed of livestock. He was active in both the east and the west. He developed his farm in the Calgary area. He watched the city of Calgary grow. He was part of that development as mayor and became physically part of the city, I suppose, because his home farm was largely taken over by that city.
He served as Minister of Agriculture. He moved to the Senate where he pursued the very important question of how farmers could achieve adequate returns from marketing livestock. He was very active as chairman of the Senate committee on agriculture. He was also actively involved as cochairman of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution.
Senator Hays was a powerful, hard-working and sincere man. He will be missed by members of this House, by members of the Senate and in farm circles right across the country.


Madam Speaker:: In the name of the House of Commons I have already sent condolences to Mrs Hays and to the family of Senator Hays. I will, of course, see to it that the messages delivered in this House are sent to the family.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-654, to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (Members of Parliament).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, you will know that retired Members of Parliament are currently entitled to unlimited indexing of their pensions after the age of 60, whether it is 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 30 per cent, depending upon the inflation rate. This bill would simply place a limit of 8 per cent per year on this indexing for members between the ages of 60 and 65 based upon the premise that it would encourage this party or any government to reduce the rate of inflation throughout Canada.


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

Yvon Pinard: for leave to introduce Bill C-111, to provide supplementary borrowing authority.


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

Pierre Bussières: for leave to introduce Bill C-112, to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
May 10, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos, 2,900, 2,907, 2,929, 2,930, 2,933, 2,936, 2,941, 2,947, 2,951, 2,968, 3,277, 3,279, 3,618, 4,110, 4,182 and 4,216.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Secretary of State under the Education Support Program at page 32.32, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to training of public servants (a) how does the department explain the 3,961 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: (a) The training of public servants-$61,615 as reported in the public accounts 79-80 should have been printed as "Consultant and Research Services". The training of public servants amounting to $9,722 was included in "Other Type of Services" and represents an increase of 541 per cent over 1978-79-$1,517.
The Canada Student Loans Program was transferred in December, 1977. Due to the transfer from the Department of Finance to this department during the fiscal year, the formulation of a training plan for the program was not finalized. Therefore costs were minimal. Costs incurred during 1979-80 represent normal training costs. The transfer of the program increased the person-years of the Education Support Program from 20 in 1978-79 to 74 in 1979-80, i.e. an increase of 270 per cent.
(b)	(i) Public Service Commission training courses; (ii) reimbursement of tuition fees to employees; (iii) other course payments (books, etc.)
(c)	(i) $8,190. (no contracts over $2,000), (ii) $1,266, (iii) $266.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Solicitor General for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at page 32.36, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to data processing services (a) how does the department explain the 2,924 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for
1978-	79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: (a) The explanation for the increase in expenditures for data processing services, reported for 1979-80 over that reported for 1978-79, resides in the fact that prior to 1979-80 data processing services expenditures reported in public accounts only reflected costs charged to our line object 0476-data processing services. However, in
1979-	80 at the direction of Government of Canada accounting, the reporting of these expenditures was expanded to cover other types of services related to data processing, thereby
increasing reported expenditures over that reported in previous years.
(b)	The following types of services are now (1979-80 and future years) reported in Public Accounts: (i) Data processing services, (ii) computer system design services, (iii) computer programming services, (iv) other external EDP equipment services, (v) computer software purchase and maintenance.
(c)	Expenditures related to each service identified in (b) are as follows:
(i) Data Processing Services
Dominion Computer Support	$ 37,189.73
Computel Systems Ltd.	33,866.16
Alberta Government Services	5,950.63
Provincial Treasurer	5,931.55
l.B.M. Canada Ltd.	1,883.59
Public Archives Canada	747.83
Nortak Software Ltd.	600.00
Sci-Com Dial Services Ltd.	359.27
Manitoba Data Services	288.80
Orans Reproductions	71.94
Computing & Systems Division	71.67
D.L. Me Robb	16.80
Accounting adjustment	(24.30)
	86,953.97
Computer System Design Services	
I B M. Canada Ltd.	$ 30,334.25
Bailey & Rose Ltd.	27,770.83
Federal Systems of Canada	18,000.00
	76,105.08
Computer Programming Services	
Federal Systems of Canada	$ 2,000.00
Systems & Services Division	1,500.00
Control Data	1,440.00
	4,940.00
Other External EDP Equipment Services	
Alphatext Ltd.	$ 44,524.91
Supply and Services Canada	1.631.65
	46,156.56
Computer Software Purchase & Maintenance	
Boole & Baggage Inc.	$ 30,611.55
l.B.M. Canada Ltd.	26,181.61
R.D. Nickel & Associates	18,700.00
Ampex Canada Inc.	9,095.85
Mathematica Products	7,888.00
Verstern Systems Ltd.	6,000.00
Whitlow Computer Systems	5,800.00
Capex Corp.	5,215.60
Pansophic Systems Canada	4,115.00
Cdn. M.S.P. Software Products	4,020.00
Perkin Elmer	3,270.00
Nelma Electronics Ltd.	2,161.22
S.P.S.S. Inc.	1,755.00
Innovation Data Process	1,748.30
Systems Development Corp.	877.50
Hitech Canada Ltd.	288.44
Charles Higgerty Ltd.	18.67
127,746.74
May 10, 1982


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of National Revenue under the customs and excise program at page 32.23, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to artwork (a) how does the department explain the 187 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what services does this entail (c) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: (a)	Increase in costs is due to more projects being added on to departmental information plan.
(b)	Film production, transfer and duplication services, research and writing services, graphic services, purchasing of broadcasting rights and professional narration services.
(c) National Film Board of Canada (four contracts
totalling)	$55,876.55
John Doherty and Company	Ltd.	4,579.00Holman Production Services	Ltd.	3,417.00Seguin Graphics Ltd.	4,300.00


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of National Revenue under the customs and excise program at page 32.23, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) how does the department account for the l,025 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what services does this entail (c) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Bill Rompkey: (a)	There is no basis for comparison between the two fiscal years under "Other types of Services" as the reporting criteria from the Receiver General Directives on Public Accounts Instructions was raised from $2,000 and over in 1978-79 to $25,000 and over in 1979-80. Thus, services which did not meet the 1979-80 reporting criteria were grouped into one category called "Other types of Services".
(b)	Boarding, training, veterinarian and other services relating to the dog detector Program; armoured car services; health services; hospitality; inspection services-departmental uniform program; mailing services; photographic services; security services; shredding services; towing services; translating services.
Chemical Abstracts Service	$ 2,596.00
Mr. Terrance Kehoe	22,676.58
Management Video Publications	8,027.50
National Defence	14,208.55
National Film Board (two contracts)	12,200.00
Polygauge Industries	3,400.00
York Mailings	6.675.81
Brink's Canada Ltd. (three contracts)	12,528.00
Order Paper Questions DPW-CONTRACT BUS SERVICES


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Public Works under the accommodation program-operations and maintenance at page 32.28, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to contract bus services (a) how does the department account for the increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (c) for what reason does the department require these services?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Accommodation Operating-Vote 10: Standard Object 04; Contract Business Services:
Expenditures 1978-79	0
1979-80	$26,628
Increase	$26,628
(a)	and (c) The title for the service in question should read contract business services and is an account classification within the coding block to cover contracts awarded for miscellaneous types of services not specifically covered under other account classifications. Of the three payments listed below, two are improperly coded to the contract business services category. Babbco Office Services should have been coded to temporary help services and Friendly Landscaping to landscaping services. The payment to Sheppard Associates covered miscellaneous office services which could not be coded to a specific category other than contract business services.
(b)	Payments of $2,000 and over to individuals included the following:
Babbco Office Services-Toronto, Ont.	$6,344;
Bruce D. Sheppard Associates-London, Ont $9,000;
Reg & Paul Friendly	Landscaping-Toronto,
Ontario	$4,425.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of National Revenue under the taxation program at page 32.24, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to shuttle bus service (a) how does the department account for the 20 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what services does this entail (c) what is the list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (d) for what reason does the department require these services?


Bill Rompkey: (a) Revenue Canada, taxation submitted a requisition to the Department of Supply and Services requesting contract coverage for shuttle bus service for fiscal years 1978-79 and 197980. In both instances, the lowest tender, submitted by Andy's Transfer, Ottawa was accepted.
(b)	Shuttle bus service is required for the transportation of departmental personnel and small parcels between head office buildings located in the downtown core and the taxation data centre located at Confederation Heights.
(c)	There is one contract only for the total amount.
(d)	This service is necessary in the interest of economy, thus precluding the frequent and more expensive use of taxi service.

May 10, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce at page 32.16, Volume II of the
1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to honoraria (a) how does the Department account for the 117 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what is a list of each honorarium of a value more than $2,000?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: (a) the 117 per cent increase in expenditure in 1979-80 occurred as a result of the inclusion in this category of the per diem fees paid to the members of the Enterprise Development Board.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of National Revenue under the Customs and Excise Program at page 32.23, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to design and display services (a) what services does this entail (b) for what reason does the department require these services?


Bill Rompkey: (a) Services entailed are for the design, fabrication and supply of kiosks and publication racks; for the refurbishing of existing exhibit material, and for the production and installation of signs for a permanent exposition.
(b) These services are required for the implementation and upkeep of the departmental information program, through a permanent exposition, and through a regional travelling exhibit program.
(b) Honoraria paid of a value more than $2,000 are as follows:
Norman Covey, Istanbul, Turkey Hans Knobloch, Montevideo, Uruguay
Farid Toubla, Kartoum, Sudan W. Greenwood, Halifax, Nova Scotia
L. P. Nolet, Brome, Quebec
A.E. Palliser, Calgary, Alberta
F. Sellers, Winnipeg, Manitoba
W. L. Wardrup, East Selkirk, Manitoba
$3,000 Cdn. Honorary Consul $3,000 Cdn. Honorary Consul
$2,500 U.S. Honorary Consul $2,800 Cdn. Enterprise Development Board $5,200 Cdn. Enterprise Development Board $2,800 Cdn. Enterprise Development Board $2,200 Cdn. Enterprise Development Board $2,400 Cdn. Enterprise Development Board


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at page 32.12, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to training and education services (a) what services does this entail (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: (a) The various services purchased were: safety courses, first aid training-St. John's Ambulance, PSC training courses, university fees, technical institute fees, vocational school fees, language courses, teachers and instructors on contract- instructional, post doctorate fellowships, expenses related to training-e.g. travel, course materials, etc.
(b) Contracts valued more than $2,000 were:
RCMP-Canadian fisheries enforcement course	$ 89,792
Canadian Hydrographic Association	2,590
Dartmouth Academy-French training	6,352
Nova Scotia-Department of Fisheries	4,002


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in footnote No. 4 at page 13.4, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, under what circumstances was the equipment lost and (a) who was culpable (b) were any convictions made and, if so, what sentences were imposed (c) are any trials or appeals pending (d) was the equipment replaced (e) did the department undertake steps to ensure that such losses did not recur and, if so, what were they?
2.	What other equipment was included in this amount?
3.	What use does the department make of this equipment?


Marc Lalonde: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
1.	The equipment which was lost during 1979-80 consisted of items used by more than 400 officers who perform authorized surveys of an engineering or a research nature at remote locations in Quebec, Ontario, all the western provinces and the territories. All the items were inside departmental vehicles with the exception of the battery charger which was located in a maintenance room at the time of its disappearance. In one instance, the item, a radio receiver was installed in a vehicle which was stolen. The vehicle was recovered but the radio had been removed.
(a)	In all cases, the local police investigations did not identify any culprit and there was no evidence of negligence on the part of any departmental employee.
(b)	and (c) No.
(d)	The equipment was replaced from existing departmental assets.
(e)	The department has detailed procedures for the safeguarding of government materiel and employees who have custody of materiel are reminded each year that these procedures must be adhered to. Failure by a departmental employee to take all reasonable steps to protect the materiel in his custody can lead to disciplinary action. However, as no evidence of negligence was found, no new measures were introduced, the present one being sufficiently comprehensive.
May 10, 1982

2.	Discard in the field ($79,293.48). This category includes the value of field equipment which was disposed of locally. This applies to equipment which is worn out through fair wear and tear or which is damaged beyond economical repair. In each case, the officer responsible for the equipment must prepare and submit a Report of Discard. Any irregularity is the subject of an investigation.
Losses in the field ($53,783.24). This category includes the value of field equipment which is accidentally destroyed or lost as a result of fire or theft. All losses are the subject of separate reports which identify the circumstances surrounding the loss. Losses of firearms and/or losses due to theft are reported to the local police for further investigation. When it is demonstrated that there is negligence on the part of any departmental employee, recovery action from the employee is initiated.
Recoverable losses ($3,689.50 of which $1,963.20 was recovered). This category includes the value of equipment lost or damaged in transit. In such cases, the department claims the value from transportation agencies. Carriers, however, do not accept full liability in some cases.
Minor discrepancies ($755.06). This category includes the value of equipment which needs to be written off as a result of clerical errors in recording transactions,
3.	The equipment is used by more than 400 officers who perform authorized surveys of an engineering or a research nature. The department provides, from a central depot, the necessary supplies and equipment. There are approximately $4,000 different articles. The total value of that inventory exceeds $8 million.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 2,754 which stated in part that "public tenders would be called" with regard to the installation of packaged solar domestic hot water heating in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville, were public tenders called and (a) if so, on what date, in what news media and on what date did advertisements appear (b) if not, how does the government explain this contradiction with the answer to question No. 2,754?


Paul James Cosgrove: Public Works Canada strictly adheres to the policy of calling public or invited tenders, where appropriate, according to chapter 310, appendix F of the Treasury Board of Canada Administrative Policy Manual "Government Contracts Regulations".
(a) and (b) See reply to parliamentary question No. 3,279 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were invited tenders called for the installation of solar hot water heating of a domestic nature for washrooms in the federal buildings at Brockville, Gana-noque and Prescott in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, if so (a) on what date were the tenders called (b) for what reason were they invited instead of publicly advertised (c) who provided the invitation list and were any political considerations involved?
Order Paper Questions
2.	What is the entire cost of the three installations and what is the breakdown for each installation?
3.	Was a contract let for the solar hot water heating on October 30 or thereabouts and, if so, what is a list of all those who tendered and the amount of each bid, including that of the successful bidder?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1. Yes. (a) The tenders were invited on October 16, 1981, and closed on October 30, 1981.
(b)	Tenders were invited (instead of publicly advertised) in line with Public Works Canada policy, as the estimated costs were less than $30,000. Tenders may be invited up to $30,000.
(c)	A list of local contractors from all three areas were obtained from the Property Manager. No political considerations were involved.
2.	The lowest bid for the three installations was $24,995. No breakdown is available for individual installation as the contractor submitted his bid on the total cost of the combined contract.
3.	A contract was awarded on November 19, 1981, and the project will be completed by end April, 1982. A list of all those who tendered and the amount of each bid is shown below.
W.A. Barnes & Sons Ltd. Kemptville, Ont. $24,995(awarded contract)
Toshack Brothers	Prescott, Ont.	$29,750
(Prescott) Ltd.


Mr. Herbert: l.In the past five years, to date, did the Department of Public Works prepare accommodation for the Library of Parliament and, if so, in which buildings?
2.	How many square feet of usable space were provided in each building and what amount was spent by the department to provide each facility?
3.	Were all the costs recoverable and, if not, what amount was absorbed by the department?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1. In
the past five years PWC prepared accommodation for the Library of Parliament in the Victoria Building and the Wellington Building (formerly the Old Metropolitan Life Building). It should be noted that temporary space was provided in December, 1981 to the Library of Parliament in the Confederation Building while their existing space on the first floor of that building is currently being modified.
2. Public Works Canada prepared the following space:
		Usable		Actual	
(i) Building	Date	Sq. Metres	Location	Fit-Up Cost	Victoria	Sept. 79	627.4 ra2	1st floor	$ 9,000 10,500	PWC LPNov. 79	83.3 m2	2nd floor	4,789	LPApr. 80	567.2 m2	5th floor	10,780	LPOct. 81	162.4 m2	Room 700 Total	900 $35,969	LP
In addition, 19.4 m2 storage space was provided in the basement in June 1981 with no fit-up cost involved.

May 10, 1982
Order Paper Questions
(ii)	Wellington May 78	511 m2 Mezzanine	$ 6,650 PWC
The preparation of this space was part of the major renovation project to accommodate the House of Commons and the portion attributable to the Parliamentary Library cannot be identified precisely.
(iii) Confederation December 81	30.2 m2 Rms861&	nilDecember 81	55.7 m2 Basement	nil
The above space was vacant and this temporary move was made by House of Commons staff with no fit-up cost involved and no expense to Public Works Canada while the existing Library space on the first floor is currently being modified.
3. No. $9,000 was absorbed by Public Works Canada. The estimated $6,650 for fit-up of the mezzanine in the Wellington building for the Library of Parliament was part of the major renovation project and was funded by Public Works Canada. The modifications now in progress to 145 m2 of Library of Parliament space on the first floor of the Confederation Building are estimated to cost $55,000 and will be recoverable from the House of Commons.


Mr. Mazankowski: Did the Department of Transport accept the Grange Report's recommendation requiring publication of reports of inspectors called to railway accident scenes together with the results of research investigations and, if so, in the past
two years (a) on what dates and at what locations were inspectors called to accidents (b) on what dates were the respective reports published and on what dates will those still outstanding be presented (c) how many times did "hot-box" detectors discover overheated axle bearings or wheels and at what locations and on what dates did these occurrences take place?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: (a) and (b) Section 226 (of Railway Act) inquiry reports, of officers called to railway accidents, have been and are available. See list of dates and locations of such accidents for the year 1980, 1981 and 1982 to date. Also shown on the list are the dates the reports were either published or expected to be available.
In addition to the section 226 inquiries, CTC officers attended the scenes of several hundred other accidents in each year and submitted the customary accident information report, with conclusions and, if necessary, recommendations. These reports are available to anyone upon request.
(c)	This information is not readily available. Regulations are not yet in place requiring the railways to report these incidents to the CTC. The railways however do keep records at their Divisional Offices of the read-outs from the "hot-box" detectors located on their track. These detectors identify overheated journals and dragging equipment but are not designed to detect overheated wheels. However, "add-ons" are being applied to existing detectors and to new detectors to detect hot wheels.
S. 226 Appointments
Date of Appointment	Name of Appointee(s)	C.T.C. File No.	Date of Accident	Mileage Subdivision and Railway	Place	Class of Accident	Report Published or will be AvailableFebruary 11	G.P. Beach	31385.3897	February 10	143.1 Ignace-CP	near Kenora, Ont.	Derailment-4th diesel unit and 13 cars of VIA Rail.	March 31, 1981June 13	R.W. Barratt	31385.3905	June 9	6.91 Windsor-CP	near Lobo, Ont.	Derailment-door fell off, Fire & Explosion ensued.	March 25, 1981June 30	K. Tikkanen	47015.59	April 6	Winnipeg Terminal Coach Yard-CP	Winnipeg, Man.	Side collision-yard engine October 30, 1980 and freight train resulting in a spillage of methanol.	September 3	L.B. MacDonald	39537.352	August 29	45.5 Nemegos	near Sinker, Ont.	Rearend collision-two freight trains.	March 31, 1981September 30	J.H. Turner	39713.332	September 21	2.4 Kaministiquia	Thunder Bay, Ont.	Side collision-two freight trains.	April 1, 1981March 12	D. Mollins	43714.223	March 11	3.6 Gort-CN (VIA)	Moncton, N.B.	Collision-Side	May 12, 1981March 17	J.M. Cruden & H.H. Blakeney	31385.3912- 13 & 14	February & March, 1981	12.2, 13.3 & 17.6 Clearwater-CN	Messiter, B.C.	Derailments (3)	June 15, 1982May 7	W.F. Karas-kewich & L.B. MacDonald	31385.3915	May 6	32.4 Dundas-CN	Paris West, Ont.	Derailment	October 28, 1981May 29	E.V. Beamish	43714.224	May 28	13.6 Red Deer-CP	Balzac, Alta.	Colli sion-Raking	November 18, 1981June 25	K. Post and	31385.3917	June 24	182.64 Newmarket-CN	Sundridge, Ont.	Derailment	April 1, 1981
Karaskewich
May 10, 1982

Order Paper Questions
S. 226 Appointments
Date of	Name of	C.T.C.	Date of	Mileage	Report PublishedAppointment	Appointee(s)	File No.	Accident	Subdivision and Railway	Place	Class of Accident	or will be AvailableAugust 7	J.A. Anctil	30762.1512	August 5	122.7 Drummondville-	Ste. Rosalie &	Priv. Crossing Accidents	March 31, 198230762.1504	April 2	CN 48.3 St. Hyacinthe-CN	Ste. Madeleine. Que.	
August 20	J.L. Gehring	49159	July &	Various-CN & CP	Alberta	Crossing Accidents (10)	July 1, 1982
	& T.M. Coghland		August, 1981				
							
Sept. 18	S. Kaplan	D.C. 15.8	Sept 13 & 18	CP	Winnipeg, Man.	Leakage of arsenical compound	April 15, 1982Sept. 25	J.H. Turner	39713.333	Sept. 25	136.0 Lac St. Jean-CN	St. Andre, Que.	Collision-Headon	March 31, 1982December 21	E.L. Boggs	39713.334	Dec. 20	50.6 Togo-CN (VIA)	Bield, Man.	Collision-Headon	April 1, 1982January 11	M.D.	31385.3918	Jan. 10	84.7 Rivers-CN	Exira, Man.	Derailment	April 15, 1982Lacombe & S. Kaplan	
February 1	R.W. Barratt	31385.3919	Jan. 31	72.4 Nipigon-CP (VIA)	Sprucewood, Ont.	Derailment	May 1, 1982
	& L.B. MacDonald						
							
March 1	R. Bruneau	31385.3920	Feb. 28	80.3 MacTier-CP	Craighurst, Ont.	Derailment	June 1, 1982March 10	J.A. Shearer	31385.3921	March 3	9.0 Clearwater-CN	Wolfendcn, B.C.	Derailment	June 15,1982
Safety and Services Branch Railway Transport Committee


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby): What is the size and budget of the transition team, as outlined on pages 7 and 8 of "1982-83 estimates, part 111, secretariat expenditure plan, Solicitor General of Canada," which was set up to prepare recommendations for the establishment of a civilian security intelligence service?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Treasury Board has approved 15 person-years and a budget of $991,000 for the transition team. This approval is for a nine-month period ending December 31, 1982.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby): 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of the Solicitor General for the correctional services at page 13.6, Volume I of the
1980-81 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
1.	(a) and (b) The guidelines that were used are contained in the following two documents: "Developmental Leave Policy" for the Correctional Service of Canada and Treasury Board's personnel management manual, chapter 110-5; Conditions governing educatin, training and subsidization.
2.	(a), (b) and (c) Nil.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,884 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 2,884 shall be deemed to have been made an order for return?
Some bon. Members: Agreed.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Public Works under the accommodation program-operations and maintenance at page 32.28, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to caretaking services (a) how does the department explain the 376 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: I ask. Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 10, 1982
Canada Elections Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 30, consideration of Bill C-58, to amend the Canada Elections Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I would like to continue the remarks I initiated on third reading of Bill C-58 when I was so unceremoniously cut off by the clock after a minute or two.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) stated on that day that Bill C-58, which we are discussing, is almost identical to Bill C-21 which was tabled by the Progressive Conservative government on November 5, 1979. With the compromise worked out in committee which would see the election period run for 50 days as opposed to 47 days, as Bill C-58 originally intended, the President of the Privy Council is quite correct. However, he failed to mention on April 30 that the shortening of the election period is merely an isolated amendment to the Canada Elections Act and that when we introduced Bill C-21 it was within the wider spectrum of parliamentary reform, which I might add hon. members opposite have sadly neglected.
The bankruptcy of the party governing the country has been made especially evident by the events of this session. There has been considerable discussion and controversy in past weeks on the subject of omnibus bills. We witnessed some two months ago the reckless attempt of government to roll many different bills into one piece of legislation. The people of Canada know what happened to the government on that one.
Today we are witnessing a further example of government incompetence. It has before the House Bill C-58 to amend the Canada Elections Act, with specific reference to the length of the election period. The government is focusing the attention of the House on one isolated provision of the Canada Elections Act, when in fact the utilization of an omnibus bill to amend other just as important provisions of the Canada Elections Act would be highly desirable.
I am referring specifically to the statutory reports of the Chief Electoral Officer and his recommendation concerning required amendments to the Canada Elections Act. The recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer have been sorely neglected by the present government. Why did the government not incorporate into Bill C-58 other recommendations which should be receiving the attention of the House today? Why are we not debating other amendments? Also we should be looking at the deletion of the present provision in the act concerning the posting of preliminary lists of electors. In my South Shore riding in Nova Scotia, the practice of posting in a public place a preliminary list of electors is causing great
concern, especially to those people living alone who risk the consequence of public disclosures of their name, sex, occupation, marital status and address.
In addition, today in the House I say that we should be looking at recommendations concerning third party advertising in an election campaign, the sale of alcoholic beverages on election day, the identification of printers and publishers on printed campaign advertisements, and a host of other recommendations too numerous to mention.
If the President of the Privy Council would like the detail of those amendments to the Canada Elections Act which we should be debating in concert with shortening the election period, I refer him to the 1974, 1979 and 1980 statutory reports of the Chief Electoral Officer which he apparently received but chose to ignore totally. The spirit within which we introduced Bill C-21 encompassed the reform of this institution which, in my 25 years as a sitting member, I can honestly say is desperately needed.
In 1979 we intended to introduce reform in keeping with the basic principles of parliamentary government but would have also seen the House become a more agressive representative body of the Canadian people. I do not believe that the House by itself should govern. However, I strongly assert that it should be able to check and balance those who do. If the House of Commons exists to represent the people of Canada and to legitimize the rule of the executive, it must receive the necessary tools to pursue that type of mandate.
I think it is imperative to note that although we have all heard the rhetoric of hon. members opposite, we have not yet seen any proposals for parliamentary reform come forward. Specifically, since 1980 we have not seen proposals which would govern the length of sessions, proposals which would fix the date for recesses, proposals which would hold ministers accountable for their actions in previous portfolios if those ministers were the only ones who could address the issues in question, or proposals which would more adequately allow time for private members' bills and motions. Most seriously, we have not seen proposals which would bring before the House debate on the current system of redistribution.
The Chief Statistician has released the 1981 census figures to the Chief Electoral Officer and the clock has started on the redistribution process. According to the calculations completed by the Chief Electoral Officer, the total number of seats in the House of Commons will increase from 282 to 310. These new seats will take effect in any federal election after October, 1984. The province of Ontario is to receive ten new seats; Quebec, four new seats; Manitoba, one new seat; British Columbia, five seats; Alberta, six seats; Newfoundland, one seat; and my native province of Nova Scotia will also receive one seat under the system.
Under the current system of redistribution, the government is quite content to let the House distend, inflate, and be bloated into what I call an unmanageable monstrosity. This is what will happen here. The origin of the redistribution system, the amalgam method, bears some investigation and comment.
May 10, 1982

The Representation Act, 1974, fathered by none other than the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), came into force following the redistribution of 1971. This act was a temporary stop-gap measure which would among other things secure the seat of the hon. member for Cape Breton High-lands-Canso, if it did nothing else. A specific provision of the Representation Act, 1974, recognizing its temporary status, required the House subsequently to review the formula for setting the number of new seats and for distributing them among the provinces.
In 1979 the Progressive Conservative government intended to follow up this review. A detailed discussion paper had been prepared to deal with the question of restraining the number of federal representatives. However, following 1980, the present government has not yet had the courage to continue with that particular investigation. I say that with some sadness. Instead, we are left with a representative scheme which I submit will cost Canadian taxpayers an untold number of dollars and will make a mockery of this institution. Not surprisingly, the government intends to solve the problems associated with a burgeoning House of Commons through negligence. But I should like to tell the House today exactly what hon. members opposite are ignoring and to outline the potential for catastrophe if the representative scheme is allowed to run roughshod over the House and the country.
In less than 20 years the Canadian electorate can expect the House to expand to the ludicrous number of 375 members. In 1979 it was estimated that every member in the House incurs a cost to taxpayers of $140,000 in personal and staff salaries. My calculations indicate that these 93 new members in 2001 will result in a taxpayer expenditure based conservatively upon 1979 estimates of a minimum of over $13 million. This is for new members only. If we add that $13 million to the cost of the existing 282 members, it will be a figure of $53 million, all to be borne by the taxpayers of the country.
We must ask ourselves whether indeed there is a need for any more new members. That is the real question. Quite frankly, I concur with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) who is in his seat. He stated that the membership of the House should be frozen at its present 282 total. Canada is already one of the most overgoverned countries in the world.
I think it should be pointed out to those who claim that we should increase our membership because countries like Britain have a larger House than we do that Canada is governed under a federal system. Not only do our taxpayers financially support federal representatives; provincial legislatures also exist and those provincial members must be paid out of the public purse as well.
Perhaps it bears repeating to hon. members opposite that Canada has hit an economic decline. If they are not aware of that, I will repeat that Canada has hit an economic decline. To my memory, it is the worst that this country has seen in the past 40 years.
Canada Elections Act
1 say to the House that we do not need more members. What we do need, however, is more members who are willing to work harder. We who sit in this chamber are the elected representatives of the people. We have their trust and I submit that we should be here to set an example so that when hard times hit we are not insulated from the economic woes that are facing this country.
In the years that I have been in Ottawa I have come to believe that this is probably the most insulated city in Canada and I would go so far as to say it is the most insulated city in the entire world. Wherever you turn here, everything seems to be subsidized. For example, the National Arts Centre was built at a cost exceeding $50 million and apparently could not keep its door open without a federal subsidy. It received $10 million in 1980 and I note in this year's estimates that it will receive a subsidy of $15,797 million, almost $16 million just to see the show when there are people in this nation who will not even see the building. This subsidy is mainly for the benefit of the comfortable, insulated bureaucrats who live here in Ottawa.
The CBC is an example of another comfortable group. In 1980 the CBC was subsidized to the approximate amount of $579 million. When I look in the estimates books for this year I see a subsidy of $737,396 million. That is over $14 million a week. When I first came to Ottawa I remember speaking out about the CBC subsidy, which at that time was $52 million a year. I bitterly complained that $1 million a week was too much. It has now risen to $14 million a week in that brief period of time.
Where will it all end? When I quote figures such as those 1 must ask what the government is doing to set an example which would indicate that it is willing to face up to economic realities. Although this principle of calling for restraint by every Canadian is a noble one, it is a one-way street for those sitting on the government side of the House. It is a one-way street for cabinet who can, without flinching, earmark and approve the purchase of Petrofina at a cost estimated at between $365 million and $486 million more than was necessary to purchase it. But what did the government purchase? It acquired a chain of gas stations in eastern Canada. Did this make one more gallon of gasoline available to Canadians? I submit that we did not even get an ounce. Canadians will be paying dearly for at least the next 20 years for the blunder which was made by this government on that one transaction.
When my constituents write to me to ask, "Where is the money going? Why am I being taxed into bankruptcy?", I want them to know at least some of the reasons by illustrating them in my speech today.
This government has a perverted sense of equity which, I might add, is in keeping with its shoddy record of economic management. It is willing to spend over $250 million this year on self-serving advertising and publications in order to shore up its own image, while at the same time letting small businessmen and the home owners of this country go broke.

May 10, 1982
Canada Elections Act
More dangerous still, I submit, is the destruction of moral values, the breakdown of the home and the sense of frustration, hopelessness and despair faced by 1 'A million Canadians who are presently unemployed. This government is obviously ready recklessly to allow this House to expand in numbers which will curtail the ability of this House to be an effective voice of the people and will at the same time incur a greater cost to Canadian taxpayers.
I repeat again that we are here not only to represent our electors but to set an example for those we represent as the elected representatives of this country. We must all realize that there is a burden to be carried and if it means that we and our successors must represent a larger constituency, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, so be it. Not one of us should refuse to carry a heavier workload. We should be making a contribution to lessen the expenditures made to this government by the taxpayers.
This government forgets that it is not spending its own money, because it has none. I wish that the executive members of the government would remember that the government has no money and it is spending the taxpayers' money which is given to it in trust and in the hope that it will spend it wisely.
There are young, middle-aged and senior Canadians who are hurting today because of mismanagement by the present administration. If the burden imposed on them by this government can be lessened by not increasing the number of members in the House, I submit that that should be done. It can only be done by the executive and other members on that side of the House who support this government. It can only be done if they agree that this bill should be withdrawn.
Through the withdrawal of this bill, the government would indicate that it is not speaking pure rhetoric when it addresses the House or calls for restraint. It would indicate that it is at least making one move in good faith. It would be a gesture which would save millions of taxpayers' dollars and in the long run prevent further difficulties for members who represent the Canadian people. Members would have an adequate opportunity to represent their electors in the House.
The removal of this bill would be a good decision. Already members on the opposition side of the House have difficulty in making the needs of our people known in the chamber. Today, for example, one just has to see how many opposition members were recognized in the question period. I am not condemning anyone because the Speaker does her best, but if the size of the House is increased as proposed by this bill, there will be even less opportunity to present the views, needs and aspirations of the people we represent. It will be more difficult to speak in the chamber. It is for those reasons, and for many others I could give if time permitted, that this bill should be withdrawn.
Members on the other side of the House should be prepared to work harder and for a larger constituency. We on this side are prepared to follow that course. The sooner hon. members opposite come to their senses and take some responsibility of the state of the House of Commons and the state of this country, the better it will be for all Canadians.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate at the third reading stage of Bill C-58. Before I commence, I would like to make one or two comments on the remarks just made by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse).
While I do appreciate his concern that the membership of this chamber will get bigger and bigger according to some ancient formula that was agreed to many years ago, indeed generations ago, I would also like to remind the hon. member that we have somewhat of a dilemma on our hands. If we do not expand the number of members in this House, it therefore means that our constituencies will get larger and larger. I have nothing against larger constituencies personally; I have a very small constituency geographically, although in terms of population I have one of the larger ones in the country.
Does the hon. member for South Shore fully appreciate what this could conceivably lead to? It could lead to a situation, not one which obtains in the United Kingdom but which obtains south of our own border in the United States, where the average electoral district at the House of Representatives level comprises about a quarter of a million voters. Consequently, congressmen to whom I have spoken constantly lament the fact that they can never get to know their constituents. They each represent anywhere from a quarter of a million to half a million people at the House level in the United States. That is the average.
Apart from the fact that it costs maybe half a million dollars or a million dollars to get re-elected through their electoral system, they then must make their presence felt in their electoral districts through a whole army of assistants who are financed by the taxpayers. The minimum number of assistants in the constituency or electoral district of one congressman in the United States is 14. I believe most of us have only one. Some of us may have two part-time or three part-time assistants, depending on the nature of our ridings. Does the hon. member for South Shore suggest that by keeping the numbers down in this chamber, some day we will have 10, 12 or 15 assistants in the constituency in order to help us with our work there? I see that he is shaking his head in the negative. I did not think that was what he meant.
Also, congressmen in the U.S. each have at least a minimum of eight assistants in their Washington offices. I am quite sure we do not want to reach that level here. However, I started out by saying that it was a dilemma. It is a dilemma because I personally do not want to see this chamber getting any bigger than it is. In fact, I like the British House. I like Westminster where there is a very small chamber, debate is kept at a very intimate level, and only those members who are directly involved in a debate sit in the chamber at that time. The debates at Westminster are very informal. They are very exciting at times. It is not a huge chamber; it is an intimate area in which to debate. It was that great Tory, Winston Churchill, who argued, after the bombing of the House of Commons in London in World War II, that we should not
May 10, 1982

build a new, bigger one, but rather we should build a new one which was in fact smaller than the previous one in order to retain that intimacy. 1 do not think distribution or redistribution is even considered in this bill and I do not know why we have gone off on this tangent. However, I thought I would very briefly respond to the hon. member for South Shore.
There are four basic compromises or agreements in Bill C-58. Therefore, 1 doubt very much whether we will protract this debate much longer this afternoon. First, it makes the minimum period of time for an election 50 days. We have been accustomed to minimum election periods of 60, 62 or 65 days which, in modern times, is far too long. With the electronic media that we have at our disposal today, with jet planes which can jet leaders from one end of the country to the other in a matter of four or five hours, it is nonsense to say that a minimum election period must be 60 days.
The original draft of the bill stated that we would have a minimum period of 47 days. Some of us felt that that was far too short, so the steering committee and the committee itself arrived at a compromise whereby elections would be a minimum of 50 days.
Another aspect of Bill C-58 which is worthy of note is that nomination day will now be uniform and it will be "E" day minus 28, or 28 days before election day. This gave the committee some concern. We heard representations from a few hon. members who represent very large geographic areas of the country. Their ridings are very large and they have what I think they call mobile nomination meetings, or travelling shows, as I believe someone referred to them. There is some legitimate concern in very large areas of the country, very large ridings, where a series of nomination meetings are held and there may be three or four days between each meeting.
However, the committee did agree that 28 days should be long enough because what we should keep in mind is that what we are discussing here is not a limit of 28 days. That is the minimum period. Any constituency organization of any party worth its salt will get its incumbent member renominated well before 28 days prior to an election, and those which do not have incumbent members are not worth their salt unless they, too, hold nomination meetings well in advance of the election call. Consequently, there is no law prohibiting a political party from nominating a candidate months in advance or, indeed, even years in advance of an election. I see no problem there unless the incumbent member should decide at the last moment not to run again in one of those very large geographic electoral districts, or the incumbent member or the nominated candidate in that campaign takes seriously ill and cannot run and must withdraw at the last moment or, most sadly of all, if the candidate or the incumbent member should die, which would mean that a nomination meeting would have to be immediately organized. That is one consideration which still bothers me and I know it bothers some other hon. members as well. Nonetheless, the committee has agreed to let the 28 day minimum period go by.
Another good aspect of Bill C-58 is that it extends the voting period at the electoral officer's office from two weeks to
Canada Elections Act
three weeks for those who will be away on election day, excluding, of course, those days on which an advance poll will be held. Therefore, it gives the voters an extra week in which to vote at the returning officer's office. We are in agreement with that aspect.
A fourth aspect of Bill C-58 is that it extends the enumeration period from four days to seven days, and 1 think that is certainly a positive move. It also allows for at least one enumeration day to be on a weekend, preferably, I think, the Saturday of the two days, or it could be Sunday, I am not quite sure. In the past, we have found that in big urban areas, even in certain sections of a riding like mine, particularly where there are many apartment buildings, couples work during the week and this provision will allow the enumerators to get around and see them on a Saturday morning, or even on a Saturday evening.
While I am referring to enumerations, I must say that I am still concerned at the sloppiness of enumeration in this country.
I am not pointing my finger at any one person or office with regard to sloppiness. I mentioned it in committee. I am not satisfied that all the people who are eligible to vote get on the voters' list; I think we all know they do not. I am not satisfied that all those who are not allowed to be on the voters' list are, indeed, excluded from the voters' list. I do not know how to toughen up enumeration. I certainly do not want to see enumerators going into homes and demanding I.D.s, citizenship papers, proof of age and so on. That smacks too much of authoritarianism. Certainly, though, we will have to take a new look at enumeration to ensure that those who are eligible to vote are on the list and that those who are not eligible to vote are not on the list.
There are many other reforms much more important than Bill C-58 which should be brought on stream and put on the Order Paper just as soon as it is humanly possible. With all due respect, we have wasted two years in election reform which, I think, was a major issue in the 1980 election. It was certainly mentioned from one end of the country to the other. In two years all we have really come up with is Bill C-58. We have not touched upon redistribution. We have not touched upon enumeration. We have not touched upon mobile balloting for those who are physically incapable or find it physically difficult to get to the polls, yet the report of the special committee on the disabled brought that in as one of their foremost recommendations.
I know the parliamentary secretary has undertaken to ensure that such legislation will be forthcoming, but time is beginning to run out. If it will require the same kind of time frame to bring in these other reforms, redistribution and mobile balloting for the physically infirm as well as better enumeration laws and the whole question of time, with four and half different time zones in this country, how much longer will it take to bring in these much needed and more important reforms than the four mentioned in Bill C-58?

May 10, 1982
Canada Elections Act
We must impress upon the government that after the Chief Electoral Officer's report comes in on the eve of the next session, which I presume will be early next fall, that draft legislation should be put before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for our consideration so that these electoral reforms will be in place well in advance of the next election, which I anticipate will probably be two years from this spring, although a lot of Liberal backbenchers would prefer the spring of 1985 for obvious reasons that have nothing to do with election reform.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: You mean 1995.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That would probably help them more, but it would not help the country.
There is an important point 1 would encourage the parliamentary secretary to bring to the attention of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) in drafting new legislation, and that is the whole question of polls during election campaigns. We had a debate in this House, in which I took part, on a private member's bill with respect to polls during election campaigns. I am opposed to them and think they should be done away with. People should be able to think for themselves during election campaigns. Polls are destructive and negative. They give supporters of all parties either a false sense of security or false direction on how to plan their election campaign.
These are some of the reforms I would like to see brought on stream by the government as quickly as possible. I mentioned the four main parts of Bill C-58. I sincerely hope that passing this bill today will indicate to the government the willingness of those on this side, and they will ensure that these other reforms are brought in as soon as the Chief Electoral Officer's report is given to the government early this fall.
With those remarks, I look forward to more creative work in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that we can update our election laws and bring some of them at least into the 1980s.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is again a privilege to have the opportunity to bring to this House of Commons some of the thoughts I gathered over the several months preceding the redistribution process that we are now undertaking. I am disappointed that the government did not take this period of time to bring in the type of election reform mentioned by the two previous speakers. The government is really missing the boat by not doing something like that during this period. Both the spokesman for the government and the Chief Electoral Officer stated that they did not think the next election would be fought on the redistributed boundaries. This is why we are going through this exercise.
Surely we learned our lesson in the 1972-74 period and prior to the 1974 election. Suspension law was brought in and that election was fought on old boundaries. We are going to go through the same thing again in 1984, yet we are still putting people in the field. Orders have gone out, the law has to be abided by, the Chief Electoral Officer's hands are tied and he
cannot do anything about it. This is not only a useless exercise, but costly.
If the government had wanted to be responsible on this issue, it would have taken this period of time that apparently will be available and brought in some of these measures which are fundamental to the House of Commons. We do not need to make this House larger; 1 am sure there are ways and means of making it more effective. Increasing the membership in this House will not accomplish that.
I have always maintained that Canadians are the most overgoverned people in the world. We in Canada have over a thousand elected or appointed officials to govern 25 million people. The best example I can give is the United Kingdom which has 635 members for 57 million people.
I was pleased with the very good discussion we had in committee on my private member's bill, C-223. The witnesses who appeared before that committee represented a fairly broad spectrum of our society. We were told that unless we exercise some control in the immediate future, the whole thing will explode and there will be too many chiefs for the number of people we have. We have to look at this.
The current formula for reapportioning seats in the House of Commons is basically unrealistic. It does not take a great mathematician to figure out what the size of the House will be in 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years when every ten years the size of the House goes up by 10 per cent or more. This cumulative effect will be disastrous down the road. Now is the time to do something about it.
Canada is overgoverned compared with other countries in the world. We have at least three levels of government in every city, town, village and crossroads hamlet in this country. In some jurisdictions where there is a metro or regional form of government, there are four levels of government. In Ottawa there are five with the National Capital Commission, it being the non-elected fifth tier of government.
In most European states there is a pure federal or unity form of government. There are no levels in between the municipalities and the central government. If you look, Mr. Speaker, at the statistics in Europe-France, Britain, Germany and others-you will see there are far fewer lawmakers, far fewer legislators and far fewer politicians representing far more constituents, far more voters.
Increasing the size of the membership of the House of Commons will do little or nothing to bring about the reform of government which is so desperately needed in this country. It will serve only to dilute the powers and functions of members of Parliament. For years this country functioned with fewer than 250 Members of Parliament. The size was increased to 264 and then expanded to 282.
The present formula, a 1974 amendment to the British North America Act, has so far shown us that it is a cumbersome and unworkable piece of arithmetic. We know how long it takes to put the reapportionment in place. We know that as soon as it is in place, it is obsolete and redundant.
May 10, 1982

Redistribution is supposed to follow every ten-year census, but by the time the draftsmen and the bureaucrats have the new boundaries and numbers in place, they are outdated and do not have any built-in checks for areas of rapid growth. Certainly this is what is happening in my province. Under the present system, at any given time we are entitled to anywhere from three to five members more than we have, but we are willing to change that. As soon as a province experiencing a high growth rate has its seats reapportioned, it is almost immediately underrepresented and must wait another ten years before any alterations can take place. The 1981 census figures have only recently been available to the Chief Electoral Officer and, by law, he has to set the machinery in motion to redistribute electoral boundaries across Canada. On the basis of the experience of the 1970s, we can rest assured that the new boundaries will not be in place for the next federal election. They will be in place for the federal election we will have at the end of this decade; by that time they will again be outdated, and a year or two later the same process will begin anew.
Surely there is an argument for retaining the Elouse of Commons at its present size or for making it smaller. Common sense requires that. Economy demands it. Running Parliament is not a run-of-the-mill operation. It is an extensive business, and we have an obligation to set an example for the rest of the country.
My colleague, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), mentioned that if we followed the route the United States has taken, there would be more people working in our constituency offices. I do not think that is really necessary. If there was less government interference in private business and in our private lives, we would not have so many problems and it would not take so much time and so many people to make the system work.
Ours is an expensive business, and we have an obligation to set an example and run a lean, thrifty operation. Increasing the size of the membership of the House will place demands on the public purse. I fear that increasing the size of this House would reduce the role of the individual Member of Parliament to that of a mere cypher to be around only at voting time in the House. More and more power would be concentrated in the cabinet and in the office of the Prime Minister. There is too much power there now, and there are no checks on that power. That does not augur well for the common good.
The House of Commons is the highest court in the land. Its members should be close to the decision-making process and close to the framing of the laws which direct our society. In every instance members should be elected to this House directly by their peers. We do not need proportional representation. We need a representative body which mirrors our society, our culture and our Canadian way of life. If reform is needed, it is needed in the manner in which we function. If
Canada Elections Act
reform is needed, it is needed in the areas of rules and committees and in the frugal use of the time of the House. There are ways by which we could accomplish this, and it would be for the betterment of our society if we did.
Let me return to the matter of the Senate. The Senate is a prime candidate and ripe for reform. Senator Duff Roblin made an excellent speech on this very important topic in that chamber not too long ago. I wish the government would move in the direction suggested in our advice. It is the responsibility of the government to reform the Senate. That would make Parliament more relevant, more effective and more responsive. If changes to the Senate were made, I am sure that would free up Members of Parliament to accomplish much more.
We must realize that the Canadian people expect us to make major adjustments. Canadians do not want an increase in the membership of the House of Commons. Canadians want an elected Senate. They do not want political parties appointing people to the other place. They do not want provinces appointing the membership of the other place. They want a responsive membership in the Senate, and they want senators elected so that they, too, must return to the people and be responsible.
If we do not make some of these changes, 1 really do not know what will happen to our country. I know there is a great deal of unrest in my province. That unrest is the result of a government which will not accept its responsibility. It will not allow other people to change the system, but it will do nothing itself. It has a dog-in-the-manger attitude, and that is not acceptable to those of us in the House who are in opposition or to the Canadian people.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the subject of electoral reform is not one which causes grown men to cry or women to swoon. However, how we handle an election in a parliamentary democracy is extremely important, and what takes place and the procedures utilized in an election make all the difference in the way democracy operates.
I have no objections to this bill. It comes to us from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. That committee of this House is one of the few which operates on an allparty basis. All its members have the same interest in making the system better. It is a pity there are not more committees working on that basis.
With respect to this bill, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections reached a consensus on two important figures. It was agreed that the length of election campaigns should be revised from the initially-intended 47 days up to 50 days and that the length of the enumeration period be increased from four days to seven days. I will be asked many questions about why 50 days and not 30 days or 20 days? I think the answer lies in the fact that there is a rural point of view and an urban point of view. For those of us coming from defined urban areas a much shorter election period would be quite satisfactory.
We can get around our ridings and meet the people by various means of communication. Because of this a much

May 10, 1982
Canada Elections Act
shorter election campaign would be appropriate, as is the case in many provinces. Elowever, one riding in the middle of British Columbia is 500 miles long. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) must attend a minimum of five nomination meetings in five different centres, all of them hundreds of miles apart. That makes a difference. The best compromise, and the one 1 think all parties agreed on, was that rather than 47 days, 50 days made a great deal of sense and seemed to be a reasonable compromise satisfactory to both the urban point of view and to the rural point of view.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce stated recently that the current 60-day campaign was established prior to the development of modern transportation and electronic communications. At the last annual meeting of the chamber delegates agreed that a two-month interruption of public business for an election campaign was unnecessarily long and that shorter campaigns would benefit Canadians by concentrating debate, providing a better public focus on issues and policies, reducing the cost of a campaign and minimizing interruptions of the nation's business. As a result of this bill, 50 days will be a shorter period and, hopefully, will meet some of the demands and concerns of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
The duration of election campaigns varies from country to country. The institution of permanent voters' lists in Australia and the U.K. has made it possible for much shorter election campaigns. The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada has investigated the suggestion of a permanent voters' list for Canada. We do not have one, and I doubt very much whether, all things considered, we should. The estimated cost of a permanent voters' list for Canada is some $30 million per year. On a cost basis it seems that is one aspect of electoral reform which should not be undertaken in this country.
The enumeration period and the difficulties of enumeration are probably the chief problems encountered at the beginning of any election campaign. This is one reason we fought hard and that finally the committee again came to total agreement that the enumeration period should be lengthened slightly to ensure better enumeration, particularly when the weekend is available. As Bill C-58 now reads, it will guarantee a period of 11 days between the calling of an election and the beginning of an enumeration; five days for the candidates to select their enumerators and five and a half days for the returning officer to train them. The Chief Elector Officer is in favour of this as,
1 think, will be most members of the Elouse who have studied the issue.
There will be questions about the Provincial election periods in the different provinces. It is 21 days in Newfoundland; 26 days in P.E.I.; 36 days in New Brunswick; 32 days in Quebec; 37 days in Ontario; 35 days in Manitoba; 28 days in Saskatchewan; 29 days in Alberta and 38 days in British Columbia.
I point out to those who wish to compare the federal position with that of the provinces that a federal riding normally encompasses an area which may include as many as five provincial ridings and constituencies. On that basis alone a
federal campaign must take somewhat longer than a provincial campaign.
It is not what is in this bill that concerns me, Mr. Speaker, it is what is not in the bill. It is the fact that the government has overlooked so many things that should have been part of the legislation. I doubt if the debate would have gone as long today had the government brought in the reforms that should be in the bill. Other hon. members have spoken about these things, such as the number of representatives in the House and some thoughts about parliamentary reform and other recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer over the years about which nothing has been done. That is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to turn now to the question of new boundaries because the machinery for that is now in place. The Chief Electoral Officer says that he will not change the boundaries, will not add the 29 seats, and cannot have that work done prior to October, 1984. If the work cannot be done prior to 1984, that means it is extremely likely that the next federal election campaign will be fought on the same boundaries as exist today. If that happens it means considerable injustice in many ridings of the country. I will give a few examples, Mr. Speaker. Richmond-South Delta will have 55 per cent more population than other ridings; Surrey-White Rock-North Delta will have 65 per cent more than other ridings; Calgary East will have 88 per cent more than other ridings; and Pembina in Manitoba will have 67 per cent above quotient. There are several ridings in Ontario that are in an even worse situation.
If the representation order does not come into force before the next federal election, members from oversized constituencies will be overburdened for years to come. The present position is punitive and discriminatory so far as these members and their constituents are concerned.
Another matter was raised today in question period by the hon. member for Kingston and the Island (Miss MacDonald). The wives of servicemen are required to vote where the husband is registered. The problem with that is that that provision is not contained in the Canada Elections Act. Certainly those wives who are Canadian citizens should have the right to choose where they wish to vote and under what circumstances.
Many other recommendations were made by the Chief Electoral Officer which could have been included in the bill, such as deletion of the present provisions concerning the posting of preliminary lists of electors; more flexibility in setting the maximum member of electors per polling station; promoting or opposing the election of a party or candidate through media interviews; and partisan activity on polling days.
There have been representations from every tourist organization in the country about the sale of alcoholic beverages on polling day. This is an outdated provision still contained in the Canada Elections Act. It is costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars in a federal election period and is damaging the tourist industry. Surely a simple matter like that could have been corrected in this bill.
May 10, 1982

Another problem is third party advertising. The government does not know yet what it will do about that. The identification of printers and publishers on printed advertisements is another problem, as is the change in the names of electoral districts. There should be clarification of the discretionary powers of the Chief Electoral Officer as contained in subsection 13(8) of the Canada Elections Act.
I did not invent these things, Mr. Speaker; they are contained in reports of the Chief Electoral Officer made to Parliament in the past and no action has been taken on them. This makes his job much more difficult. In this case the government is not guilty of excess; it is guilty of not doing anything. The Chief Electoral Officer has made a good many recommendations that should have been looked after.
Another matter that should have been addressed in the bill is that of vacancies. There are three seats in the House of Commons which are vacant. After 60 days of a seat being declared vacant surely a date could be set for a byelection. The law as it stands is totally unfair to the people of three ridings who have no representation in this House. The government does not have to announce the date of a byelection prior to September and then it can be announced for any time up to and including February, 1985 or until this Parliament ends.
I should point out that the riding of Timiskaming has not had a sitting member since January 22, Broadview-Greenwood has not had a member since March 2 and Leeds-Grenville since the middle of March. It is now the middle of May, Mr. Speaker. When are these constituencies going to be represented in the House of Commons? Why is the government afraid to look after that problem?
1 am in favour of the bill as it stands, Mr. Speaker. It represents a compromise among the parties and will operate in the best interests of Canada. In my view, its main defect is that it addresses one small problem, rather than the hundreds of problems that exist.
I think we should let this bill go through, Mr. Speaker, but we should plead with the government to bring in the other reforms that are necessary as soon as possible. I am ready to vote, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak on this bill today but I should like to take about three minutes to clarify points raised by hon. members opposite.
I am pleased that we appear to be at the end of the debate on the bill. Had we enforced the rule of relevancy, however, I think the debate would have been much shorter today. Most of the discussion that has gone on did not have anything to do with the bill but, being on who never likes to cut off debate, I thought it would be good to air the concerns that some hon. members have when the broader subject of elections is raised.
This bill does not deal with redistribution, Mr. Speaker. Some hon. members are concerned about redistribution, and in response to that the government agreed to refer the matter of
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
redistribution to the standing committee. As a result there have been a number of meetings on that subject, expert witnesses have been called and the issue has been aired.
This bill does not deal with redistribution, however; it deals with a shorter election period, reducing it from 60 days to 50 days. This is accomplished mainly by eliminating the need for the preliminary lists that are posted.
It also lengthens the enumeration period from four days to seven days so as to provide for a more thorough enumeration. All parties gave somewhat in the negotiations on this bill and I understand all parties have agreed to it. It is an improvement and moves in the right direction and I am delighted that it appears it will receive third reading today.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


UREA FORMALDEHYDE INSULATION ACT
André Ouellet: that Bill C-109, to provide for payments to persons in respect of dwellings insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am taking the floor to propose that the House approve this bill, which will enable us to provide for payments to owners of homes insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. First of all, I should like to make it clear that notwithstanding the lack of comprehension of UFFI victims for our government assistance program and the lack of confidence in the government expressed, from time to time, by certain victims, and despite the accusations and insults addressed by some home owners to the government and to me in particular, the Canadian government is determined to find a solution to the problems besetting the owners of UFFI homes.
Personally, I do not harbour any resentment or bitterness with respect to those people who twice came to demonstrate in front of my constituency office. I think that their exasperation and their demands are the natural result of the suffering, anxiety and uncertainty they are experiencing. I want to make it clear to these people that I shall discharge fully my ministerial responsibilities-namely, to find a solution to this problem,-with all the necessary energy and conviction, and that we, as a government, must find a solution to their problems. I wish they would understand that my task would be much easier if I now had all the answers to their questions. It is easy for men and women in the public eye to take part in public rallies and tell UFFI victims what they want to hear. It is much harder to find a solution to their problems.

May 10, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
I am looking for a scientific answer, because I believe it is important to give UFFI victims sound advice. It would be easier, of course, to provide temporary solutions to the problem, instead of concentrating on the scientific approach to find out what can be done to reduce gas levels produced by UFFI. I cannot say that I am very happy about my lack of popularity, but I am prepared to put up with it, because I feel it is my duty to find a real solution to the UFFI problem. I also see it as my duty not to waste public funds, and that is why distinctions must be made and why there are profound differences of opinion about what the Government of Canada wants to do now to help UFFI victims and what the victims themselves would like to see done. The first distinction and issue on which there is a basic difference of opinion relates to removal of the product. Our assistance program is based on a series of measures aimed at reducing formaldehyde gas levels in homes. Our program clearly does not stress removal of UFFI.
And why not? It is because, to date, experts at the National Research Council of Canada have not told us that removal of UFFI should be a priority. On the contrary, all the scientific information available to us shows that UFFI removal in homes should be seen as a last resort, and that before contemplating this costly operation, there are many other approaches that should be tried by home owners. This is therefore a first and very basic difference of opinion. We feel that the tax-free grant of up to $5,000 is an adequate response to the needs of most people who will have to do work on their homes. On the other hand, UFFI victims who believe that the product must be removed right away, will feel that $5,000 is certainly not enough. This difference of opinion will continue as long as the scientific experts working for the National Research Council of Canada have not reached a conclusion. In fact, from the research that has been done, it seems that home owners who did remove the product from the walls of their homes were unable to treat satisfactorily the framework and woodwork, and there is a possibility that these parts of the house are still being affected by the gas and that as a result, only part of the problem has been solved. We must therefore wait for the findings of the experts before we decide whether or not the product should be removed from the walls of homes insulated with UFFI.
The other basic subject of disagreement concerns the health hazard represented by this product. We know that the officials of the department of National Health and Welfare have set a standard of 0.1 parts per million, and all the opinions we have obtained suggest that if the formaldehyde contents in a house is lower than this level of 0.1, there should not normally be any health hazard. Some owners with parents, children, or, in some case, adult relatives who have been affected by the product do not accept the standard of 0.1 and consider the product dangerous at an even lower level. Needless to say, this standard is the subject of many discussions and major contradictions. I must admit that I am not a scientist or a physician and
that therefore, regarding the implementation of this government program, I must rely not on the very legitimate impulses and reactions of the victims of this product, but rather on the opinion of experts and physicians; as long as the scientific and medical aspects of this issue have not been settled, we shall find it difficult to understand and interpret the program of the Canadian government.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that I want to make clear. The government of Canada should not be blamed for this matter. I know that, later on in this debate, members opposite will attempt to throw the blame on the government or the officials acting on its behalf. That is simply partisan politics and I do not believe that it is to the advantage of those affected by this problem. I think that we must recognize one thing, namely that the government has attempted to develop a whole series of measures to provide generous assistance to those affected by this product. Bill C-109 now under consideration is in keeping with the initiatives taken by the government of Canada to help home owners now facing certain problems. The action we are taking will affect many areas, and I would like to summarize briefly what we have done already and what we want to do with the co-operation of the victims themselves.
We have three major objectives. First, to give back confidence in the value of homes insulated with urea formaldehyde foam; second, to reassure the public about the health hazard; and third, to provide immediate assistance and as soon as possible to those who have health or housing problems because of this product. One of the first initiatives taken by the government was to create a co-ordination and information centre on urea formaldehyde foam insulation. The centre served as focussing point for the government assistance program by providing advice and information to the thousands of homeowners concerned.
As I am speaking, Mr. Speaker, I can say that some 21,050 people are already registered with this center and have filled out the necessary forms to take advantage of the assistance program we are making available. The results obtained from our testing programs through an extensive sampling of Canadian homes as well as scientific data have served as a basis for the legislation we are introducing today. I remind the House that Canada is the first country in the world ever to ban urea formaldehyde foam insulation. We are therefore pioneers in this area of science and engineering. The centre has pooled the resources of various federal departments and agencies as well as of many private organizations. I should like to emphasize that several governments are inquiring of Canada as to the means of coping with this problem in their respective countries, because this product has been in use for about ten years in some thirty countries. I should like to return now to the three main objectives I mentioned earlier. First, to restore
May 10, 1982

confidence in the value of homes insulated with UFFI. And as recently as this afternoon, during the oral question period, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) put the following question to me, and I quote:
Has the government considered any further compensation for the 80 per cent of people who will not qualify for compensation under the bill today who find their homes being depreciated in value, who find they cannot sell their homes and who find they are having difficulty getting conventional mortgages on their homes?

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the sensationalism which has surrounded this issue is directly responsible for the depreciated value of those properties. If 80 per cent of home owners, and those are the figures provided by the member for St. John's East, have no health problem or any difficulty with that product and consequently are not eligible for our program, it means that the fear which is being instilled by some people about that product is grossly exaggerated and unjustified. Our polls clearly indicate-


Mr. Skelly:: What does the U.S. government say?


André Ouellet: I will get to that in a few minutes if the hon. member will allow me to speak and finish my remarks. Some of you are responsible for the prices being lowered on these homes because of your irresponsibility-


Raymond John Skelly: You are irresponsible. That is the reason. [Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, those who want to interrupt me show their irresponsibility because unfortunately, we have greatly overrated the importance of the problem. It is serious for those who are living in a house where the level of formaldehyde is too high. It is serious for those who are physically affected by the product, but it is not a serious problem for those who are not affected by the product and in whose house the formaldehyde level is acceptable. Consequently the value of those properties should not decrease. It is only because the matter received bad publicity that the problem was blown out of proportion, with 80 per cent of home owners having suffered a loss of value and needing our help and our program to restore their property's fair value. What we intend to do is provide free tests in order to scientifically and adequately measure the level of formaldehyde, take appropriate steps to bring it to an acceptable level and, above all, issue a certificate that they have safe homes that are fit for occupancy. It is to the extent that we can carry out that program that we will restore the value such properly insulated homes, whose occupants are not affected by the product, should always have retained, but as far as the other homes are concerned, we intend to reduce significantly the level of formaldehyde when it is felt to be too high.
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
We take the time needed to put the program in place. Some might say our progress is too slow. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we are progressing slowly. We do so because we do not want to take the risk of putting the victims in a difficult situation. It is our view that we should not only give those home owners free expert advice, but also provide a list of qualified contractors that are duly approved to do the necessary work. We are convinced that a major part of the problem stems from the fact that the work was improperly done originally by unqualified contractors who did poor insulation job and are directly responsible to a large extent for the problem those owners of foam-insulated homes are facing today.
Now, if we want to help those homeowners adequately, it is important that we protect them and ensure that qualified contractors do the work on their homes. It is worthwhile, in my opinion, taking a few weeks, as we are now doing, to qualify those contractors in order that they do not take advantage of the victims of foam-insulated homes.
It is my view that over and above that problem confronting the Canadian men and women who have foam-insulated homes is the whole question of the Canadian public's attitude to the problem and our obligation to reassure the public as far as health hazards are concerned. That is why we have spent thousands of dollars on exhaustive research and development to find new and better corrective measures, so that through long and short-term medical research we may be better equipped against that type of threat that can strike at any moment. I feel that the money we have offered to the various independent associations of UFFI homes in order to help them group together and get, not only from the Canadian government but also from their provincial and municipal governments, concerned attention, direct help and, above all, generous understanding is money well spent. The money we granted those independent home owners' associations will bear fruit, I trust, and will enable us, in co-operation with the representatives of the various victims organizations, to do even better in the interest of the harmed parties, the home owners. Finally, in closing, I should like to mention this: some would have us believe that much has been done in this regard in the United States, like the hon. member who has just interrupted me asking about what is being done in the United States. Let me tell you about it.

The Massachusetts repurchase program, the so-called buyback plan, has been highlighted as being important and generous and as the thing we should do in Canada. I want to note that the cost of the buy-back plan was to be borne exclusively by industry, not by government, and that the manufacturers or the installers were held responsible for remedial actions. Indeed, the federal government of Canada considered this policy or option before formulating the types of assistance

May 10, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
programs we gave to Canadians. We did not follow the American experience because we knew that the American program was not very generous and was certainly not one which would quickly pay dividends for home owners. Instead we retained our program which gave free testing, technical advice and financial assistance of up to $5,000 to home owners in Canada in an attempt to remedy their problems.
On January 29, 1982, the superior court of Massachusetts set aside the ban and the buy-back regulations as a result of a challenge by the industry. Therefore, home owners in Massachusetts today are faced with no assistance. Just recently consumer protection agencies voted four to one to ban UFFI nationally in the United States. This is not yet in effect but it is expected that it will be in effect some time this summer. Those who compare what we have done in Canada with what was done in the United States should keep in mind that we have been much faster and much more generous in Canada in trying to help the victims of UFFI.
Another aspect of this question is that some people try to pretend that the federal government has some responsibility because the product was accepted under CHIP. Let me say that in 1977 the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation accepted this product, along with close to 100 other types of insulation, as an eligible building material under the Canadian Home Insulation Program. This acceptance was based on a standard developed under the auspices of the Canadian General Standards Board. Such voluntary standards are written through the medium of standards committees and the consensus process. The committees are representative of relevant interests including producers, consumers and other users such as retailers, governments and educational institutions, as well as technical, professional and trade societies and research and testing organizations. In other words, there are many other people involved in the standards boards.
The acceptance of this product under the Canadian Home Insulation Program was conditional upon the observance of rigid standards in its installation. Unfortunately, it is evident now that some contractors did not respect these established standards and the Canadian General Standards Board had no legal power to enforce them. This is known by the opposition as well as by us.
While politicians on the other side conduct petty politics over this question, they are not rendering any service to the home owners who have problems today. Prior to November, 1979, only two complaints had been registered with this department concerning this product. By September of the following year, approximately 100 complaints had been received. Although only a handful of these were substantiated, Health and Welfare Canada set up an independent committee
of experts to inquire into the potential health effects which could arise from the use of this product. This committee recommended in its interim report of December, 1980, that the use of UFFI be discontinued. The product was then banned under the Hazardous Products Act.
[ Translation]
That is the sequence of events that led the government to ban the use of that product and act as no other government has done in any other country. Obviously, the government wants to help the victims of that product. It has done something concrete about it. First, it banned the product to stem the evil. Second, it pleaded the homeowners' case before the board of review that was set up under the Hazardous Products Act, which act allows the industry to appeal the decision of the government. In other words, the government submitted the case of the victims before the board of review. The legal advisers of my department are the ones who pleaded the case for keeping the ban on the use of that product in Canada before the board of review in the interest of the victims. My departmental officials are the ones who developed the assistance program; our government is the only one in Canada to pay a certain amount of money to the victims of this product to the extent of $5,000 that is not taxable. Those are the facts. I wish the other provinces, especially Ontario and the province of Quebec, where a considerable number of home owners suffered from the use of that product, had shown comparable generosity towards the victims and offered each home owner $5,000, the amount we are willing to offer them. I feel it behoves other levels of government to quit talking and start doing something concrete like offering specific amounts of money with a view to helping the victims make the necessary repairs to their homes. I can solemnly promise in this House, Mr. Speaker, that my department and our government will continue to work towards helping the victims of UFFI.
We are anxious to become acquainted with the findings of the review board over which we have no authority and which is acting as a quasi-judicial body. We hope, however, to receive its report shortly and that it will confirm that this product is dangerous and must continue to be considered as such; once this matter is settled once and for all, we can take the second step which, in my opinion, is very important. I have already indicated publicly on a number of occasions that if the federal government is ready to do its share, the provincial governments as well as the private sector should likewise be ready to do their part. As soon as I am satisfied, on the basis of the review board findings, that the product is deemed dangerous once and for all, something I expect and hope, I promise to make further representations and step up my efforts to convince the provincial governments and the private sector, especially the manufacturing industry, to do their part and help UFFI victims.
May 10, 1982



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)-The economy-(a) Cabinet meeting at Meach Lake, P.Q. (b) Situation in Canada vis-a-vis United States (c) Government position; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Corporate Affairs (a) Investigation on Consolidated Computers Inc. (b) Role of Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)- External Affairs-(a) Reported Canada-France agreement on Saint-Pierre and Miquelon Islands (b) Request that agreement be made public.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-109, to provide for payments to persons in respect of dwellings insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to lead off this debate for our side, not only on behalf of the official opposition but on behalf of 80,000 to 100,000 families across Canada. I intend to speak out on behalf of some 250,000 to 300,000 Canadians who have suffered, are now suffering and who will continue to suffer from the effects of urea formaldehyde foam insulation unless this government acts.
I ask you to picture, Mr. Speaker, anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 heads of households sitting in this chamber. Since it is impossible to visualize that many people jamming into this House of Commons facility, picture an overflow crowd at Olympic Stadium in Montreal and the Canadian National Exhibition Stadium in Toronto combined. I am absolutely certain that the vast majority, if not all, of the home owners whose homes are contaminated with UFFI would say to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), who just finished introducing second reading of Bill C-109, in one loud voice from those two stadium precisely what I am about to tell him-that this bill is a pathetic joke. It is an insult to those seeking responsible government action to assist them in their plight. It is a pitifully small band-aid measure which cannot begin to cover either the health damage or economic hurt which has been caused by this government.
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
Make no mistake, this Liberal government has created a monster that will not go away, a monster which will not respond to the pop-gun approach by the federal government in this bill.
Based on the government's urging, Canadians acted to insulate their homes using a government approved substance, one of several forms of insulation-as the minister correctly pointed out, but one which the government itself manufactured-urea formaldehyde foam insulation. There is absolutely no question that home owners or tenants, nor I daresay this government, would not have recommended and used this product knowing what we now know about its actual and potentially disastrous effects on people's health. I will deal with this government's undeniable responsibility in this UFFI crisis in a few moments.
I would like first to serve notice on the minister and the government that we on this side of the House would like to see reasonably speedy passage of the bill through second reading so that it can move on to the appropriate standing committee. I say that we would like to be reasonable in expediting this bill, although I know there are several of my colleagues in the official opposition, as I am sure there are a number of hon. members on the government side of the House, who are receiving strenuous representations from their constituents and who will want to enter this debate. We do, however, have a major concern about this legislation, quite apart from its glaring inadequacies in terms of compensation for home owners. Even as it stands, it is merely a skeleton of a bill. It contains only nine classes and everything in the bill depends on regulations to be made by order in council. These regulations are the heart and soul of the bill. They will set out who will be eligible for remedial grants, what criteria will apply and what compensation will be available to those unfortunate Canadians who qualify.
Surely the minister does not expect us to give him a blank cheque for some $55 million when it comes to the health, safety and financial security of a quarter of a million or more Canadians. Therefore, we on this side want to see the government's proposed regulations before we consider passing this bill; otherwise, we are being asked to approve legislation which we and Canadian home owners with UFFI will not see. Unless we have the regulations before us, we will not be able to examine them before the committee and individuals and groups of home owners will justifiably remain skeptical about the government's commitments to a truly effective and equitable compensation program.
Knowing the type of regulations which have recently come into being by order in cabinet, the minister should not be too surprised by our skepticism and concern. I urge the minister to let the committee examine the draft regulations that he has in

May 10, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
mind. Indeed, we may even wish to include some of those regulations in the legislation.
There is a precedent for this situation. During the Clark administration in 1979, when we were in second reading stage of Bill C-25, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, our government broke with precedent in order to table draft regulations. The minister's co-operation in this connection concerning this bill's regulations would be most helpful. We have some questions to ask and recommendations to make concerning this bill, but 1 will deal with them later in my remarks. Let me come to the area of responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the federal government itself was the cause of the problem for Canadian home owners, that the federal government itself promoted UFFI and later banned it as dangerous. It was the federal government that warned Canadian consumers about the physical symptoms related to UFFI. It was the federal government that established the nationwide review board which will confirm its conclusions on UFFI, and the federal government therefore has the immediate and full responsibility of getting the Canadian home owners out of trouble. If this means a public statement, if this means another blow to the building industry, if this means another expenditure to protect the health of this nation, very well.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) cannot blame the media, the provinces, the manufacturers and the installers, nor can he blame the official opposition. He can only blame the ignorance of his department and his government, as well as the carelessness and the conflicts of interest which have brought about one of the worst tragedies in Canadian history.

The UFFI mess is a classic case of one arm or several arms of government not knowing what the other arms are doing. There is abundant historical evidence to prove this, although the government has thus far declined to answer some of our questions to confirm the facts. Mr. Cliff Shirtliffe, a research officer with the National Research Council, appeared before the hazardous products board of review. The minister says he is impatient to receive the report of that board of review. I can tell hon. members that there are a good many thousands of Canadians and many of us on the opposition side who are equally impatient to see those results.
At that board of review hearing on August 14, 1981, Mr. Shirtliffe said that he recalled a meeting in 1974 with CMHC and industry representatives to explain whether or not the reported cases of allergic reaction to the foam could be true. Assurance was given by the industry people that they themselves were not affected. However, as far back as 1974 there was a request to the Department of National Health and Welfare to review the toxicity of the foam. Mr. Shirtliffe also stated at the time that the problem concerning the gas released from the foam is that little is known about the effects of longterm exposure to low levels of the toxic chemical. He noted,
back then, that the federal committee investigating insulation materials was particularly concerned over the potential dangers of long-term exposure of children and older people to the gas.
Then in August, 1978 Dr. Richard Viau, who was then acting head of the chemical and fire safety program of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and who is now, I understand, its director, warned in an interview with Jim Travers of Southam News that "people should think quite carefully before installing this product in their homes". He went on to say, "Formaldehyde is a very irritating chemical and exposure can lead to headaches, allergies and a whole gamut of other problems". He also acknowledged that complaints of irritation and nausea had been received by government officials and that the government was aware of earlier studies done in Europe, Scandinavia and the United States describing problems with urea-formaldehyde foam insulation. But even as his own senior official was issuing this warning, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was sending out thank you notices to home owners with UFFI. I have in my hand a faded copy of one of them, and it reads:
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish to express my appreciation for your participation in the conserving of energy through the Canadian Home Insulation Program.
It was signed by the minister's own hand, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Only after several states had banned the use of the material, long after most of the 80,000 to 100,000 home owners took the government's advice and installed UFFI, did the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) begin to get concerned. There was then a series of news releases. I will just read the gist or the opening paragraphs of each of these releases. On September 19, 1980, the first time we heard of government concern, the government stated:
"Increasing reports of health problems that have been linked to the use of urea formaldehyde foam insultation are of serious concern to my department", National Health and Welfare Minister Monique Begin stated today-
A primary concern with UFFI is the release of formaldehyde gas into living areas, both during installation and for several years afterward.
That was the government's warning in September of 1980. Then, in December, 1980 another news release stated:
Steps to institute a temporary ban on the use of urea formaldehyde foam insulation were announced today by Health and Welfare Minister Monique Begin and Consumer and Corporate Affairs Minister Andre Ouellet.. .The government's decision to act at this time flows from the committee's expressed "serious concerns regarding the health hazards posed by the presence of formaldehyde in homes insulated with UFFI".
That was the expert advisory committee which the government had set up to look into problems relating to UFFI. If I may correct a statement which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made earlier during his remarks, the expert advisory committee said it was not prepared to recommend any level of formaldehyde as being safe. Therefore, I am wondering whether the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is now rejecting the basic advice which prompted the ban on the product.
May 10, 1982

The committee also stated that each individual will react differently to formaldehyde under different climactic conditions and under different methods of installation. The expert advisory committee stated that the level of 0.1 parts per million is not a definite level of danger; it is simply an arbitrary one picked out of the air. That level was used based on the law of averages in terms of the way it affected Canadians.
Finally, on April 23, 1981 the Minister of National Health and Welfare recommended that the ban on the use of the product, urea formaldehyde foam, be continued because of chronic exposure to formaldehyde from leakage of gas into the living space of homes over long periods of time.
We are discussing the product itself here, the urea formaldehyde foam insulation, which is unstable. That is what the expert advisory committee was talking about and that is what the board of review is investigating now, the safety or otherwise of the product.
If there was any incorrect installation or if there were any faulty licences distributed to manufacturers, that is a matter for the courts to decide. It is something on which the provinces could be pursued. The main thing we are looking at now is the foam itself which is causing Canadians headaches and heartaches. It is the product I am concerned about here.
That is a little of the painful chronology which makes us realize how deeply the federal government became involved in this UFFI crisis as far back as 1974. Here we are in the second week of May, 1982 and we are actually getting a chance to debate second reading of a program the minister first announced on December 23, 1981. It was fully four and a half months before the government could get some legislation before the House and four and a half years after the government started to utter warnings to itself about the instability of this foam product.
Then the government delivers this mouse of a piece of legislation which is somehow supposed to redress the grievances of several hundred thousand Canadians who became unwitting victims of this government's blundering into one of the most monumental gaffs in Canadian history.
What has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs been telling Canadians in the meantime? What encouragement does this umbrella ministerial spokesman for some five or six different government departments offer UFFI home owners? I do not know if the minister remembers a headline from Rock Forest in Quebec.

"Go and see a doctor if you are ill." The minister then added: "People should not wait for the government to act. If they have problems with their installation because it does not work as expected, they should sue the contractor or the manufacturer. If they have health problems, they should see a doctor."
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act

In effect, the minister tells them not to wait for the government to act if they are worried about the foam, that they should take it out themselves. A few minutes ago the minister told the House that the evidence he has from the National Research Council is that it would make the problem worse if they took it out, or to take it out only as a last resort. Small wonder Canadians are very confused and angered by this urea formaldehyde foam crisis.
In answer to questions my colleagues and I put to the minister in the House of Commons, and again just a few moments ago, the minister has been quick to blame everybody else in sight for this disaster. He blames the provinces, the contractors and the installers.

The government also has the impression that there has been an excessive amount of bad publicity and very often too little action concerning the UFFI and that we, of the Official Opposition, should help to appease the fears of the building industry about this crisis.

The fact remains that people are hurting. They know who is to blame. They were counting on government legislation to help them out of a mess that the government created. What did they get? They got Bill C-109, a remedial measure blanketed in a lot of comforting verbiage which does not come to grips with the real problem UFFI victims face. Stated simply, it is how they can make their homes safe and saleable, and is the government going to help them? This corrective measure, as the minister calls it, is too little and, for many Canadians with foam in their homes, already much too late.
That is not just my view as the official opposition critic for consumer and corporate affairs. I would hate to be politically partisan all the time on this issue, so 1 will call on an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of Monday, April 12, 1982, entitled "Government offer not adequate". The Citizen is not exactly known for its hostility toward this Liberal administration, to put it mildly. I draw the minister's attention to the last three paragraphs of this government's most sympathetic newspaper:
The federal government will only offer up to $5,000 in grants for home owners suffering from foam fumes. And that maximum grant falls far short of the cost of removing the foam. Rather it will only cover cosmetic repairs to seal fumes from the foam inside the walls.
Prospective home purchasers don't care whether the foam is sealed or unsealed.
As Murray Coolican, Ottawa spokesman for home owners with foam, points out, the federal government's compensation plan is "too little, too late". Ouellet is duty-bound to provide compensation to deal with the problem his government helped create.
To lend some balance to this criticism that I have of the government's treatment of UFFI home owners, I will quote very briefly from three colleagues on the government side of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) has been receiving his share of flak from southern and western Ontario on this foam issue. I know because I recently attended a meeting in

May 10, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
London of 350 home owners who brought their legitimate concerns in a very forceful manner to that hon. member and myself. The hon. member for London West at the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs said it for all of us when he told the minister:
The thing that concerns me, though, and I am sure it concerns all of us, Mr. Minister, is this fear of the unknown. Many people today are experiencing health problems; there is no doubt about that. Whether they have evidence from their doctors or not, they do know that something is wrong, obviously because of some conditions in the atmosphere of their home. Other people are concerned about the value or the devaluation of their homes because of this-again fear of the unknown.
I would urge you to urge your officials to try if at all possible to arrive at an answer as quickly as possible.
We now go to Toronto and the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead). He had this to say in a letter to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs:
- 1 do believe that a good case can be made for the fact that the government unwittingly enticed home owners to take advantage of the CHIP program and the home owners were relying on the government's implied assurances that the substance was not dangerous to their health-
The letter adds:
Every step should be taken to immediately accept replacing foam insulation in homes at the government's expense.
It should be pointed out that the hon. member for Scarborough West is chairman of the Ontario federal Liberal caucus. He said he is a Trudeau government supporter, but that he has to protect his constituents. While he is the first Liberal backbencher to speak out, he said "1 won't be alone".
Completing our roster of members who have had the guts to speak out publicly on behalf of their constituents in this issue, I turn to the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) who spoke in an adjournment debate on May 3, a few days ago. Referring to the Gaspe, he said:
The owners followed the directions given by the Government of Canada to save energy and applied for a grant to insulate their homes. Most owners who used area formaldehyde foam insulation are now facing a health problem and must find another place to live in and this is not easy in an area such as ours.
Mr. Speaker, even if the Government of Canada provided a $5,000 grant to remove that foam from the walls of a house whose owner is unemployed or is on welfare, where will this owner find the additional $10,000 to have the work performed? Even people who have permanent jobs but whose property was mortgaged to have that insulation put in can no longer afford to borrow at 20 per cent to have the foam removed from their walls and ceilings.
The hon. member for Gaspe told the House last week:
-I intend to participate in the debate on second reading of this bill in order to defend the interests of the people I represent here in this House, the victims of urea formaldehyde foam insulation, and especially those who are in a precarious financial situation.
I am looking forward to hearing the intervention of the hon. member for Gaspe.
When The Citizen or anyone else, including hon. members on the government side, mentions the word "compensation", total or otherwise, those of us who are on the front lines of the UFFI battle are constantly pursued about the dollar value of such a program. My answer is yes, the cost of restoring
victims' homes to being safe and saleable places will be expensive, and yes, it could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars; but I can never recall a bottom line where the health of this nation is concerned. I will say more about financing later, but this $110 million remedial program has now been scaled down by half for actual disbursement to homes with the foam. The other $65 million presumably has been used for testing, publicity, dosimeters-


André Ouellet: No.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Some of it has certainly been used for the delightful little pamphlet I have in my hand entitled "What you should know about UFFI" which the government has been circulating telling people that the stuff looks life shaving cream when it is first blown into their walls. I would appreciate a breakdown from the minister, at his convenience, as to where the other $65 million has been spent in terms of this program.


André Ouellet: The next fiscal year. You should read the bill correctly, at least.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: The $55 million remaining is as useless to UFFI victims as the June 30, 1983, deadline to qualify for the grants.
There is no way to paper over this issue. Home owners know it, real estate agents know it, provincial governments know it and, having talked with hundreds of UFFI victims across Canada during the past 18 months, believe me, I know how desperate many thousands of innocent victims of *the foam crisis are for federal government assistance. They know how woefully inadequate this remedial bill is. They are looking to government for much more meaningful compensation for their shattered lifestyles.
I am particularly saddened and, indeed, sickened by letters and reports which flow into my office every week from UFFI victims all across Canada. One newspaper just yesterday carried a story of a couple in Downsview, Ontario, who watched their $135,000 home of 15 years being bulldozed because of urea formaldehyde foam insulation. With their home, this couple which had emigrated from Italy also watched their lifetime of hard work and cherished memories being demolished. Now they are starting over. They are building a new home and plunging into debt once again. Understandably, they are bitter and disappointed at an Ottawa government which had urged the country to save energy with insulation but which will not take its responsibility now. In a statement, which could be mirrored 100,000 times, the Downsview couple said:
They pushed us to put in the insulation, and now they want to wash their hands of it.
Worse, these people cannot be eligible for any financial help. They tore down their house. Now they do not qualify for aid, according to a spokesman for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I find that an unconscionable abdication of this government's responsibilities, and I will have a recommendation to make in this regard in a few moments.
May 10, 1982

Let me put on the record the views of some Canadian home owners plagued with UFFI. Their own words speak volumes about the issue now confronting this Parliament. My office here on Parliament Hill has been in continuous touch with HUFFI- Home owners with Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation-group leaders across Canada who represent thousands of home owners with UFFI. The Minister talks about some of us who raise this issue as being deliberately politically partisan. I do not know or care what the politics of UFFI home owners are, but we are in constant touch with them, and they continue to bring to us the real stories of the home owners they represent. The minister talks about people like John Owen from Vancouver; Dr. Penny Tilby from Vancouver; Fred Palen from North Calgary; Stan Wilson from Regina; Glenn Markowski and Lloyd Maynard from Winnipeg; Ace Willsie, Pam Snow, Jim Inch and Margaret Vagalaid from Kitchener-Waterloo; Ms. Pat Clarke from Scarborough; Dr. Frank Spitzer from Toronto; Ed Smee from Hamilton; Lee Kennedy from London; Bob Ord from Welland; Rick Patten, Murray Coolican and Mrs. Pat Strickland from Ottawa; Len Cocolicchio and Mr. Larry Gee from Montreal; Madam Nicole Lamer and Yves Nantel from Ste. Therese, Quebec; Carl Wentzell from Riverview, New Brunswick; Mr. Mark Poirier from Halifax, Nova Scotia; and Danny Williams from St. John's, Newfoundland. Almost on a daily basis these people keep us informed on the progress and plights of many thousands of home owners.
Incidentally, I want at this time to pay a special tribute to my researcher, Mr. Sean Berrigan, who has become Parliament's unoffical ombudsman for countless UFFI organizations which have been springing up across Canada. Many of my colleagues in this House are aware of Mr. Berrigan's untiring dedication to the plight of UFFI home owners, whether individuals or vast organizations, across Canada. I just want to take this opportunity to thank him for his painstaking research for me and my colleagues in our collective attempt to gain justice for so many Canadians who have been so aggrieved.
I have a letter here to the aforementioned Mr. Larry Gee in Pointe Claire from A. E. LePage, a real estate firm, and this letter says it all:
It is certainly unfortunate that although all of these indications suggest a market value of $42,000, I feel that because of the type of insulation (i.e. urea formaldehyde foam) in your home it would be virtually impossible to market.
Since the insulation in your home appears to be impossible to remove without virtually removing the building, I would have to consider the building to be worthless. In fact it is a liability, as someone would have to spend money to effect its removal.
The land value in the area indicates that your lot because of its location should sell for $15,000; however the cost of removal of the building may have to be deducted from this amount.
That is the kind of financial situation Mr. Gee has ended up in as a result of this crisis.
I have here an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) from Felice and Frank Spitzer of Toronto. Mr. Spitzer is head of the Ontario HUFFI Association.
Naturally the most serious repercussion of this whole issue is that of health. In our particular instance, my husband has been severely affected with a sinus
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
problem. He was operated on just one and one-half years ago and is unfortunately no better. Naturally he suffers and as a consequence the normal routines of family life are somewhat hindered. It even goes so far as with tiny matters such as the fact that we cannot talk to him in the mornings while he has to rinse his mouth out for long periods at a time so that nobody can have any conversation with him until we actually sit down to breakfast.
The litany of health problems goes on and on.
I have here a letter to my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), from Donna, Wayne, Sue and Terry Gravelle of Waterloo:
Several days ago my husband went to see Dr. Wyse for pulmonary and allergy tests. He has been attending doctors for quite some time as he has had sore eyes, running ears and severe breathing problems. Dr. Wyse has stated he feels positive that his problems are caused by the UFFI in our home. He feels we should move out of the house because of Wayne's problems and the problems the rest of the family are experiencing. He has also stated he is willing to testify that he feels the foam is causing these problems.
Is there anything that can be done! WE ARE DESPERATE!
That is signed by Mrs. Donna Gravelle.
I have received a letter from a Mr. Peter Lake of Edmonton, Alberta who says:
My problem is as follows. I am faced with having to sell my house within the next 16 to 24 months for a work-related move. Since I have urea formaldehyde foam insulation in my walls, the marketability of my house is nil, and I am faced with the prospect of losing all of my equity and possibly being left with a mortgage to pay off as well. This would leave me with no chance to purchase another home in my new location as I would have no downpayment and, since I have already used my RHOSP eligibility, no easy way to save.
The Government has suggested a number of ways of making UFFI houses habitable with sealing and chemical absorbers, but clearly, the only way to make a house marketable is to remove the foam.
The Government has mentioned the possibility of (but has not yet promised) aid of up to $5,000 towards making UFFI homes safe, but I have received estimates of $15,000 to $20,000 to remove the foam. My house has stucco outside and plaster inside.
That letter raises a point that I think should be cleared up. Many Canadians are under the impression that if they qualify for a grant, if the level of urea formaldehyde warrants a grant, they will get the whole $5,000. While that is not nearly enough to remove the material from their homes, most people seem to think that they are eligible for that amount. I think that the minister and the government should make it clear to home owners who are applying for grants that they can get up to $5,000 but that they could receive a much smaller amount.
In the few minutes remaining to me, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise some questions and offer some recommendations to the government. Perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) can deal with these questions later in the debate or when he appears before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs later in the week.
These are the questions that I should like to have answered. What about residents of buildings other than single family homes? Urea formaldehyde foam has been used as an insulation material in a number of apartment buildings, offices and commercial complexes. Is the government satisfied that it has a full list of such buildings and is it satisfied that it can accurately test levels of gas in the various segments of such buildings where people work and live? Then there is the question of


SOI 14-26 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
May 10, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
who is responsible for testing. Is that up to the person dwelling in a building or working in a building, or does the government accept the responsibility for seeking out and testing dwellings that are not owner occupied but which have been insulated with UFFI? If not, how can workers in office buildings or residents of apartment buildings find out whether they should have their place of work or residence tested? Who would pay the cost of such tests?
Then comes the matter of retroactivity to which I referred earler in the case of the couple from Downsview. Is compensation available to people who had UFFI removed from their homes because they or their families had fears of or had experienced a health problem? If so, how far does retroactivity extend-to the temporary ban, to the permanent ban or to the introduction of this bill, either last December or just a few days ago at the end of April? Do such people also have unlimited rights to sue in the courts? These questions are asked at virtually every home owner's meeting.
In terms of minimizing the financial risk of court action, does the government plan any special measures that would make it easier for victims of UFFI to launch suits in the court with a minimum of financial risk? What about health problems which emerge later? If the health problems emerge as a result of exposure to UFFI four, five or ten years ahead, will a legal obligation to pay compensation still be recognized by the Government of Canada?
There are a number of very critical questions that must be answered in connection with this bill but, I repeat, we must see the draft regulations before we know what course the government is going to pursue in implementing the bill, because that is where the guts of the legislation really lies.
Above all, we feel that more money must be made available to this program until the government gets beyond remedial aid to UFFI home owners and lives up to its responsibility for meaningful compensation. The $55 million is woefully inadequate when you consider the number of Canadians who are sick as a result of the mistake of the government. I would recommend that the bill and the remedial program be made retroactive. All Canadians who removed the foam or spent money trying to rectify the problem should be eligible from the date of the government's temporary ban on December 18, 1980. Any removal or structural corrections prior to that time would, presumably, be a matter for the courts to decide.
I would certainly recommend that amendments to be made to the bill to extend the life of the program or make provision for it to have long-term effects. The present expiry date is meaningless to those who are not experiencing problems now but in whose homes trouble may show up in the years ahead.
Let me conclude with my own personal thoughts on this UFFI crisis. Many describe it as a catastrophe. It started in 1980 and the early part of 1981 as a sleeper issue. Some people in government began to wake up to the realization that we might have a real problem on our hands, and some home owners began to experience a variety of problems directly attributable to urea formaldehyde foam. Many home owners
suddenly began to wonder what the growing controversy might do to the saleability of their homes. Government departments have been accumulating frightening evidence in the meantime, and there have been mounting fears from UFFI home owners about the effect on their health and on the sale of their property. An awakened and aroused public has escalated this issue into a national catastrophe.
We are faced with a problem without precedent. As elected representatives, we must do something about it. The people do not care which level of government is to blame. That is where the issue transcends partisan politics as far as the victims are concerned. A lot of Canadians are being hurt, whether because of their health or because of the value of their real estate or other economic reasons, and they are looking to government, any government, for help.
I want to close as I started, by suggesting that if you put all the heads of UFFI households in Canada in our two largest stadia there would be about 250,000 or 300,000 people there or roughly the population of Hamilton or Ottawa. They would all say what I have been saying this afternoon, that this UFFI mess is a disaster of the first order. Had all those Canadians been concentrated in one city would the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments, not considered this mistake a true national disaster? Would all governments not have made this matter a top priority and quickly agreed on emergency measures on behalf of their afflicted taxpayers? It happens that these people are not all concentrated in one city but are spread from one end of the country to the other.
I do not minimize the responsibility of the prime offender in this UFFI mess, namely the federal government, but the provinces and the municipalities have a responsibility in terms of property taxes and re-assessment in light of this crisis. In short, governments must act at once, led by the federal government, to provide much more meaningful compensation than is set out in the bill.
It used to be said that the Canadian dream was to own one's home. For many thousands of Canadians that dream has turned into a nightmare. I think that this government and this Parliament must act at once to restore that Canadian dream for those home owners who have been afflicted with UFFI.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: 
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have waited long for this opportunity and it is with great anticipation that I take part in this debate. I would like to go back for a moment to comment on some of the minister's remarks, particularly his comment that he did not want to get involved in petty politics in considering this basic issue of urea formaldehyde foam insulation. I suggest to the minister that it is through the political process that a decision is made about the allocation of scarce and valuable resources. What that minister and that government have said continuously since the advent of this issue is that they are not willing to allocate adequate resources to meet the needs of a large number of home owners which arise from this very serious problem. The previous speaker tried to give some indication of the magnitude of the problem. Obviously, to some degree, it fell on deaf ears. On the other hand, perhaps if each one of those members were prepared to spend $1 in the minister's constituency, he would not only be driven away from his office as minister but would be driven away from this House altogether, which might be fair and just in view of the kind of program he has been supporting here today.
This issue has really two basic characteristics. One is that it is a national disaster. We are talking about homes being damaged and health jeopardized. It is an incredible situation in that if the problem were not scattered across the country, governments at all levels would leap to assist with substantial funds to rectify it. The other characteristic is the dishonesty of the program put forward. In presenting this thesis of dishonesty, I am suggesting that the following method is being used. Some time before 1977 a board was set up to approve this insulation material for use in homes. If the material was approved, a description was given of how the material was to be used. At the end of April, 1977, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) wrote to one of the industrial organizations involved and told them they would not be pressured into putting a substandard product such as urea formaldehyde foam into the homes of people. He was concerned about health problems and about it being a poor insulator, and he indicated there was no way the government was going to be pressured into supporting this material. Two months later that decision was completely reversed. The decision came not only from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in a telex to the companies involved, but misgivings were also expressed by CMHC and NRC officials. The only enthusiasts for this material were the manufacturers, and they sat on that board. No greater conflict of interest can be seen. That in my opinion was dishonest.
There is another aspect to it. When that decision came about, the Canadian Development Corporation acquired a share in a company which owned or controlled one of the manufacturers. The thesis that works now, is that there was political pressure to change that decision, especially on government officials on the board, and to gain approval for this product. So a company which was earning very little revenue and was close to bankruptcy, went on to become extremely
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
profitable as a result of this change of decision. Then, just before the ban, it was sold to another outfit, unsuspecting that the ban was coming into place and which, I assume lost its shirt on the deal.
The first thing we would like the minister to do is to hold a public inquiry to inquire into, under oath, the relationship between the CDC, Innocan, Rapco and Lorcon with a view to determining what the connections were between those organizations and the government officials in the approval of this product for use in Canadian homes. That is the first thing which must be done to lift this web of dishonesty which falls over the approval of that product. Second, I would like to point out that the program itself was put forward by the minister in very loud and vigorous terms in this House in an attempt to defend what the government has done and to curse the opposition for its petty political manoeuvring. The minister did nothing to alleviate the fears and concerns of people with that material in their homes. In fact, I suggest the government created a program designed to break the back of the political strength of the home owner's movement.
About two years after the approval, Mr. Speaker, the government of Saskatchewan asked the federal government to please ban the product. It fell on deaf ears again. The federal government was not interested in banning that product, in spite of the fact that Saskatchewan at that time was helping home owners with health problems by becoming involved in a relocation program. This is the second thing that we in the NDP would like to see the government do if it has any honesty. It should develop a relocation program so that those people with extremely high gas concentrations, who are suffering from health problems in their homes, can be relocated. Those who do not have the funds can be given a federal government grant to move out now before they and their children and other members of their family succumb to the health problems associated with that product.
These are two suggestions. A public inquiry would cost next to nothing but it might lift the web of dishonesty which appears to have fallen over this whole issue. The second suggestion is for a relocation program such as the one Saskatchewan became involved in long before the ban was ever announced. I notice the minister is off in some other area thinking of something else, but certainly those are two valuable suggestions.
Next we have the development of this program. The ban was eventually announced in December of 1980 after a great deal of persistence. But then no action was taken. There was a delay of a year before the government developed its program. Certainly a testing program was started and it took up a lot of time. Then the minister developed his answer to the Canadian problem: a $110 million program for home owners. But he announced it on December 23, a good time to avoid the political consequences of a tremendous inadequate program, the day before Christmas Eve. It was beautiful. A $5,000 grant, and a testing program, which, I assume, was based on the dosimeter approach to determine whether or not you had

May 10, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
0.1 parts per million in your home or had a health problem. Then you could qualify for a grant of up to $5,000. But there was a great delay. Groups began to form and, they believed that with some pressure they could get the government to realize and understand what their problem was. Then, lo and behold, an answer from the government.
It is interesting that when the minister announced the program he said that the next honourable thing to do would be for the provinces to become involved. They should get in and help, because the federal government was the only one doing anything. Really that was not true. Other governments were doing things. They were asking the federal government to ban the product before thousands more homes were filled with it. They were testing, and they were relocating. Not only that, they were asking the federal government to become involved in some of these activities. In no way did the federal government do that. But the minister could do something at this late stage. For example, when the minister put the program in place he wrote a letter to the provinces asking them whether they would like to participate in a program to help these home owners. One of the provinces indicated it would be interested and wrote for more details. However, the provinces read about the federal program in the newspaper. That is the kind of consultation in which the minister is prepared to engage. In the last week, I have visited five provinces and I have spoken to home owners, officials and consumer and corporate affairs ministers. They tell me they are prepared to help. But what kind of consultation do they get from this minister and this government? They get none. The reason is that it is basically a political manoeuvre on this government's part.
Third, we ask the minister to leave this House now and to call a federal-provincial conference of ministers responsible for the problem. 1 am certain that with any effort and some willingness to acknowledge at least some responsibility for the problem before us today, the minister would get the cooperation of provincial governments. Even some co-operation is better than what he is getting today. Provinces are indicating they are prepared to help. If the minister would call a federal-provincial conference I am certain that he would get those people here today. I urge him to do that. I urge him to develop consultation and a meaningful program, not an ad hoc, off-the-cuff program like the one he has developed and presented to us in this House. I hope the minister will have a little more respect for his provincial colleagues who are faced with the problem.
I have outlined three suggestions: the public inquiry, the relocation program and the federal-provincial conference. The minister will not walk away empty-handed. Throughout all of this time, there has never been proper consultation. Most of the officials and the ministers in the provinces would acknowledge that immediately.
It is interesting to look back on this matter. The minister announced the federal government had set up the Canadian General Standards Board, which was a program to show how to utilize the material. There must have been tremendous misgivings about this product. It appeared, until the end of
April, that there was no way it would receive approval because of reactions form NRC and from CMHC and even from what the minister wrote in the telex. But when the reversal came in the two-month period, it really appeared as though political pressure came into play in the decision. But when the decision came, it was not a simple one. Great concern was expressed about the product. As a condition of approval, the manufacturers were told to notify a customer directly the product was used of the terms and methods by which it should be used. There was also great concern about setting standards for installers in the field. Everyone knows that if you are in downtown Courtenay on Vancouver Island installing this material you do not have very much control over it. As a result, instead of following the directions laid down by the standards board, the manufacturers never sent out the required information to home owners, which was a condition of approval to use the product. When they failed to do that, approval was rescinded. But from what we can gather, one of the CMHC officials was under such tremendous political pressure to reinstate approval that two days later approval was given and the individual eventually resigned. That is a very serious situation. But there was no control on the installers in the field. Instead of using the material as recommended in exterior walls of wood frame houses, the installers poured it into masonry houses, into ceilings, into floors, and below ground level. In fact, they did everything conceivably wrong in the installation of UFFI. The chain of events is as follows. Officials representing the government on the standards board knew the material was hazardous. In some way they were coerced to recommend and approve the product, contrary to their best knowledge of what the dangers were. In laying down the conditions under which the material was to be used, they expressed serious concerns about being able to control them. Eventually we wound up with a dilemma.
Clearly, the government is responsible for that. It failed to act in the best interests of the consumer. It failed to provide adequate supervision. It failed to respond effectively to the problem we have before us today.
My colleague who spoke before me mentioned the serious concerns expressed by people. The minister said only a few complaints had been received in 1979 and only 100 were received the following year.
Let me recount an incident, which has been repeated hundreds of times. Urea formaldehyde foam insulation was installed in a family's home. The wife worked during the day and was home in the evening. She began to experience a very serious allergic reaction. The doctor could find no source and suggested that she was suffering from nerves. He advised her to quit work and spend more time at home. She did this, and her condition became worse. There was no medical tie to the problem because the people did not know what was in the home. The insulation had been installed by a company. Adequate information had not been given to the family. Eventually this family read in the newspaper that UFFI could
May 10, 1982

cause certain health problems. They confirmed they had UFFI installed in their home. They attempted to get information about it. They decided to have the UFFI removed, and their health problems cleared up immediately.
I sat down with a man at a kitchen table last Thursday. He is head of the UFFI home owners group. His wife and children had terrible reactions to his product. He told me that he could not wait for the government to decide what it would do and that he had had to get the stuff out of his house. He told me his house was covered with stucco. He rented a concrete saw, stripped the stucco from the outside of his home and before the foam was removed the concentration of gas had sufficiently dropped in the home so that the family's health began to improve. He had difficulty gathering the funds to perform this operation. However, he is now in the process of putting his house back together again. But this individual has some serious questions because the minister has said that removing the deleterious substance from his home, which resulted in his family's health improving, disqualifies him from receiving any compensation. If the minister were to do a fair and honest thing, he would make an announcement that those people who have removed the foam from their homes, whether before December 23, 1981, or after that date, will qualify for whatever grants are available. I would urge the minister to make that statement here today. People cannot sacrifice their families to the uncertainties surrounding this material.
I have put only two examples on the record, but there are many, many more. In the cities of Winnipeg and Vancouver, people are pulling the stuff out of their homes. These people are asking why someone who pulled this insulation material out of his home before December 23 should qualify for the grant when they cannot? I would urge the minister to make a statement tonight that those people who are removing this insulation now can be considered for grants.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please! It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was discussing some suggestions which the government might follow. 1 should like to return to that train of thought by referring to some of the problems we see in this legislation and in the over-all program of the government. The first one was generally a severe criticism of the consultation in which the minister was involved with provincial governments when in fact there was no consultation whatsoever. In fact, some provincial governments were willing to provide assistance. We suggested that the minister should call immediately for a federal-provincial conference of ministers responsible for the urea formaldehyde problem and attempt to develop a coherent and co-ordinated
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
program so that we could end the rather off the cuff or off-the-wall approach to the problem to date. I should like to elaborate on some other important features.
Earlier the minister indicated that there was not really a serious health problem with urea formaldehyde foam, when in fact there is very good evidence that it is a serious health problem. In some cases, family physicians have conducted various tests on their patients. Their patients, who suffered symptoms from being in UFFI homes, and those symptoms clear up when they moved from the home and then the symptoms reoccur when they went back to the house. The government of Saskatchewan was attempting to relocate people. Therefore, the second suggestion was to provide relocation assistance immediately to those people who were suffering severe reactions to the foam in their homes. It has been 14 months or 15 months since the ban was announced. Pensioners and lower income individuals in particular who cannot afford to relocate are still living in those homes. We urge the minister to improve the bill and to develop a relocation program quickly so that relocation assistance could quickly be provided when a physician decides that a home is unsafe for a family.
We also dealt with the serious concern of individuals with the entire approval system. The minister went into great detail to explain how the Canadian General Standards Board approached the process for the approval of urea formaldehyde foam insulation. However, in reality, if the documents pertaining to exchanges between ministers and other individuals were publicized, they would show that the National Research Council and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources were extremely skeptical and seriously concerned about approving this material. This was not the case of the industry officials who were very eager to have the product approved. Suddenly we saw, after some changes within the Canadian Development Corporation and acquisitions that they made, that there was a rapid move toward approval of UFFI. Since that process has not been reviewed, the government should organize a public inquiry into that very question. There is an extremely good reason for conducting this inquiry. First, it would prove very helpful in any lawsuits which may develop and it would save home owners tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands, in investigative research. Therefore, those facts should be published in order to provide the public with information which they have a right to know. As I say, a public inquiry into that facet of the process is extremely important.
We advocate a public inquiry into the relationship between the Canadian Development Corporation and its subsidiaries as well as into the approval process of the Canadian General Standards Board.
The next area I would like to discuss is the question of research which has been conducted into this product. If there is any justification-which there is not-for the existence of this problem of failure to act quickly it would be that there is

May 10, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
really no solid foundation of information on urea formaldehyde and its potential effects on homes and people and what could possibly be done to alleviate the situation.
It is interesting to note that I asked a question in the House on April 20, concerning the research project. It appeared that there were problems with the safe level of concentration of gas and the level which the government would accept as a criteria for assistance. There was no clear understanding of what type of gases were developing in the UFFI or what the actual allergic agents were. Rather than answering the question, the minister stated:
I am surprised at the hon. member's question, because just before the Easter adjournment I sent all members of the House an information document which included a list of research projects started by the National Research Council of Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare. I should be happy to send the hon. member some more copies.
Unfortunately, when we went back to review the document which the minister delivered, there were some very sketchy details about some projects. I telephoned his office, and one of his aides said that the minister made a mistake when he said that a list of research projects had been distributed before Easter. His department was currently making a list of projects initiated by the National Research Council and the Department of National Health and Welfare which would be ready "tomorrow", which was April 22, 1982. Therefore, on May 7, after a great deal of pressure was applied, the National Research Council finished and delivered a list of the research projects which seemed to have been undertaken. There must be more than appear on this list, but it does describe in some detail projects which had been undertaken by the National Research Council.
They seem to be widely varying projects but only one deals with the health question. The report from Bruce M. Small and Associates appears to be the only project dealing with the health question. He prepared a handbook on the sensitization effects of UFFI, and he was to investigate the research that had been done on chemical susceptibility UFFI. Basically, this has been the only information we have received on the adequacy of the research program. There appear to be 23 contracts but very little information on the medical effects. After having completed his study, Mr. Small seemed very concerned about the question of immunity. In his analysis of the research he believes that what appears to happen is that exposure to urea formaldehyde gas tends to break down a person's immunity system and therefore makes individuals more susceptible to disease. Whether or not that condition has been substantiated still requires addition research. Certainly the symptoms people experience from the presence of UFFI in their homes, the stated concerns of government and other public health officials as well as statements of those concerns in research literature would certainly be sufficient indications that we have, a serious health problem, contrary to what the minister says.
There is another study which was done by Professor Albert Nantel. He is a professor who is involved in toxicology at the Laval University. Professor Nantel made a presentation to the Lamoreux Commission on urea formaldehyde foam. I will read a short portion of what he had to say:
What I found was at first sight surprising and, at second sight, frightening. Whether it is formaldehyde itself or any other contaminant released in the ambiant air of these houses insulated with urea-formaldehyde, I had to come to the conclusion that something does produce a severe depression in the natural defence mechanism of their organism.
Again, he is talking about the body's immunity system. He also raised serious concerns about the fact that in some of the homes which he studied, with even less UFFI than 0.1 parts per million, symptoms were displayed at concentrations well below that figure.
It was pointed out that the standard of 0.1 parts per million was arrived at in a very arbitrary way from industrial standards in Europe and then transferred to domestic standards in Canada. This fact deserves more attention. Since normal, healthy individuals only spend up to eight hours a day in the working environment, it is difficult to see how the government could implement its entire program in Canada based on this standard of 0.1 parts per million in an industrial environment. We now have a standard of 0.1 parts per million in a domestic environment where there are elderly people, people with allergies, young children and families who are in the home for much longer periods than those workers in Europe. In many cases, women and children would get maximum exposure and children and elderly people in particular would be extremely vulnerable. Instead of the minister's developing a program based on a maximum of 0.1 parts of urea formaldehyde per million as the starting point of health problems, he should be seriously considering a program that would simply remove UFFI from homes which have it.
Professor Nantel goes on to say that 0.1 parts per million is not a good standard because there are many health defects which occur at lower levels than that. He suggests that the level be lowered and that UFFI should be considered to be a very serious health hazard. Apparently, Dr. Nantel is concerned about extending his research into this subject, and there is a very limited amount of medical research material coming forward. The government should be seriously looking forward at providing additional funding to Nantel and other individuals to examining these serious health hazards.
Another aspect, as we look through the list of research documents is the question of dealing with the building structure itself. The minister proposes to go around and measure concentrations in homes. When the dosimeter indicates a reading greater than 0.1 parts per million, he will then order a comprehensive test. Should the concentration be borne out, he will look at applications for remedial action, but the question remains as to what happens to homes which do not have levels 0.1 ppm or greater. As I understand it, he will either go through a remedial program in the high concentration homes and give people certificates saying their homes are certified safe for all time, or else, I presume, he will give those homes which measure less than 0.1 parts per million some type of safety certificate to tell the occupants that it is safe forever. However, in reality the testing program is very scanty and poor.
May 10, 1982

First of all, there is a real question concerning how people are handling dosimeters in the field. There is a question of the timing during this period of the year, delaying the testing program, from winter to late spring. When the windows and doors in homes are open, we do not know how the readings in the springtime will compare with those in the wintertime. When the temperatures in homes are up and there is a certain internal humidity and the gas concentrations will change. The timing of those readings is extremely important. The building structure itself, the trapping of moisture and the growth of fungus in the walls must be considered. Fungus might give off spores which penetrate the walls, making it possible for allergic reactions to be set off, reactions which could cause problems.
As well, at certain times of the year some areas in the house reach higher temperatures than other parts of the house. During the wet period in the winter, moisture might be trapped, beginning the rapid decomposition of what would appear to be stable insulation. We must consider the trapping of moisture, the breaking down of formaldehyde and the rotting of the wooden structure, which could weaken the structural integrity of the home. We must consider the question of corrosion in wires, nails and metals which, again, could not only weaken the structural integrity of the home but could also cause dangerous electrical problems. Then again, we must also consider the question of the release of gas other than formaldehyde. In short, there is a tremendous need for research into this area. There is a good possibility that the very real kind of testing program which has been developed, will probably catch only 10 per cent or maybe 20 per cent of the homes and will miss the problems in other homes which the minister claims are safe, and this is a serious concern.
Therefore, with the development of the government's program, I assume we will see strengthening of research. I do not think these are simply token programs. I think we will see a systematic development of research into these areas and the government will be prepared vigorously to pursue this research, especially into the question of the removal of the insulation from homes. As well, there will be work toward establishing the relation of health problems to exposure to urea formaldehyde gas and the possibility of the existence of other gases in that insulation which might be released and cause problems. It has been suggested that phosgene and several other fairly serious compounds are released. So in terms of the funding program and the development of a better approach, we would suggest to the minister that this research program is not adequate and that much stronger emphasis should be placed on health.
Quite a number of provincial home owner associations are considering bringing in people like Albert Nantel and other experts in the field to hold seminars with local physicians. These family physicians are very reluctant to relate the symptoms of their patients to formaldehyde gas. There is a very serious problem in getting enough expert information to physicians. Some home owner groups are attempting to do this. This is certainly the type of role the government should be undertaking through the Department of National Health and
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
Welfare to ensure that physicians have adequate information with which to deal with this problem. We have requested this of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) long before the ban was announced. So the research question is extremely important.
It is also rather interesting to note the government's position in the material that it has published to date. I wish to quote briefly from a document entitled "Building Practice No. 23" by R. P. Bowen, Shirtliffe and Chown. The preamble states:
This document has been prepared to meet the demand by consumers and contractors for guidance in solving problems related to urea formaldehyde foam insulation. The need to provide immediate information has not allowed for intensive research or extensive field trials of the remedial measures presented.
I think the salient point there is that most of the information coming forward is still pretty sketchy.
The second question regards the term "formaldehyde gas". As used in this document, it refers to the mixture of gases released by UFFI. Formaldehyde gas is usually predominant. Since the composition of gases may vary from product to product, the gas is difficult to characterize and might be called UFFI gas, so that we really do not know the product with which we are dealing or to which we are exposing people in homes, people such as the elderly, children and people with other problems. This is the entire document which people seem to be using as their guide for rehabilitating their homes. It goes through removal procedures, sealing and other procedures which will generally make their homes safe from the minister's certification standpoint. Let me simply read the National Research Council's position concerning what it recommends homeowners to do.
The National Research Council of Canada or any person acting on its behalf assumes no liability arising from the use of information contained in this document nor warrants that such use will be free from privately owned rights.
That statement is almost a disclaimer of responsibility for recommended procedures. There is a very clear need for a better base of information from which home owners can work. There is a definite need for clear information as to the need for removing that material from the home and making the home secure, as well as information regarding its effect on health. We need to know what is involved in this gas and its effects on human beings. I would urge that the minister very quickly move forward to resolve this problem.
It is interesting that the minister spent a great deal of time criticizing the American position on this matter. He takes great pride in saying that we were the first to ban it, but the government never should have approved it in the beginning. Once the government became aware of the problem, it allowed thousands of homes to be filled with the material. It finally put on a temporary ban and then a permanent ban. Then, when asked to set up a compensation program, to inform physicians of the problems, and to take an active role in informing home owners, it opted for a more passive, and inadequate program. The minister takes great delight in saying that we were the first, and that no one else was involved but us.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Massachusetts.

May 10, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act


Raymond John Skelly: And Connecticut, and many other areas.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. Ele may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Raymond John Skelly: Just to bring my comments very quickly to a close, Mr. Speaker, I would draw attention to two last points. One of the findings which seems to be coming out of the research is that urea formaldehyde is an unstable compound. If we deal with only 10 per cent of the homes and if the minister is prepared to pay roughly $1,000 on an average to seal off that gas and reduce its concentration in homes, he should be paying out about $8 million from the program, if that guess is anywhere near correct.
The problem is that urea formaldehyde in safe homes will continue to degrade, break down and release formaldehyde gas. After the cutoff date of June, 1983 when this program is no longer continued, we will have a situation where other homes have a gas buildup and there will be health reactions. We have to look toward a program that covers all homes. The only way to be certain that we have covered all homes is for the government to guarantee that it will remove, without cost to the home owner, that material from the home. Basically, it was a federal government error.
The second point is the legal situation. Very early on the minister said it was not the fault of the government. If homes owners wanted to go after somebody to find fault, they should sue the manufacturers, suppliers or installers of this material. In every province in Canada there were attempts to explore legal action which the minister suggested they pursue. In fact, the minister was going to make an amendment to the Crown Liabilities Act in this bill so that accepting a grant would not bar a civil action. I wonder if the minister knew in the beginning that legal action was an impossibility. Those who have looked closely at the possibility see that civil action will cost tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars in extremely complex law cases. There are statute of limitation problems and the difficulty of financing those legal actions. This makes it virtually impossible for victims to sue. The minister must have known this when he suggested civil action.
As an alternative, we suggest that the provincial and federal governments fund cases that groups might bring on behalf of a number of individuals. There is opportunity in British Columbia to sue under the trade practices act. Many individuals would like to launch a civil action against the manufacturer, and many would like to sue the federal government on the basis of the way this material was approved and the federal responsibility for setting proper standards and inspection procedures with regard to the installation of this material. The minister knew in advance that it was virtually impossible to launch civil action without help from the government.
In summary, we want a federal-provincial conference on the UFFI issue. This bill is hopelessly inadequate. There is the
possibility of good, solid consultation and the development of a co-operative national program to deal with this national disaster.
There should be a relocation program for those who have health problems because of the high concentration of gas in their homes. They should be relocated. That should be done by the federal government without bickering as to who will eventually pay the bill. Their health is at stake.
There is the question of what the minister should do today. Fair play would dictate that he should clarify the situation as to whether home owners who remove the foam after they have documented it, and kept the proper reasons, can receive the same treatment as those who remove the foam from their homes before December 23. That is only fair.
There should be comprehensive research funding for an individual like Nantel and others who have to provide a proper information base. This bill is hopelessly inadequate. There should be a public inquiry into the relationship and approval procedure between RAPCO, CDC and Innocan and the approval process to shed light on the serious questions being asked. That would provide assistance by cutting some of the costs of discovery in legal actions that will develop from this issue.
Finally, the bottom line in this question is that the federal government made a very serious mistake. It approved a substance which many of its officials knew was inherently unstable and dangerous. It is basically a federal responsibility, not that of anyone else. It is not the responsibility of the provincial government, the opposition, the home owners, or people standing in front of the minister's constituency office with placards and gas masks, not the responsibility of anyone but this government. It made the mistake, therefore, it owes the people compensation. The compensation should be for removal of the foam from their homes at no cost to the home owner.
This can be structured in such a way that there are priorities for removal, such as the elderly, those with health problems, those with children in the home, or any others in jeopardy. Second, people can be compensated through a variety of mechanisms. The minister should have the courage to bring forward proper amendments before the bill goes to committee so that members of the House and Canadians can look at those amendments. Those who have to move because of job changes or other reasons and face an enormous equity loss in their homes should be given priority to remove the foam and renovate the home. It should come out of buildings where there are school children, elderly people or others who are vulnerable. Beyond that, people could be given the minister's certificate that they can have the insulation removed from their homes at their convenience. This could be funded by a variety of mechanisms. The only way to wind up with a home in a safe, habitable home with every manner confidence whatsoever is to remove the foam and rehabilitate the home. That is clearly the answer.
May 10, 1982

1 have one parting shot before terminating. It would be interesting to hear what the Conservative Party members would advocate it and when they ever come to power. Every party in this House should put, no pun intended, their chips on the table. The government indicated it is not prepared to go further with compensation. This is the extent of the allocation of scarce and valuable resources that they are prepared to make in this situation. I suggest to my colleagues on my right that it is time they put their program on the table. So that owners will know where they really stand on the issue.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, it is almost a duty to speak to Bill C-109, now being considered at second reading and intended to provide for payments to owners of dwellings insulated with urea formaldehyde foam. Considering all that has been said on the subject before, what was said today and what will probably be said tomorrow, I feel we should realize what formaldehyde gas is and the effects it may have on humans, as well as the straightforward and concrete action taken by the government since it became aware of the problems besetting people living in homes insulated with this product.
Mr. Speaker, formaldehyde gas is acrid and colourless, and exists in small quantities in the air we breathe outside. It emanates from a variety of sources including incinerators, engine exhausts and smog. Normally, air contains from 0.005 to 0.05 parts per million of this gas, although levels may be higher under unfavourable conditions. Formaldehyde gas may escape from urea formaldehyde foam insulation. The amount will depend on several factors, including the ambient temperature, humidity, the competence of the installer and the formula used in preparing the foam. In our homes, formaldehyde gas may come from sources other than home insulation. For instance, smokers are exposed to higher levels of the gas, since cigarette smoke contains 40 parts per million. Particle board and plywood, gas stoves and space heaters and also fumes of cooking oil may also raise levels of formaldehyde gas in the home. There are a variety of symptoms associated with exposure to formaldehyde gas, and they depend, of course, on the levels to which a person is exposed. If levels are low, there are no negative consequences. However, some people may be more sensitive than others to the presence of formaldehyde gas. Health and Welfare Canada has suggested a level of 0.1 parts per million as an acceptable standard for the quality of air inside the home.
The standard was established according to a safety principle, to protect the elderly, the young, those who are ill as a result of other causes, and the general public. Most people should not have any symptoms at this or lesser levels. Many people exposed to levels of up to 0.25 parts per million, that is, two and a half times the accepted level of concentration are not even aware of it. However, people who are particularly
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
sensitive react to the presence of formaldehyde and feel a slight irritation of the eyes, nose and throat. When exposed to levels exceeding 1.00 parts per million, that is, at least ten times the accepted level of concentration for ambient air in the home, most people feel obvious discomfort and a number of symptoms may appear, such as irritation of the eyes, nose, throat and respiratory passages, dryness in the mouth, headaches, nose bleeds and insomnia. It was also found that certain people develop allergies when exposed to formaldehyde solutions and also that formaldehyde gas, even at low levels, could aggravate asthma attacks.
Although formaldehyde has been used since the last century, until now there has been very little research on its long term effects. A year and a half ago, it was discovered that formaldehyde caused a rare form of cancer in the nasal passages of rats and mice. However, the same type of cancer has not been observed in humans, not even in workers exposed to fairly high levels of formaldehyde gas. Nevertheless, a number of research projects are now underway, including complete epidemiological research programs, for the purpose of finding out whether there is a high cancer mortality rate among certain groups, for instance, undertakers and workers in the chemical industry. These groups are exposed to fairly high levels of formaldehyde gas. Any substance that causes cancer in laboratory animals should be considered dangerous to man, unless it is clearly established that the human body is able to break down or make a different use of this substance. This is a basic principle where health protection is concerned, and it is generally recognized, for instance, in the legislation on food and drugs. At the present time, researchers are trying to establish why formaldehyde causes cancer in certain animals.
If we assume that the risk of cancer is the same for men as for rats and mice, we can presume that the maximum additional risk of cancer in the air containing some .05 part per million of formaldehyde gas is equivalent to that incurred by smoking a cigarette per week, the risk incurred at a level of .1 parts per million of formaldehyde gas being less than a third of a cigarette smoked daily, Mr. Speaker.
Let us see now what happens under working conditions. In that environment, to establish the maximum concentrated level of formaldehyde which could be considered as being consistent with the security standards for homes, the Department of National Health and Welfare has examined the medical files of individuals usually exposed to formaldehyde gas at work. The actual threshold in an industrial environment is two parts per million for healthy adults working 48 hours weekly. Medical files kept for long periods show no sign or symptom of asthma resulting from formaldehyde exposure. A study of medical books and articles does not show any such case either. However, the Department of National Health and Welfare does not exclude the possibility that asthma sufferers, following formaldehyde exposure, could become more prone to other allergies.

May 10, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
Let us deal now with the conditions in our homes. In an average home, one can find babies, youngsters, sick persons or old people and since many could be living there 24 hours a day, the acceptable standard in an industrial environment, that is two parts per million, is deemed to be unacceptable for residents. Several health specialists suggest the application of a 10 factor and adaptations that take into consideration the likelihood of increased exposure in those houses.
The Department of National Elealth and Welfare has decided to provide an additional security margin by setting a standard twenty times lower than that used in the industry. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian standard is similar to that in other countries. For example, the governments of Norway, the Federal Republic of Germany, of Australia as well as the American Association for Industrial Health have set at . 1 part per million the maximum allowable level of formaldehyde in the air inside a house insulated with urea formaldehyde foam.
What is urea formaldehyde foam? It is an isolating substance which is a compound made up of urea formaldehyde resin, an acid used as a hardening agent-usually phosphoric acid-and a gas-most of the time, compressed air. The substance is prepared on the premises where it is to be used. It is injected through hoses into the walls of a building where it hardens. It becomes therefore solid isolation. Before it is injected into the walls, the freshly made foam is some 75 per cent water, and during the hardening process, once it has been injected, formaldehyde is given off. Mr. Speaker, urea formaldehyde was used for the first time as an isolating substance in the early sixties. It has been used increasingly ever since throughout the world. Today, it is used mostly in Germany, Britain, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, France and South Africa. It is also available in the United States, except in Massachusetts and Connecticut where it is banned. Canada and Israel were the only two countries to take it off the market.
Late in 1977, following a request made by the CMHC, the Canadian General Standards Board set up interim standards for the insulating foam. This Board makes decisions based on consensus. The Board is made up of 10 representatives from the industry, 9 from the Federal Government, 4 from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, the four provinces which have agreed on standards for urea formaldehyde foam insulation. It is the industry's duty to meet these standards. Following the Canadian General Standards Board's decision, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation accepted with the utmost reserve the use of this insulating substance which was added to the list of authorized substances under the Canadian Home Insulation Program, but only after the CMHC had brought this product to the attention of the Board and emphasized the precautions which were to be taken during the home insulating process. The Corporation even imposed the following conditions:
Installation specialists had to be trained. Second, a brochure explaining the installation process had to be given to the consumers before work started in their home. It behove Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide adequate information to consumers about the material used to insulate their home. Third, the product was not to be used to insulate ceilings, floors or basements. It could only be used in hollow spaces between the walls of wood-frame houses. It could only be used in walls where the foam could dry rapidly. It could only be installed when the outside temperature was within the prescribed limits. The manufacturers had to form an association. Mr. Speaker, these are the precautions taken by a government agency following representations or comments showing concern over the use of the foam. Unfortunately, the product was installed in homes with brick walls, aluminium siding or other types of siding which prevent the gazeous components of the product to escape outside the building. The people inside the building are then seriously exposed to the hazards of urea formaldehyde, which is the main cause of the problems or the illnesses which I described earlier, namely eye, nose and throat, and sometimes skin irritations. After reading the first international reports warning of the health hazards related to urea formaldehyde foam insulation, the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare of Canada (Miss Begin) established a committee of experts on UFFI to prevent any risk from this product, and soon afterwards, the government banned the sale of the product under the Hazardous Products Act. In its final report published in April 1981, the committee came to the following conclusion:
The ban should not be lifted as long as the industry is not able to demonstrate to the appropriate government agencies that is has developed a stable and definitive product.
Early in June 1981, the cabinet announced that it had asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouel-let) to implement a government action program and direct and co-ordinate the activities of all federal departments in this regard. On June 15, 1981, the Information and Co-ordination Centre was created as an integral part of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to inform the public, administer the inspection of a national sampling of homes and provide federal-provincial co-ordination. In fact, consumer protection standards are set by the provinces. They must ensure compliance with these standards and several provinces have their own insulation program. On June 10, 1980, the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs sent a telex to his provincial counterparts informing them of the federal initiatives concerning foam insulation and asking them to appoint a representative to co-ordinate activities with the Canadian government. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be said that the government of Canada has never even warned the provincial governments about the problem which could be related to this insulating foam. During the federal-provincial conference held in September 1981, the Minister of Consumer
May 10, 1982

and Corporate Affairs asked the provincial governments to accept their own responsibilities. On that occasion, he reminded them about his request over a year before at the federal-provincial conference in Saskatoon, in June 1980, and which I have just mentioned.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a statement made at that time by the Canadian minister. He said:
A product of concern to us is urea formaldehyde foam. There have been enough consumer complaints concerning formaldehyde vapours to be concerned about short-term and long-term effects on health from exposure to the product. The problem stems partly from faulty application at the foaming stage. In order to assess consumer hazards from formaldehyde exposure, the National Research Council is setting up a program to measure formaldehyde concentration in a number of residences that were insulated with the product. The Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare also established an advisory council made up of health experts outside the government that have been instructed to evaluate potential toxic effects of the inhalation of the product at the concentration level found in actual homes.
The minister went on to say:
Over and above health considerations, faulty application of the product can have significant economic consequences for consumers. Because of the fragmentation of that industry, consumers have a hard time recouping the costs of faulty installation. Indeed, we find in that industry resin manufacturers, specialized firms that mix the product and others that distribute it, and also installers. The latter often are small contractors unable to assume the costs of redoing a faulty installation, which costs can range from $15,000 to $35,000.
We find that the product as such and the installation work are two important factors in the safety problem deriving from cellulosic insulators and urea formaldehyde based insulators. Regulations concerning the contents of the product are already in place in the case of cellulosic insulators, and it may become necessary to ban or regulate urea formaldehyde insulation, depending on the results of current studies.
The minister concluded:
In any event, it seems essential that provinces take steps, at the installer training and certification levels, to ensure their qualifications and reduce safety and health hazards to consumers that could derive from the toxic and fireproof properties of such products. I would therefore ask you to convey the message and the contents of the discussion we are going to have to your colleagues in charge of those matters in each province.
As you see, Mr. Speaker, the state of the matter has always been of prime concern to the government, and particularly the minister in charge. Later on, a whole series of tests was developed to assess what I would call our homes' health condition. That check started on August 24, 1981. Of course, priority was given to homes whose owners reported health problems or uncomfortable levels of formaldehyde vapour. We inspected 2,400 homes and on October 31, the operation was completed and reports were tabled. For the benefit of all, I would like to say a few words of the Hazardous Products Act. Under that act, a manufacturer can appeal a government ban on a product and request that a board of review be established. In February 1981, the Energlobe company in Philipsburg, Quebec, requested that urea formaldehyde foam installation be referred to such a board. Under the act, the government had to proceed, and did so. The board is chaired by Mr. Jacques Lamoureux, from the Montreal law firm of Lamoureux et
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
Rousseau. The other board members are Mr. Benjamin Lu, professor of chemical engineering at the University of Ottawa, and Dr. Robert Sutherland, a Toronto physician and industrial health consultant. A final decision on the product cannot be reached until such time as that board has given its verdict. In the meantime, the product is kept off the market. As soon as the report has been received, the government will of course make it public. So, without even waiting for the results of the report, the government has gone ahead and proposed an assistance program for those people whose homes have been insulated with urea formaldehyde foam.
I believe some of my colleagues will give you the details of the assistance programs the government is offering Canadians.
I should also like to point out that, while the government was offering citizens whatever help they need to improve their situation, it was also calling for some involvement on the part of the provinces. Despite repeated requests, the provinces still refuse to give any direct assistance to the owners of houses insulated with urea formaldehyde foam. In fact, the provinces that had been offering testing facilities have now discontinued that service. All the provinces have been approached and invited to co-operate in a program aimed at training and registering insulating contractors. Three western provinces only have replied, two of them in the affirmative, and the third, in the negative. The New Brunswick government has offered a $40,000 subsidy to the UFFI Homeowners Association. The Quebec government is also implementing a temporary program in four points: medical tests, level of UFFI concentration in walls, a very limited aid to relocation and corrective measures assessment. Therefore, the almost complete indifference of provincial governments is evident. Being responsible for the quality of products, it is their duty as well as that of the federal government to protect Canadians. And once again, to say that the government of Canada has not since the beginning been concerned with the health of the people and adequate means to help them, is just not true.
I repeat that the government has assumed its responsibility with courage and that by banning the use of this foam it has given Canadians increased protection. Even without any legal obligation the government has set up a program to assist home owners. This program's objective is to reduce UFFI emanations to a bearable level, at which those home owners can safely live again in their houses. Mr. Speaker, I think that the program brought forward along with the bill now under consideration is very important and very urgent. A number of citizens are waiting for the government's help and in my opinion, it is in the interest of every hon. member to see that the delays which are already extremely long are reduced to a minimum in order to meet, as soon as possible and in the most efficient way, the needs expressed by the people who are experiencing serious problems.

May 10, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating here this evening, Bill C-109, an act to provide for payments to persons in respect of dwellings insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation, is a very important one. It actually should have been introduced months ago as we have had a lot of information, going back to 1960, as to the effects of urea foam. There are home owners all across Canada, as well as apartment dwellers and office workers and people in schools, who are going to welcome some type of action and compensation from the government so they can have some peace of mind. The minister should have detailed the amount of compensation more clearly in this legislation, as many people have already spent thousands of dollars in removing the insulation. I was at a public meeting two weeks ago in Winnipeg on this problem. A representative of the NDP government attended. He did not come forward with any sound information as to how Manitoba was going to help these home owners, and he received a very rough time from the gathering that evening. So if the provinces are going to become involved in providing compensation, I hope they come forward with some concrete plans in the near future.
The hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) stated earlier that if the Conservatives formed the next government he was worried about whether they will live up to any commitments made. I can assure him that the Conservative government will live up to all of the commitments in this or any other bill with regard to full compensation for the home owner and anyone else who has problems with this insulation. I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott), who has shown real leadership in the House and done exhaustive research in regard to this problem. He has probably done more than anyone to get the minister to move on this problem.
Home owners in Manitoba with this insulation, Mr. Speaker, have been patiently waiting for satisfactory compensation from the Liberal government. The president of the Manitoba UFFI Association, Glenn Markowski, is to be commended for the yeoman service he has undertaken to assist all Manitoba UFFI home owners. But he cannot accomplish anything on his own. That association has been hoping the minister would recognize the seriousness of the problem and the many hardships that home owners are being made to endure. It is becoming apparent that the Liberal government does not have the concern for the health and wellbeing of Canadians, which it has stated so many times it has, because it has taken so long to bring this bill forward. Why do people have to see their families suffer medical problems which have become so serious that people are having to wear gas masks to enter their homes? This actions was taken on the advice of a federal government employee, but it did not ease their problem or get rid of it; it only disguised it. Still encountering health problems is a Montreal couple who moved from their hard earned home to an apartment as a temporary arrangement. The same couple is in the process of moving back. Their hard-earned money is tied up in their home, but they are not moving back to live in this
house; they are having to move into their garage. Another couple has had to move into a mobile home parked in the driveway of their uninhabitable home.
Now, Mr. Speaker, acute and chronic health effects can and are happening. Individuals, as I am sure you are aware, vary in their reaction to formaldehyde gas exposure. Respiratory problems, eye, nasal and throat irritations will occur at different levels of exposure in different individuals. If a normal, healthy individual reacts to these gases, have you the evidence to allow you to set standards for the general population, which includes young children, the elderly, the infirm and pregnant women?
On April 20, in the House of Commons, the minister responsible brushed off all calls for the federal government to do more to help the victims of formaldehyde gas. Is this minister still insisting there is no real problem here? I believe that the government is attempting to divert public attention from the serious implications contained in the committee's final report of April 23, 1981. This report notes that UFFI is an unstable material of variable composition, which can break down and release formaldehyde gas. Formaldehyde is an irritant to the eyes, skin and breathing passages, and exposure to it can produce allergic responses in sensitive individuals. It has also been shown to produce cancer in laboratory animals.
On February 10 of this year the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) replied to a question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), that:
-the Canadian government does not admit any legal responsibility in this matter.
On humanitarian grounds only the government decided to take action and assist on the basis of the government's responsibility for national health. How can the minister stand in the House and calmly say the government does not admit legal responsibility after approving UFFI in 1969, after tests had clearly shown it was a health hazard? Even as early as 1960 West Germany had proof it was a health hazard. The Liberal government approved UFFI in 1969 and withdrew its approval in 1970. The government approved this same material for a government funded grant program in the face of opposition from government agencies and departments in August, 1977. As an individual and an elected Member of Parliament, I would like to know how it is that a product which lost government acceptance previously due to instability was accepted for a nationwide home insulation plan, and why, after it was accepted, sponsored grants were given to encourage Canadians to use this insulation. How can the government now say calmly that it is not its responsibility?
It really is not necessary to conduct studies and reports on the health hazards of urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Between 1960 and 1981, 13 studies were completed on this same subject. These studies proved UFFI hazardous. A number of these studies were conducted by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
May 10, 1982

I will take a couple of minutes to document some of the studies that have already been conducted. First, was West Germany in 1960. In 1974 the Department of National Health and Welfare requested to review the material. In 1978, the head of chemicals and fuels safety in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs stated that exposure could lead to medical problems. In 1978, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources stated that a federal committee investigating found there was potential damage to children and old people from long-term exposure. In 1978, the United States called for a stop of all UFFI sales, and pressed manufacturers to have health warnings on foam insulation contracts. In 1979, lab tests showed a link between UFFI and cancer rats at low emission rates. In 1979, there was a complete ban on UFFI in the United States after eight months of study. There was no response from the Department of National Health and Welfare at that time. In 1980, a report of the Department of National Health and Welfare was submitted and the minister announced a temporary ban on UFFI. In 1981, the Department of National Health and Welfare continued its ban on UFFI. Again, in 1981, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) appointed a review board and the United States confirmed that low doses of UFFI caused cancer in rats. Also in 1981 the National Research Council warned home owners of dangers. We have had many studies, Mr. Speaker. Now is the time for action, not more studies.
It is now a proven fact, which does not have to be proven again, that UFFI is hazardous to health. We need remedial action now. Is the government spending enough money on remedial action? The answer is no. Is the government spending more money on more studies to prove facts that have been proved so many times by so many reports and studies? The answer is yes.
Here is the current status report from the Department of National Health and Welfare on projects that are in operation or are under active consideration and the money that will be spent to prove a well-known proven fact, namely, that urea formaldehyde foam insulation is a health hazard. I say these reports and studies are a complete waste of money. We already know the results of UFFI in our Canadian homes. This is another example of the total disregard the Fiberal government has for federal spending. I say this money should have been put toward a better use, such as assisting home owners' associations deal with these problems. Better still, this money should have been used to assist home owners to get rid totally of this hazardous product from their homes.
As part of the grants contribution program in support of consumer groups, such as the Manitoba Home Owners' Association, which is administered by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, home owners' associations are to receive financial assistance. This financial assistance is supposed to provide assistance and service such as inquiries into the nature and extent of the problems caused by UFFI in their area. To do this, people have to travel in and around the Winnipeg area. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of each home owner have to be collected and given to the government UFFI centre. Questionnaires are to be circulated by the association to each and every home owner. Telephoning, telex
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
and advertising have to be undertaken. Halls and offices for meetings have to be rented to keep home owners informed. Photocopying has to be done and postage has to be paid so that members can receive the most up to date information by mail. These are just a few of the duties to be undertaken by home owner associations such as the one in Manitoba.
The government is proud of the fact that it is funding home owner's groups. It is funding these groups with the hope that it will cut down on work having to be done by government offices. For this service, which would cost the government millions to do it itself, what is paid in the form of a grant to the Manitoba Home Owners' Association? The Manitoba Home Owners' Association received a grant of $7,000. This $7,000 is expected to compensate for the time, travel, equipment, office work and every other detail required to assist approximately 2,000 Manitoba home owners receive assistance from the federal government. This is to correct an error that the federal government is responsible for instigating, but it is now saying "The Canadian government does not admit any legal responsibility in this matter." This $7,000 to Manitoba home owners works out to $3.50 per home. What does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs expect Manitoba home owners to accomplish with this grant of $7,000 which breaks down to the grand total of $3.50 per home? What is the minister's rationale behind the granting of this paltry sum? The Manitoba home owners requested $20,000, and this by far was not unreasonable to look after the interests of 2,000 home owners. But they received just $7,000.
What is the solution? Is the answer that home owners just lost out if they happen not to be living in the minister's own province of Quebec which received a grant of $40,000? Maybe Manitobans would be better off if they all moved to Ontario, which received a grant of $39,000. This figure is for the province of Ontario. It does not account for the fact that Ottawa received a grant of $30,000. These two figures add up to a total of $69,000 in grants for the province of Ontario.
Will the minister explain loud enough for all 80,000 concerned home owners with UFFI in their homes what they have to do to receive a fair share of the money allotted to home owners' associations? Maybe the minister would like to explain what he could accomplish with the grand total of $3.50 per home when all Canadians know how this government procrastinates. How long will it be before this issue is settled? What would the minister be able to accomplish on this size of grant?
On February 10, 1982, my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott), the Conservative Party spokesman on the subject of UFFI, asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if he would reconsider a much more meaningful compensation to owners of those many homes that are absolutely worthless. The minister replied that he was receiving positive responses to the very important and significant contributions by the Canadian government toward helping the victims of this product. Are all the minister's responses coming from the province of Quebec?

May 10, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
Let me just take a moment to review these "significant contributions by the Canadian government." The first one I have just discussed, that is, the significant contribution of $3.50 per home for the province of Manitoba to keep informed about what that province is supposed to be doing to receive assistance and, at the same time, to keep itself informed of the significant contributions by the Canadian government as the government announces them.
The second one occurred in December, 1981. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs announced that CMHC had been consulting with the real estate and mortgage and property insurance community whose activities had affected the owners of UFFI homes, in order to ensure that lending institutions continue to finance and renew mortgages on homes containing UFFI.
This also is one of the "significant contributions by the Canadian government". If CMHC had been successful in its dealings with these companies, which it was not, to whom would the home owners be able to sell? Who would want to own one of these health hazardous homes? Large mortgage insurers and lenders such as the Toronto Dominion Bank, the Nova Scotia bank and Canada Trust have now announced they will not handle mortgages on these homes. Where is the government's significant contribution in this area? The third but by far the biggest "significant" contribution by the Canadian government was when it announced that it will provide home owners with up to $5,000 tax free for necessary remedial action. The maximum payment to be made is $5,000. It is supposed to compensate home owners for problems arising from the insulation of their dwelling places with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. I do not have any idea how the government could have come up with this ridiculous figure- $5,000 will go nowhere toward correcting this very serious problem.
A family in Winnipeg has spent $8,000 to date to correct its problem, and a family in Verdun has received an estimate of $20,000 to remove the insulation from its home. In the meantime, this family is living in its garage after having tried to live in its hard-earned home while wearing gas masks. Some home owners have reported spending as high as $30,000 to have this insulation removed. The hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth gave an example earlier today of a $ 135,000 home in the Toronto area which had to be demolished because there was no way in which the problem could be corrected. Will the minister provide $135,000 to that family? I hope he comes up with some answers. This money has to be spent either because the house is unsaleable otherwise or because adverse health effects make it essential. The "significant" contribution by the Canadian government of $5,000 toward a possible cost of between $10,000 and $30,000 to remove the foam is one of the contributions to which the minister says he is receiving a positive response. The government's contribution is a woefully inadequate drop in the bucket and an approach that comes too late. My party feels that the government should give fuller compensation both medically and financially to home owners.
Governments around the world have been conducting research since 1960. The government is responsible; it approved this insulation for use in Canadian homes and apartment buildings. The government encouraged home owners to insulate with this material by offering them a government-approved CHIP grant to insulate their homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Now the government is claiming no responsibility or very little responsibility.
I say that the government is responsible. I say that all these studies, reports, investigations and tests which the government is conducting are useless. I say that the government is responsible for this hazard to health and the hazardous financial situation in which approximately 80,000 Canadian home owners find themselves. I can do no less than insist at this time that the government accept full responsibility for once in its life and make fuller compensation to these long-suffering Canadian home owners who put their trust in the government and are now being told that they have to sit and suffer. They have lost, and it is up to the House to see that they are fully and properly compensated for the problems with which they have had to live over the past 14 or 15 months. It has been an absolute disgrace and a burden upon these 80,000 Canadians.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there are times when one is asked to respond, either as an individual or as part of an organization, or even as a country, to a crisis which can take place in a very short period of time. We are facing one at the present time with regard to the Falkland Islands crisis. If anyone had asked a couple of months ago what we would be discussing in our homes and in news reports from the capitals of the world, very few people would have suggested that the Falkland Islands would have dominated the newscasts.
There are other crises which are also being discussed, one of them right across Canada. It has been discussed for some time now, but in fact two or three years ago UFFI was simply not known. Nobody would have recognized what was urea formaldehyde foam insulation or the acronym which we have now come to accept as a household word, UFFI. It is not a very nice household word, either.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: It is a dirty four-letter word.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes, as my colleague says, it is a dirty four-letter word, one which we would much rather never have heard in our whole legacy of the English language. But now it is there as an acronym and as something which has become very familiar to Canadians across the country. It is there as part of another program for which we use a similar acronym, CHIP, the Canadian Home Insulation Program. UFFI and CHIP go together. Of course the minister does not think that they go together, but they are linked together in the bill. There is no way that they can be separated, regardless of what the minister has said.
We are examining Bill C-109 tonight which concerns restitution to persons encouraged by the government to use
May 10, 1982

UFFI in their homes. It is interesting to note that the legislation in Bill C-109 was promised last December and that on May 10 the government finally introduced the bill for second reading. The government could not begin to grasp the urgency which so many people feel about this issue. What we have before us is a bill which unfortunately is too little and too late for home owners who accepted the fact that the federal government knew what it was doing when it recommended that urea formaldehyde foam insulation was acceptable and government-approved insulation for use through the government's Canadian home insulation program. They knew that the government had recommended it and approved it.
On the other hand, the government had been warned as far back as March 18, 1977 and again on May 18, 1977 by Dr. Ian Efford, director of the energy conservation branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, that UFFI should not receive governmental approval. We must ask why he did that five or six years ago.
He gave that warning to the government because of his concern of possible structural damage to buildings in which that kind of insulation would be installed. Nevertheless, regardless of his warnings, the insulation was approved by CMHC for use in the Canadian Home Insulation Program in September 1977. Even after that some government officials continued to investigate the properties of UFFI because they were suspicious that its use could result in structural damage to homes or, worse still, that it could result in health problems for human beings in the homes in which is was being used. Given the possible implications of the use of UFFI, of which the government now pleads ignorance, the government, the minister and CMHC put it forward as one of the insulation alternatives for the Canadian Home Insulation Program.
The federal government brought CHIP into being and suggested alternatives or various types of insulation which could be used for insulation purposes. It did not go out and demand that everyone should have to use UFFI. That is not the way the government went about it. It merely suggested it as an alternative. It encouraged it by listing it with government programs. It placed the weight of the government's credibility behind it.
Now the government has the unquestioned moral, and perhaps even legal responsibility to accept the consequences of its decision to make UFFI one of the government's approved alternatives for the CHIP insulation program.
Is the minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) about to assume his responsibility for the actions he took? Not on your life. On February 10, 1982, in response to a question by my hon. colleague, the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had the audacity to say this, in reply to one of the many questions about UFFI posed by members on this side:
We have always maintained that the Canadian government does not admit any legal responsibility in this matter.
He went on to say in his answer:
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
-we have decided, on humanitarian grounds, to take action and assist them on the basis of our responsibility for national health.
Humanitarian grounds my eye. The minister and the government are shirking their responsibility. They will blame anyone. They will blame the provincial governments, the home insulators and they will blame the very home owners themselves who are the victims of this use of UFFI. They will blame anyone for the government's disastrous mistake of judgment and, I might add, its carelessness in this issue.
What do we have before us as a result of this continuing tragedy of errors-not comedy of errors but tragedy or errors? What we have before us is a bill which allows $55 million for partial compensation to a very minimal number of Canadians. It is a very minimal number of those estimated 100,000 Canadians who own homes which have been insulated with urea formaldehyde insulation foam.
Bill C-109, which is the one under consideration tonight, allows home owners who qualify to receive up to $5,000 in tax free grants to help compensate for the problems caused by UFFI. That compensation is a mere drop in the bucket for what home owners really require. In order for a home owner who finds himself in this disastrous mess to receive a grant, he first must fit into one of two categories. He must first have his home tested to determine whether the home contains more than 0.1 parts of formaldehyde per million parts of air. This is regarded as the maximum safe level, according to the Department of Health and Welfare. The other alternative is that he just have a doctor's certificate to prove that any health problems he or his family are suffering from are related to urea formaldehyde foam insulation.
The number of UFFI home owners who qualify under these two qualifications will indeed be minimal compared to the 100,000 UFFI victims who all deserve compensation for the federal government's blunder. They all deserve to be considered. This bill will only allow the consideration of a very few who find they can fit into those narrow categories.
Another problem one sees when examining this bill is that the regulations by which the above mentioned criteria for qualification are determined are not even included in the bill. Before passage of this bill it is incumbent upon the government and imperative that we see the regulations by which eligibility and the level of payments are to be determined. The minister has had precedent in the House for having regulations presented beforehand when a bill is in passage. At least he should take that minimum step to help the people who will apply under the regulations of this bill.
I ask the minister: what are the necessary criteria by which a physician is expected to prove that health problems are related to UFFI? How is the doctor going to determine that? As an example, I will give the minister the instance of a man in my riding who recently developed throat cancer. He has now had UFFI in his home for two years. This gentleman also smokes. How can a doctor be sure that the cancer can be attributed to either his smoking, to UFFI or to a combination of the two? What are the criteria by which that doctor is to

May 10, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
determine the origin of the cancer that this man has developed since UFFI could very well play a major part in it?
It is also very important to see the regulations so we know the exact process by which a UFFI home owner can receive a compensation grant under Bill C-109. I mention the fact that it has taken six months to bring this bill before the House since the minister first mentioned it. However, if you look at the bill, you can easily see that the whole process of application, inspection, testing and analysis, all of which are involved, will be a very slow process, particularly if the government receives many more applications than it had first anticipated.
It is expected that the first compensation to any UFFI home owner who is seeking a grant will not be made until at least September. This is due to the long process which I have just described. The first payment will be made probably in the early fall, yet when looking at this bill, we see that the funding for it is to terminate in December of this year. Here we have the first payments not being made until the early fall while the money incorporated in the bill runs out in December of 1982.
What does the government intend to do if there is a greater number of UFFI victims who qualify for compensation? Are there any provisions for extending the level of compensation and the time limits so people who have applied will be able to qualify for this very limited payment? Otherwise, will we have to go through the whole legislative process again, such as we are doing now, to compensate additional victims of UFFI who did not have an opportunity to apply for compensation within that very limited and restricted time-frame which the government has placed under the provisions of this bill?
In fact, the bill applies only to a very limited number of UFFI victims in the near future. It only applies to those who realize now that they are victims of urea formaldehyde foam insulation. What about those people who discover they are victims of UFFI and develop health problems in five, ten or fifteen years from now? What provisions is the government making for them? It is very likely that many people will not know immediately that they have health problems because of this insulation. It may not become apparent for some years. Will the government have a legal obligation to pay compensation to these home owners in the future? The minister has not even made mention of these people.
The bill does far too little for far too few UFFI victims. The $5,000 grant will not even remove insulation in homes with serious health hazards. It will not pay for removing that insulation. It will only pay for government inspection and testing, and then, as an attempt to forget the problem, it will pay for the painting and sealing of walls, building double walls and increasing the ventilation as if to somehow paper or plaster over the problem. And then it will walk away from the whole problem to forget it ever existed. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
My colleague asks, "Who will buy these homes?" What about all those other home owners whose homes are filled with
urea formaldehyde foam insulation but who do not suffer any health problems at the present time, nor do they have a level of 0.1 per cent in their homes? What about all of the others who, apart from those two criteria, are UFFI users? Those people simply do not qualify for any compensation under Bill C-109. However, the problem will not go away for them, if a person such as this still has UFFI in his home, thanks to the government's approval of UFFI as an appropriate insulation for his home, he will find that the goverment has completely reneged on its responsibilites to persons such as he and to the thousands of other home owners in this same category.
In my constituency of Kingston and the Islands, there are some 2,000 UFFI victims, 2,000 households where urea formaldehyde foam insulation has been installed. However, they banded together to form a chapter of the UFFI Homeowners Association. They have taken part in rallies and have invited the minister to come. They have made pleas to-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He would not come, Flora.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: As my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) said, the minister simply would not turn up at these rallies. He never turns up at these rallies. He would rather ignore the whole situation and forget his whole role and his responsibility for shafting these unsuspecting home owners.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Leave them out to dry.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Many of the Kingston home owners, those 2,000 people whom I have mentioned, will not be eligible for compensation under this bill. They are in very serious difficulty. The market value of their homes has significantly dropped. It has significantly dropped because of the fact that they have UFFI in their homes. The real estate agents will not even list their homes for sale.
I want to quote from some of the many letters I have received. I am sure that all my colleagues have received letters like this from people who are suffering because of the program the government foisted on them. Perhaps it is their pleas in their letters which will touch the hearts of those in the government, if such hearts exist. I am not sure, considering that hardhearted group over there, whether anything will touch them, but at least it might touch their pocketbooks and they might do something to provide some relief for those people. For example, consider a letter from a woman who wrote to me not long ago concerning this problem. She stated:
Dear Miss MacDonald,
We bought our first home, a one and a half storey, wood frame house, in November of 1980 and had urea formaldehyde foam insulation installed in December of 1980 under the Canadian Home Improvement Program grant. We had been very happy with the added comfort in our homes, both in summer and winter, and we suffer no health problems. Our son was born in 1981, and he suffers no ill effects either.
However, UFFI does present one serious problem for us-public opinion has made our home unsaleable and has drastically reduced the value of it. All the work we did and all the money that we saved for our home has now been for nothing. My husband, a biomedical electronics technician, had worked in Alberta for five years and accepted a maintenance mechanic job with a friend in
May 10, 1982

Kingston in order to return to Ontario where we were married. There was the understanding that he would return to biomedical electronics. However, we have now lost our mobility and no jobs are available in his field in Kingston.
The situation is very depressing to us. We have to set aside too many of the dreams and the plans that we had for our lives.
We feel that since CHIP supported us in having UFFI installed, we should now be receiving support from them. We need the UFFI removed from our home and our home made saleable to the public, so we can go on with living our lives.
That is one type of letter that I received. Another one came from a gentleman who said:
I am writing to ask you to urge the government to take immediate action to alleviate the intolerable suffering and mental anxiety being experienced by those home owners burdened with urea formaldehyde insulation. For a society that has accepted, and indeed has been conditioned to rely on government regulation of consumer products and services, an immoral situation arises when those agencies shirk the responsibility of their actions and ignore the people affected by them. It is incongruous that these agencies encouraged and assisted these home owners to use this material in the first place.
What now exists is a scenario in which
(a)	hundreds are suffering from the symptoms associated with formaldehyde gas.
(b)	others, while not exhibiting physical symptoms, are haunted by the thoughts of being surrounded by a suspected carcinogen.
(c)	many thousands whose properties are treated as lepers, their homes an albatross about their neck, their savings, their dreams effectively wiped out.
No one in this situation was looking for a bargain-it was a premium-priced
product. Some may even have been motivated by a sense of good citizenship.
From the evidence now available in the scientific literature it is obvious that further testing is unnecessary. I strongly urge that the government divert the millions already committed for testing to a program of restitution for all who are saddled with this unhappy mess. Once effected, some may even want to reaffirm their belief in good citizenship.
Another letter states:
Sir,
This letter is to inform you that the assistance program for UFFI victims, as announced by the federal goverment, is completely unacceptable to me, as I'm sure it must be to all similarly victimized home owners. I must reiterate that my previous claims of government fault in allowing the continued use of UFFI, after NRC warnings to the contrary, are still valid.
This then, necessitates the only honourable solution to this national disaster, complete compensation for the removal of UFFI from all such homes, irrespective of levels of gas-a criterion which has, after all, been proven unrealistic!
I have already informed the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs by telegram of my disgust with, and rejection of, the proposed program. To you .. . and to all ministers to whom this letter is addressed-
This one was addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with a copy to me, and he states:
-I demand that you give the UFFI disaster the full attention it warrants and that the government cease the stalling tactics it has seen fit to practice since early last year when the dangers of this product were finally brought to the attention of the people of this country.
We victims have suffered enough from the complete disregard of human dignity that the federal government has seen Fit to adhere to in this matter! I am sure that a similar circumstance arising in a third world country would have received the instant and full attention of the Canadian government-
In closing, may I say that I remain confident that right will prevail and that you in government will recognize your responsibilities-
I have a final letter, although I could go on with a number of them, which states:
In the summer of 1979, along with many thousands of other home owners, I succumbed to the pleas of the government and insulated the walls of my older home with urea formaldehyde. The contractor did a very satisfactory job. The home uses less fuel, the Queen's University Occupational Health Resources Centre has tested the inside of the house for formaldehyde gas and found no sign.
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
However, I find that if I want to sell it or rent it, it has very little market value. Even the lending institutions don't want to put a mortgage on it. My wife and I have not experienced any ill health that might be attributed to the presence of gas, but it seems that the only course open to us, if we want to dispose of this home in the future, is to have the insulation removed.
I now have a quotation of $4,700 from a reliable contractor and would consider it only fair ball if the government, which considered its CHIP contribution in 1979 as a taxable benefit, would now allow the cost of removal as a tax deductible expense. It seems that we cannot expect any direct compensation in our circumstances. That creep Ouellet-
Those are not my words, but words I am reading.
That creep Ouellet is keeping a very low profile these days and 1 don't suppose you would get very far with this idea, but would appreciate if you would put forward the suggestion for consideration.
These are some of the many letters coming to people like me, members of Parliament, and, I would say, to those on both sides of the House, even if I do not hear complaints being raised by those in the Liberal back benches. However, I imagine there would be many such letters.


Mr. Frith:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) would entertain a question at this point.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: When I am through speaking, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to entertain a question from the parliamentary secretary.
These letters show that there are many homes throughout Canada that have lost their value. Therefore, many of the home owners have applied to tax assessors for tax reassessment of their homes. This is going on in every municipality across the country.
All of the UFFI home owners in Kingston have appealed for a reassessment. In light of the recent precedent set in Sault Ste. Marie in which 36 home owners won a 50 per cent reduction in their home tax assessment, the Kingston home owner appeal looks very probably and possible of acceptance.
Is the federal government willing to sit back and watch homes and properties be devalued? It will reflect very considerably on municipal tax revenues. That is the real cause of concern. In the case of Ontario municipalities, it can mean a possible loss of $5 million to $6 million a year. That is what is estimated as a loss in tax revenues in municipalities because of the devaluation of the homes and subsequent tax reassessment.
This issue has been raised persistently in the House. It has been raised over and over again by members of the opposition. The minister has persistently ignored the problem. Can the government not understand that it has a moral duty to the home owners where UFFI has been installed? When it approved the use of UFFI as part of the CHIP program, the responsibility for the CHIP program, the responsibility for the CHIP program and all of its consequences rested squarely on the shoulders of the government. That cannot be ignored.
The cost of complete removal of the foam has been estimated at anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000 per home. Thus, the implications for borrowing money to remove the foam are

May 10, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
clear. With existing high interest rates, borrowing money to remove UFFI is something that is beyond the consideration of home owners in Canada today.
One letter I received was from a man who was so desperate-and he was describing the situation to another person- that when he considered the situation in which he found himself, "his voice was shaky". Near tears, he told me that his family, particularly his children aged three and one, had been suffering from severe health problems caused by the foam. His wife was working, so with two incomes the family was able to move into an apartment. The health problems stopped immediately. However, his wife will soon lose her job. He will not be able to maintain the house and apartment. He cannot get rid of the house and will not able to afford the apartment in which they live because of health reasons.
What is this man and his family to do? Where do they turn? The least the government could do for all UFFI home owners is to permit them to claim the cost of UFFI as a tax deductible expense.
My colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) has raised this option in question period as an extremely valid and acceptable direction for the minister to take in addressing the problems facing UFFI home owners. The recommendation, like all other questions on the issue of UFFI, was ignored by the minister, and any responsibility for the UFFI mess on the part of the federal government was categorically denied over and over again.
I plead the urgency of the issue, as do UFFI home owners everywhere. Last Saturday 500 members of HUFFI, a group which has banded together to try to do something about this, from across Ontario rallied in Toronto to state their concerns. These home owners are exasperated, confused and desperate. They want something done. They want to be able to remove the insulation now, while the weather is good. That is the reason for their urgency. They do not want to put up with another winter during which UFFI can do more and more damage.
Imagine living in a home, day by day knowing that the fumes or gases from the insulation in the walls is taking its toll on your health and the health of your family. What would you do in a situation like that? Wouldn't you complain? That is all these people are doing. All this concern, both for one's health and one's financial situation, were caused by a major error in judgment on the part of the federal government.
Bill C-109 is simply not acceptable if it is to be the federal government's only response to this serious and widespread UFFI crisis that exists all across Canada.
The president of HUFFI, Frank Spitzer, described the bill as "a mild bandage to help with the fact that you've got a major wound that needs surgery". The issue is not simply one of home owners in trouble needing support from the government. It is a moral issue which the government has the moral responsibility to address. It is as straightforward as that.
A federal agency, CMHC, accepted and approved UFFI as one of a number of alternative insulations which could be
installed in a home owner's house under the CHIP program. The government approved it. If the approval had never been made, none of the thousands of UFFI home owners who took advantage of the CHIP program and consequently do not find themselves in this difficult situation would be in such a bind. If the government had not taken that step in the first place, these people would be free of the problems they are now locked into. They simply would have used one of the other forms of insulation and would be leading a much less troublesome and a much healthier existence.
The reality is that the government did approve UFFI. Therefore, the government cannot ignore its responsibility to compensate, not just a token number of UFFI home owners as Bill C-109 does, but rather all home owners who took the government at its word and believed in the credibility of the program that it was putting forward. For them and for many other Canadians, that credibility has now been shattered.


Royce Herbert Frith: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to address my question to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair could recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Frith), but it is ten o'clock.


Erik Nielsen: Don't see the clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If it is by way of unanimous consent, the hon. member will be permitted to ask a question.


Royce Herbert Frith: Mr. Speaker, some of the studies of the Department of National Health and Welfare cited by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) involve the years 1960 and 1964-I am going by memory- through 1976 and 1978. I believe one of the years mentioned was 1979. Presumably those studies were also made available to the hon. member's government when it was in power in 1979. The hon. member's government evidently was made aware of the problems; she did cite those studies. Would the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands explain what programs her party placed before the House to deal with the same problems?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a question as to whether programs were put forward during the time we were in government. There were many programs put forward to improve the lot of home owners across the country.
I only wish the hon. member had understood, when he was voting against the government's budget in December of 1979, that there would have been improvement for hundreds of thousands of home owners across the country if he and his colleagues had accepted the home owner's tax credit and mortgage deductibility program, which would have done more
May 10, 1982

to help home owners in this country right across the board than anything he and his government have dreamed of.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on April 27 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) about the Meach lake conference, where members of the cabinet met together and enjoyed themselves for a weekend and came out with absolutely nothing to solve the economic problems of the country. A day after the cabinet meeting the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) was caught by a reporter in the province of Quebec, and he said:
We are fearful that if there is a recovery in the United States we would not be able to join the band wagon.
It appears to be the view of the government that we will not be able to get out of the depression the minister and his colleagues have caused.
The three questions I asked on April 27 were about the Meach Lake conference, where it became clear to the government that it is totally out of touch with the realities of the country. The members of the cabinet came out of that conference, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) said, "We are going to carry on in the same way". The minister responsible for lotteries said, "We are going to carry on in the same way", and the next day the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism said, "There is no way we can get out of this. Even if the United States recovers, we are down the poop-chute anyway."	.
I want to comment tonight on that very problem because the truth of the matter, as Mr. Mulholland of the Bank of Montreal has said, is that this government has developed an attitude of pessimism. It has developed the attitude that there will be a lack of growth. It has developed an attitude of anti-investment, anti-entrepreneurialism and anti-growth. In this country there is a negative outlook, to the extent that a survey undertaken by the Toronto Star showed that 60 per cent of businessmen surveyed felt that profits would be down, 75 per cent of businessmen interviewed said that this is not a time to invest and 55 per cent of businessmen interviewed said that the Canadian dollar would depreciate in value.
Because of the attitude of this government shown in its budget and national energy policy, because of its attitude toward foreign investment and, indeed, because of its attitude
Adjournment Debate
toward Canadian investment the government has engendered in the community a fear that no matter what happens, even if there is recovery in the United States, we will not have recovery here.
I was in the United States at the Easter weekend. There seems to be optimism there respecting growth and the future. There seems to be feeling that there will be a better tomorrow and that now is the time to make deals. When a recovery occurs in the United States, as it surely will-there is now a zero rate of inflation-money will flee from Canada to the United States to take advantage of the real opportunities which will be there. We will wind up not being able to take advantage of opportunities and still in the doldrums with more and more people out of work, without hope and without opportunity. That is what we have been left with-that is the legacy of a government that really does not care.
That government went to Meach Lake and enjoyed the sunshine of early spring in the Gatineau hills. What it did there we do not know. It may have had some economic discussions, but the minister would not say that. It came away from Meach Lake with nothing at all to offer. That is what it gives the people of Canada; no hope, no future, no possibilities. The ministry has to answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wondering about the capacity of the Canadian economy to respond to any recovery in the United States. There is no doubt in my mind that a recovery in the United States will have a favourable impact on the Canadian economy. At the moment, the weakness in U.S. demand is, not surprisingly, restricting our export opportunities. But when growth in the U.S. resumes within the next few months, export growth will contribute to the recovery in Canada. To the extent that the U.S. recovery will be accompanied by lower interest rates, this will mean lower interest rates in Canada as well; this will provide stimulus to our interest-sensitive sectors.
What is uncertain, and this might be what the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) was trying to say, is the ability of Canada to get the most out of any U.S. recovery that would take place. As my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) keeps pointing out, there is a danger that Canadians will price themselves out of world markets unless a sustained effort is made to reduce inflation.
The United States has made remarkable progress against inflation lately but we in Canada have made much less progress. In March, the year-over-year increase in the U.S. consumer price index was 6.7 per cent, whereas the corresponding rate in Canada was 11.6 per cent. It is important that the government stick to its non-accommodating fiscal and monetary policies, thereby reducing inflation and preserving our competitiveness in external markets.

May 10, 1982
Adjournment Debate
Let me now turn to the hon. member's mention of an overpriced Canadian dollar. Does he realize that a lower value for the Canadian dollar means higher import costs for Canadian producers and higher import prices for Canadian consumers? This would result in significant upward pressures on our inflation rate. Of course a lower Canadian dollar would tend to improve our competitive position and encourage our exports. But the gain in our competitive position produced by the depreciation would be eroded quickly owing to the renewed impetus given to inflation by higher import prices.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS-INVESTIGATION OF CONSOLIDATED COMPUTERS INC. (B) ROLE OF ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, over a month ago, on March 29, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) about the collapse of Consolidated Computers Inc. which cost Canadian taxpayers well over $100 million. A report from Treasury Board, the so-called Anderson report, on this debacle characterized its findings with words such as conflict of interest, incompetence and cover-up. I hoped that the minister would reassure me at that time that the commercial crime section of the RCMP was well on its way to an investigation of the whole scenario. Instead, the minister merely indicated "that a reference was made to the Department of Justice under the section of the relevant statute requiring the minister to see that the administration of the public sector is in accordance with the law".
The time has come once more, after all these weeks, vigorously to bring to the attention of the House and the government that enough time has elapsed so that the Canadian people should be informed precisely what happened to the government investigation, who was responsible for this debacle and who benefited from this vast amount of money that has obviously been squandered and frittered away.
Personally, Sir, I have reason to believe that more than just incompetence and bureaucratic duplicity are involved here. I am convinced what we have here is an example of rotten pork-barrel politics, and it is time for a full accounting. We know, thanks to the Anderson report from the Treasury Board, that the company had little or nothing in the way of meaningful controls, so much so that the respected accounting firm of Thorne Riddell, after discussions with Miss Dale Robinette of the firm of McCarthy and McCarthy, a respected Toronto law firm, would not accept the responsibility of making decisions on which leases would be purchased from Consolidated Computer. Instead, they preferred only, in the words of the Anderson report, to be administrators of the leased companies for which, incidentally, they received over $100,000 a year.
The Anderson report cites many examples of poor management and potential conflicts of interest. The chief executive officer of CCI, John McDonald Brown, the man touted so highly by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) in his letter of June 3, 1980, to the President of the
Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is noted as having retained his membership on the Enterprise Development Board while he was chairman and chief executive officer of this wretched company, CCI. While the company completed its disintegration under Mr. Brown's leadership, he submitted a formal application on his own behalf and that of some associates to purchase some shares in the company. The Anderson report goes on to point out that he was simultaneously a member of the Enterprise Development Board which controlled the shares being offered for sale, the chairman and president of the company whose shares were up for sale, and an applicant to purchase the shares. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce touted Mr. Brown as a saviour of this company. Well, if he was a saviour, I would hate to see what he would have done had he intended to do any harm, since about $30 million went down the drain under his stewardship in a very short time.
For this Mr. Brown was paid quite well with a contract for $110,000 per year, payable quarterly in advance, and other perks. H. J. Melanson, executive vice-president, was plugged in firmly, too, at $500 a week overtime, effective July 1, 1981, to supplement his annual salary of $49,000. And so the story goes.
Surely the minister will soon call for a proper inquiry under the Inquiries Act to look in a comprehensive way at the sorry affair. But one might well ask tonight: who is this John McDonald Brown? What were his real qualifications? Who are his associates? Did Mr. Brown became a computer expert because of his association with Mr. Gordon Hughes? It is interesting to note that Gordon Hughes is a close friend and confidante of the then premier of Nova Scotia, and he has numerous corporate interests in the province. He is also a director of the CRTC, a close friend of Senator Irvine Barrow, and a director of the CTC. Or did Mr. Brown pick up his expertise from Mr. Green? Here we have a situation where it might not be a tale of patronage in black and white, Mr. Speaker, but it may be one of Brown and Green. Mr. Green is a prominent barrister in the law firm of Kitz, Matheson, Green and Maclsaac in Nova Scotia, commonly known as "Kitz, Matheson, Green and patronage" by people who study the political scene. He is a prominent Liberal, a former executive legislative counsel to the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) when he was premier of Nova Scotia, a former campaign manager and adviser, as well as former co-chairman of the leadership campaign of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) for the Liberal Party in 1968, and federal campaign chairman for the Liberals in the federal elections of 1968 and 1972. Or did Mr. McDonald Brown get this expertise by virtue of work done by himself and his associates towards the electoral success of the Minister of Finance? In any case, Sir, Brown, Green and Hughes, and others I could name, are all close business and political associates, all prominent Liberals and have all participated in one way or another in numerous soft loans and other advantageous deals in Nova Scotia. The question is now, have they moved on
May 10, 1982________________COMMONS DEBATES
to the national scene, perhaps through the ill-fated Consolidated Computers Incorporated?
What I would like the Minister of Justice to do is to forget for once that he is a Liberal cabinet minister and to encourage the commercial crime section of the RCMP to use their full scope and resources to investigate all the ramifications involved in this cabal of Liberals which has cost taxpayers over $100 million, some of whom appear in the province of Nova Scotia by virtue of the very soft loan guarantees passed by the then minister of development, now the Liberal leader, Sandy Cameron, under the stewardship of the Secretary of State for a couple or more companies I could name which have cost the Nova Scotia taxpayers millions of dollars. So we have the same old recurring example of what Mr. Diefenbaker would say was the same old bunch, with the same old noses in the same old trough.
It may seem irrelevant, Mr. Speaker, to a casual observer what the dealings are between CCI and Command Services Atlantic Limited, and of course Command Services in Mississauga-which are joined by a common director, incidentally. But that is only if you are not on the inside. One must really ask where the cash flow for Command Services Atlantic originated to justify a $250,000 loan from the Royal Bank of Canada. Is there any CCI money involved there? The answer is beyond a simple Member of Parliament such as myself. It will require the resources of a judicial inquiry by the RCMP. But the amounts are too large and the face is too familiar to let this go and be swept under the rug. Justice and political expediency and accountability demand that something more be done by the government to look into this sorry mess.


Gary Francis McCauley: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) has indicated, he asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) on March 29 about information regarding an investigation of Consolidated Computer. The Department of Justice has been requested by the Treasury Board to review the report entitled "Report Concerning Involvement of Government of Canada in Affairs of CCI" from the standpoint of its legal implications. The hon. member wanted to know if it was a departmental inquiry under the Inquiries Act.
This examination, he should know, is being conducted, pursuant to Section 4 of the Department of Justice Act which makes it mandatory for the minister to, "see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with law" and not under the Inquiries Act, as suggested.
The task which the Department of Justice has before it is large and complex. The report and the background material will require a detailed study. It is difficult to assess the length of time such a detailed study would take. However, the urgency of the matter is appreciated. I may add, however, that if a need for further investigation is indicated this will be done.
Adjournment Debate


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-REPORTED CANADA-FRANCE AGREEMENT ON SAINT PIERRE AND MIQUELON ISLANDS. (B) REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE MADE PUBLIC
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, on April 27 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) a question about the dispute between Canada and France over the problem of the boundaries between those two countries surrounding Saint Pierre and Miquelon. The minister showed an amazing lack of knowledge about this very serious matter, serious because it affects a huge area of the continental shelf and the possible gas, oil and other minerals under that continental shelf, and because it affects fishing areas jointly claimed by both countries.
In responding to my question, the minister said he was not aware of an agreement which the government had signed in 1972. As a matter of fact, it was signed on May 26, 1972, in Paris. This agreement was signed by the representative for Canada, Mr. Alan Beasley, head of the Canadian delegation, and by the head of the French delegation. The document was headed "releve de conclusions". Linder the terms of that document, this government blundered tremendously.
This is the reason, in my view, why ten years later we still have no answer or settlement of the boundary dispute between these two countries. The matter has not gone to arbitration because the Canadian government botched so badly ten years ago when that document was originally signed by the ambassador on behalf of the Canadian government. What did that agreement do? What it did was to give France, through Saint Pierre and Miquelon, rights and special privileges in an area of 22,000 square miles of the continental shelf off the south coast of Newfoundland. On about half of that area Canada was to be required to give oil companies designated by France exclusive rights and on the other half the Canadian government was to recommend that its permitees in that area would have to form joint ventures-Mobil and Gulf were involved-that would have to give French companies substantial rights. In the case of both of these areas the government of France would be able to remove oil and gas found through Saint Pierre. In return, France was to renounce formal legal claims to the area and would get sovereignty over a 12-mile territorial limit around Saint Pierre and Miquelon.
Saint Pierre and Miquelon are two very small islands. Saint Pierre is ten square miles and Miquelon is 83 square miles. Miquelon has a population of 500. The total population for both islands is 5,800. Those islands are only 15 miles off the mouth of Fortune Bay in Newfoundland.
Canada owns an island called Little Green Island only three miles away from Saint Pierre and Miquelon. It can hardly be serious that anyone should think France would have a claim for 22,000 square miles or do anything like that under international law.
The minister also went ahead on April 27 to say that negotiations had not been going on for 11 years on these issues but that they had only commenced in 1976. This was the same

May 10, 1982
Adjournment Debate
minister who had just met with the French prime minister several days earlier to discuss this issue. How could he properly represent Canada when he apparently did not know that these negotiations started not in 1976 but in 1966?
I have here an answer which was made by the French minister of foreign affairs in the National Assembly of France on October 29, 1975 when he said:
Negotiations were begun in 1966 between France and Canada with the view of delimiting the continental shelf of the two states in the area of the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon.
Then he went on to describe how the French were claiming that the "principle of equidistance" applied and that Canada invoked the principle of "special circumstances" to reduce the French claim. Then he went on to say:
-at a meeting held in Paris on 26 May 1972 the heads of the delegations signed a "releve de conclusions"-
He was referring to an agreement to deal with this matter. Also he said:
Despite France's repeated requests, the Canadian government has never approved this document ... On his visit to Paris in autumn 1974, Mr. Trudeau told the Prime Minister that he would make efforts to bring about the settlement of the matter.
Of course he was referring to the French prime minister. This is a matter where negotiations, according to the minister, did not start until 1976. The minister, in his answer to me, said that he was unaware that an agreement was ever signed.
The agreement has been embarrassing the Canadian government ever since. It was a blunder. It was stopped. The Canadian government was stopped from ratifying it by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The new Conservative administration which had been elected in January 1972 had started inquiring as to what was happening with reference to this boundary dispute. When that government started inquiring, the Canadian government realized that it had made a blunder and never ratified the agreement signed by its ambassador. It has been an embarrassment to Canada ever since.
Back in March 1971 the then Canadian secretary of state for external affairs said that the Canadian argument was that special circumstances justified another boundary. Then he went on to indicate that if a settlement satisfactory to Canada could not be reached on the basis of negotiation, the government would be prepared to refer the matter for arbitration. It was 11 years ago that the then secretary of state for external affairs said that if a settlement satisfactory to us could not be reached on the negotiation, the government would refer it to arbitration. There have been 11 years of known negotiations, and the time has long since gone for this to be referred to arbitration. The only possible reason there might be for not referring the issue to arbitration is the damage done by this administration by having this agreement signed in May 1972.
This is an important matter. About a month ago French authorities in Saint Pierre and Miquelon made a request of Paris to send out a gun boat because the Canadian government was inspecting certain French fishing trawlers. Canadian fishing trawlers had been stopped by France. On November 24, 1981, officials from the French vessel Tenace boarded two Canadian fishing vessels and searched them in the disputed
area. What is Canada to do if France sends out a gun boat? We all know that our navy is not in shape to even defend us from a gun boat. If we were in the position of Argentina and we were to occupy these islands, we would have to row across the 13 miles from the mouth of Fortune Bay over to Saint Pierre and Miquelon. I just cite this example to show that it is a very serious matter over which there can be trouble in the future if it is not settled.
How can the government protect our interests if the government does not even have a Secretary of State for External Affairs who knows the most rudimentary points about the history of the situation, who appears to be unconcerned, who is not negotiating now to have the matter settled, who is not prepared to refer this to arbitration, and when we have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who exhibits utter indifference? He met with Mr. Mitterrand several times in the last 12 months. He met with the Prime Minister of France in the last 12 months. Yet nothing continues to happen with reference to this situation.
I also point out that in a case which went to the International Court of Justice and arbitration in 1979 between the U.K. and France concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf, the International Court of Justice accepted the agreement of May 26, 1972, which I mentioned earlier, as an agreement between Canada and France on the continental shelf. That will show you the damage that has been done to us by that agreement.
Therefore, when will this matter be pressed to a solution? Will the government publish this agreement? Will the government give us the details of what the French are claiming, and will this matter go to arbitration this year and not be allowed to be delayed another 11 years?


Gary Francis McCauley: Mr. Speaker, in 1972 Canada and France signed a fisheries agreement which included a provision delimiting the territorial sea and fishing zone between Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Newfoundland, that is the area landward of the French islands. In that same year a "releve de conclusions", or a summary of conclusions, was signed at the level of officials dealing with the continental shelf seaward of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. This latter document specifically stated that the agreed conclusions would be submitted to the two governments for approval. Thus the releve was not an agreement or even an agreement ad referendum since, had it been approved by governments, another document constituting a formal agreement would have had to be drafted. Indeed, the releve itself expressly foresaw the need for a bilateral agreement of the delimitation of the continental shelf in the event neither government ever approved the releve.
In late 1977 it came to our attention that the releve had been referred to in the pleadings and in the decision of the Ad Hoc Court of Arbitration in the Anglo-French Channel islands
May 10, 1982

case. In a diplomatic note to France, Canada noted the Arbitration Court's reference to the releve as an agreement, and indicated that in the absence of the requisite governmental approval the document clearly did not constitute any such agreement. In response, the French acknowledged that the releve, "may not be considered as an agreement, even of a provisional nature" as it never had been approved by either side.
Following Canadian and French extension of jurisdiction of 200 miles in 1977, Canada and France undertook to proceed with negotiations on the delimitation of the area seaward of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Several rounds of negotiations
Adjournment Debate
have taken place since then. This matter was most recently raised by both Prime Minister Mauroy and Foreign Minister Cheysson during their April visit to Ottawa, and the two sides agreed on the need actively to pursue efforts to delineate this disputed maritime boundary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.
At 10:27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 11, 1982